this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2025
932 points (98.2% liked)

Memes

53498 readers
984 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (68 children)

Strategians and tacticians serve different roles because they see different levels of the battlefield, and footsoldiers can see what they directly interact with but are not privy to understanding the full battlefield. Having a fully horizontal organization is shooting yourself in the foot, we develop intra-class hierarchies like managers not because of class society, but because of the added complexity of large-scale production and distribution.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 month ago (67 children)

You seem pretty committed to changing as little as possible and not looking at actual scientific math-backed organizational science (read 'brain of the firm').

You seem really committed to fantastic delusions that hierarchal organization functions like you say it does any time it's implemented.

And you seem committed to roles being personified, to people only doing one thing.

Let's say, for example: Sam, who works at the steel butt plug factory, can't be up on the latest sex toy industry publications ¹ and nerd out about it at lunch with their co-worker Alex², who reads the wikis and reports of other factories who work with steel², and Morgan, who has a degree in metallurgy and user-reviews kink³, while they all try out their latest product (a little large on small bodies, put a warning on the box?) and the vegan chili fries at the new diner down the street, while Dave, who doesn't really care and just thinks its fun to say 'i work my ass off at the buttplug factory on Tuesdays', fucks off to get tacos because even though money isn't a thing anymore, 'taco Tuesday' is alliterative and he's all about that. Then go back to the factory for the weekly job cross-training half day. You've got more expertise more perspective and more adherence to any decision reached at that table than you do in any c suite. No authority was exercised, everyone who wanted a say got a say, and the system is better coordinated more fun and probably more efficient than under any centralized system. Maybe they also have a weekly 'do we need to refactor?' meeting.

Tell me how the hypothetical steel bbutt-plug factory would be improved by a single manager who does no other work

¹they're kind of a freak

²an entirely different kind of freak

³totally normal

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (66 children)

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I'm committed to building socialism in the real world, not trying to come up with a hypothetical scenario where management is superfluous. Factories work at the scale of hundreds to thousands, not 4 people living an idyllic life, and these factories have massive supply chains ingoing and outgoing. Management becomes necessary at scales like these, because coordination at such scales cannot be all horizontal.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Project Cybersyn was a real, socialist, working system, comrade and it was based on the same principles as brain of the firm.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (10 children)

It was also an example of centralized economic planning and administration, too.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

centralized

Read the damn book. Sometimes it is in fact necessary to read more than a sentence from wikipedia to understand a new idea. This one's worth it.

Edit: nvm. The Wikipedia initial blurb also mentions devolving decision making in the main thing. Didn't even read that much.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It was a centralized system of bottom-up reporting and top-down management, it was an experiment in cybernetics first pioneered by the soviets and most ambitiously by Allende in Chile. The top-down management aspect is part of what made it so successful. I have read up on theory, don’t worry.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you actually read anything about this topic? Besides the Wikipedia page you're contradicting?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, I have. I am not contradicting it, information was sent to the central level and decisions sent back based on those inputs, typically aided by cybernetic algorithms.

Information from the field would be fed into statistical modeling software (Cyberstride) that would monitor production indicators, such as raw material supplies or high rates of worker absenteeism. It alerted workers in near real time. If parameters fell significantly outside acceptable ranges, it notified the central government. The information would also be input into economic simulation software (CHECO, for CHilean ECOnomic simulator). The government could use this to forecast the possible outcome of economic decisions. Finally, a sophisticated operations room (Opsroom) would provide a space where managers could see relevant economic data. They would formulate feasible responses to emergencies and transmit advice and directives to enterprises and factories in alarm situations by using the telex network.

Central planning.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I wasn't actually the one advocating specifically that program, and I'm not interested in arguing a Wikipedia article with somebody who's never actually read the literature and understands none of the underlying concepts.

You're reading to confirm what you believe, looking for key words, not to acquire new information. Thats how Hitler said to read in his book. I urge you to better reading material.

If you're too addled by the 20s to make it through a doorstopper pike 'brain of the firm'¹ there was a podcast called 'general intellect unit' where a couple Marxists explored the concepts and went over the key points. Listen to most of that at minimum.

¹not a dig at you; I probably couldn't at this point. Shit's fucked. Kind of afraid to check.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm well aware already, I've read about cybernetics, I haven't read Brain of the Firm specifically but have done other reading on the subject, including how to calculate prices, and how to move beyond price. I don't just read to confirm what I believe, I became a Marxist-Leninist after changing my mind from an anarchist because I read to challenge my existing understanding and deepen it. You insult me with no actual knowledge of me, nor what I've read. It's shallow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net -3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Nope, it was decentralized. Read up on the theory, dawg.

If you call that system centralized, then most anarchists want to establish a centralized system.

[–] Horse@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Each factory would send quantified indices of production processes such as raw material input, production output, number of absentees, etc. These indices would later feed a statistical analysis program that, running on a mainframe computer in Santiago, would make short-term predictions about the factories' performance and suggest necessary adjustments, which, after discussion in an operations room, would be fed back to the factories. This process occurred at 4 levels: firm, branch, sector, and total.

seems pretty centralized to me dawg

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (36 children)

It was a centralized system of bottom-up reporting and top-down management, it was an experiment in cybernetics first pioneered by the soviets and most ambitiously by Allende in Chile. The top-down management aspect is part of what made it so successful. I have read up on theory, don't worry.

As @Horse@lemmygrad.ml already replied to you:

Each factory would send quantified indices of production processes such as raw material input, production output, number of absentees, etc. These indices would later feed a statistical analysis program that, running on a mainframe computer in Santiago, would make short-term predictions about the factories' performance and suggest necessary adjustments, which, after discussion in an operations room, would be fed back to the factories. This process occurred at 4 levels: firm, branch, sector, and total.

load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)
load more comments (64 replies)