4 ms·

The Red Plenty was a great book and is highly recommended reading. I'm reading a book right now called "Why Nations Fail" (a little drier but definitely worth

The Red Plenty was a great book and is highly recommended reading. I'm reading a book right now called "Why Nations Fail" (a little drier but definitely worth the read) and it argues that part of the reason why strongly centralized economies fail is that politics gets in the way of optimizing for growth. E.g. maybe USSR communism could have worked better if there wasn't, say, the coal minister standing in the way of moving resources away from coal to a better use of capital.

shirakawasuna 6y ago
An important consideration is that USSR-style communism did not fail because of a fundamentally broken economy, but due to expending vast resources and organization against outside attacks / foreign policy. Not that there weren't serious economic problems, just that they were not dramatic and certainly not so compared to those of capitalist countries. For example, the Soviet system did a poor job at incentivizing production. Factories that performed worse would often receive greater benefits, as policymakers frequently followed a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach. This also happened internal to factories or other productive activities, where there was no real incentive to work more efficiently and sometimes a disincentive. These are, of course, easily soluble problems with greater information and adding some incentives for workers' performance, but I don't bring them up because of that - I bring them up because it's what workers complained about.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Factories that performed worse would often receive greater benefits, as policymakers frequently followed a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach. This also happened internal to factories or other productive activities, where there was no real incentive to work more efficiently and sometimes a disincentive. Of course they did, this is Marxist doctrine. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Why would this be a bad thing? Who would want to change this aspect of central planning? > These are, of course, easily soluble problems with greater information and adding some incentives for workers' performance So did they fail to solve these problems because they were prevented from doing so because of dogma?
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    > Of course they did, this is Marxist doctrine. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It doesn't make any sense to jump straight to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in a Marxist tradition. That's a state reached with communism, a proposed end state to a socialist transition of undetermined length - and no actual prescription for how, exactly, any of that would happen. That would more aptly describe some (non-Marxist) anarcho-communist movements, who believe you can jump straight to a communist way of being without a transition. > Why would this be a bad thing? Who would want to change this aspect of central planning? If you are actually punished for making production work better you will become alienated from your job and actually want to do a worse job in order to improve your own personal conditions. People care more about their families, their friends, their local well-being than a far-off bureaucrat's. > So did they fail to solve these problems because they were prevented from doing so because of dogma? Not really, they were heavily focused on foreign policy and a growing domestic intelligentsia that was increasingly bourgeois, believing Western propaganda about how much better life was elsewhere and lacking real experience with rampant homelessness, hunger, and the state of poorer countries. That group was actively vying for power and eventually won as the public grew weary of defensive wars and focusing industry on defense and also began to buy that propaganda. That led to serious internal struggles and, eventually, what amounted to a bourgeois coup that dissolved the USSR at the barrel of a tank. All in all, the problems I described were not dealbreakers. Western bourgeois democracies have plenty of "bullshit jobs", yet we don't refer to that as a problem that's failing to be solved due to dogma - it's failing to get solved because there are dominant systemic forces responsible for it being that way in the first place and they are so fundamental to our typical understanding of how the economy should work that we don't even talk about them, instead distracted by fights between center-right bourgeois politics and far-right bourgeois politics.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > That's a state reached with communism, a proposed end state to a socialist transition of undetermined length - and no actual prescription for how, exactly, any of that would happen. It is indeed true that socialists and communists reject the construct of private property and jump to expropriation and violence with no idea how to progress from this state to their desired end state. > If you are actually punished for making production work better you will become alienated from your job and actually want to do a worse job in order to improve your own personal conditions. This is why "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a terrible idea and likely to fail in any scenario involving human beings. > Not really, they were heavily focused on foreign policy and a growing domestic intelligentsia that was increasingly bourgeois Yes, they were more interested in exporting their ideology to the rest of the world than making it work where they were already in charge, and frustrating people's natural inclinations was so difficult as to require a massive domestic espionage apparatus. But what is even more interesting is that all those loyal soviet apparatchiks became more bourgeoise as they became responsible for allocating more resources. Perhaps the communists could learn something here too. > believing Western propaganda about how much better life was elsewhere and lacking real experience with rampant homelessness, hunger, and the state of poorer countries. The propaganda was not too far from reality as many defectors learned. > Western bourgeois democracies have plenty of "bullshit jobs", yet we don't refer to that as a problem that's failing to be solved due to dogma I think some people do. > so fundamental to our typical understanding of how the economy should work that we don't even talk about them i.e. dogma > instead distracted by fights between center-right bourgeois politics and far-right bourgeois politics. Funny, the people on the right say its between center-left and far-left. I think you both need to read more, tbqh.
fyfy18 6y ago
> could have worked better if there wasn't, say, the coal minister standing in the way of moving resources away from coal to a better use of capital That sounds like it could be applied to any Western society today as well. Throughout history, have there been any alternative democratic systems where politicians are less 'powerful'?
- asdfman123 6y ago
  The power is more decentralized, though. Certain elites in say US democracy do want to slow down change for their own benefit, and sometimes they are moderately successful, but they don't have as much power. They certainly don't have the whole power of the state behind them.

