I don’t think you want to play the “experience” game here regarding industrial production. Not only does it not constitute a point, but you’d lose in this instance. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.
Management isn’t “great man theory.” Coordination of tasks and functions, especially in an industrial environment, is tremendously useful and necessary. Factories don’t control supply chains themselves, but they typically have quotas often pre-sold, and work with distributors and suppliers directly. Task planning, resource allocation, and more is a useful role, which is why it exists. None of this is “Great Man Theory,” you calling it that makes it obvious that you don’t know what the term means.
This may shock you, but some of us see materialism as a useful tool for understanding what we see in the world, and not just an identity to project into everything around us in a manner indistinguishable from idealism.
Coordination does not require, and in fact is hampered by, a master! That’s literally the point of the book I suggested! Everyone can coordinate! It works better that way!
thing you said like it’s a gotcha, after pretending I understand what the fuck youre talking about and ignoring all the actual science and math because it’s in a big scary book that would be too hard to read and just pretending I understand is easier.
I understand the point of the book. I also understand that horizontalism has some use-cases, but not all. The example of Cybersyn is a great one, it combines top-down decision making with bottom-up inputs. It has management, but is planned in a cohesive, centralized fashion.
Your gotchas were cheap, so I just turned them around on you because they applied more to you than me.
I’ve read a good deal more than just Capital. Again, though, trying to have a “theory measuring contest” is stupid, and it doesn’t matter if you or I have read more or less than the other, what matters is the content of the argument at hand, if it’s correct or not.
I don’t think you want to play the “experience” game here regarding industrial production. Not only does it not constitute a point, but you’d lose in this instance. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.
Management isn’t “great man theory.” Coordination of tasks and functions, especially in an industrial environment, is tremendously useful and necessary. Factories don’t control supply chains themselves, but they typically have quotas often pre-sold, and work with distributors and suppliers directly. Task planning, resource allocation, and more is a useful role, which is why it exists. None of this is “Great Man Theory,” you calling it that makes it obvious that you don’t know what the term means.
This may shock you, but some of us see materialism as a useful tool for understanding what we see in the world, and not just an identity to project into everything around us in a manner indistinguishable from idealism.
Coordination does not require, and in fact is hampered by, a master! That’s literally the point of the book I suggested! Everyone can coordinate! It works better that way!
We’re done here.
I understand the point of the book. I also understand that horizontalism has some use-cases, but not all. The example of Cybersyn is a great one, it combines top-down decision making with bottom-up inputs. It has management, but is planned in a cohesive, centralized fashion.
Your gotchas were cheap, so I just turned them around on you because they applied more to you than me.
I know you are but what am i?
(Thinks he understands everything because he read one book)
I’ve read a good deal more than just Capital. Again, though, trying to have a “theory measuring contest” is stupid, and it doesn’t matter if you or I have read more or less than the other, what matters is the content of the argument at hand, if it’s correct or not.