shirakawasuna 6y ago

An important consideration is that USSR-style communism did not fail because of a fundamentally broken economy, but due to expending vast resources and organization against outside attacks / foreign policy. Not that there weren't serious economic problems, just that they were not dramatic and certainly not so compared to those of capitalist countries. For example, the Soviet system did a poor job at incentivizing production. Factories that performed worse would often receive greater benefits, as policymakers frequently followed a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach. This also happened internal to factories or other productive activities, where there was no real incentive to work more efficiently and sometimes a disincentive. These are, of course, easily soluble problems with greater information and adding some incentives for workers' performance, but I don't bring them up because of that - I bring them up because it's what workers complained about.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Factories that performed worse would often receive greater benefits, as policymakers frequently followed a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach. This also happened internal to factories or other productive activities, where there was no real incentive to work more efficiently and sometimes a disincentive. Of course they did, this is Marxist doctrine. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Why would this be a bad thing? Who would want to change this aspect of central planning? > These are, of course, easily soluble problems with greater information and adding some incentives for workers' performance So did they fail to solve these problems because they were prevented from doing so because of dogma?
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  > Of course they did, this is Marxist doctrine. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. It doesn't make any sense to jump straight to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in a Marxist tradition. That's a state reached with communism, a proposed end state to a socialist transition of undetermined length - and no actual prescription for how, exactly, any of that would happen. That would more aptly describe some (non-Marxist) anarcho-communist movements, who believe you can jump straight to a communist way of being without a transition. > Why would this be a bad thing? Who would want to change this aspect of central planning? If you are actually punished for making production work better you will become alienated from your job and actually want to do a worse job in order to improve your own personal conditions. People care more about their families, their friends, their local well-being than a far-off bureaucrat's. > So did they fail to solve these problems because they were prevented from doing so because of dogma? Not really, they were heavily focused on foreign policy and a growing domestic intelligentsia that was increasingly bourgeois, believing Western propaganda about how much better life was elsewhere and lacking real experience with rampant homelessness, hunger, and the state of poorer countries. That group was actively vying for power and eventually won as the public grew weary of defensive wars and focusing industry on defense and also began to buy that propaganda. That led to serious internal struggles and, eventually, what amounted to a bourgeois coup that dissolved the USSR at the barrel of a tank. All in all, the problems I described were not dealbreakers. Western bourgeois democracies have plenty of "bullshit jobs", yet we don't refer to that as a problem that's failing to be solved due to dogma - it's failing to get solved because there are dominant systemic forces responsible for it being that way in the first place and they are so fundamental to our typical understanding of how the economy should work that we don't even talk about them, instead distracted by fights between center-right bourgeois politics and far-right bourgeois politics.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > That's a state reached with communism, a proposed end state to a socialist transition of undetermined length - and no actual prescription for how, exactly, any of that would happen. It is indeed true that socialists and communists reject the construct of private property and jump to expropriation and violence with no idea how to progress from this state to their desired end state. > If you are actually punished for making production work better you will become alienated from your job and actually want to do a worse job in order to improve your own personal conditions. This is why "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a terrible idea and likely to fail in any scenario involving human beings. > Not really, they were heavily focused on foreign policy and a growing domestic intelligentsia that was increasingly bourgeois Yes, they were more interested in exporting their ideology to the rest of the world than making it work where they were already in charge, and frustrating people's natural inclinations was so difficult as to require a massive domestic espionage apparatus. But what is even more interesting is that all those loyal soviet apparatchiks became more bourgeoise as they became responsible for allocating more resources. Perhaps the communists could learn something here too. > believing Western propaganda about how much better life was elsewhere and lacking real experience with rampant homelessness, hunger, and the state of poorer countries. The propaganda was not too far from reality as many defectors learned. > Western bourgeois democracies have plenty of "bullshit jobs", yet we don't refer to that as a problem that's failing to be solved due to dogma I think some people do. > so fundamental to our typical understanding of how the economy should work that we don't even talk about them i.e. dogma > instead distracted by fights between center-right bourgeois politics and far-right bourgeois politics. Funny, the people on the right say its between center-left and far-left. I think you both need to read more, tbqh.

fyfy18 6y ago

> could have worked better if there wasn't, say, the coal minister standing in the way of moving resources away from coal to a better use of capital That sounds like it could be applied to any Western society today as well. Throughout history, have there been any alternative democratic systems where politicians are less 'powerful'?

asdfman123 6y ago
The power is more decentralized, though. Certain elites in say US democracy do want to slow down change for their own benefit, and sometimes they are moderately successful, but they don't have as much power. They certainly don't have the whole power of the state behind them.