So i just i read the "Communism in wonderland" chapter in the book and here's some highlights

Top-down planning stifled initiative throughout the system. Stagnation was evident in the failure of the Soviet industrial estab­lishment to apply the innovations of the scientific-technological rev­olution of the 1970s and 1980s, including the use of computer technology. Though the Soviets produced many of the world's best mathematicians, physicists, and other scientists, little of their work found actual application

or more specifically:

  1. Managers were little inclined to pursue technological paths that might lead to their own obsolescence. Many of them were not com­petent in the new technologies and should have been replaced.
  1. Managers received no rewards for taking risks. They main­tained their positions regardless of whether innovative technology was developed, as was true of their superiors and central planners.
  1. Supplies needed for technological change were not readily avail­able. Since inputs were fixed by the plan and all materials and labor were fully committed, it was difficult to divert resources to innovative production. In addition, experimentation increased the risks of fail­ing to meet one's quotas.
  1. There was no incentive to produce better machines for other enterprises since that brought no rewards to one's own firm. Quite the contrary, under the pressure to get quantitative results, managers often cut corners on quality.
  1. There was a scarcity of replacement parts both for industrial production and for durable-use consumer goods. Because top plan­ners set such artificially low prices for spare parts, it was seldom cost­efficient for factories to produce them.
  1. Because producers did not pay real-value prices for raw materi­als, fuel, and other things, enterprises often used them inefficiently.
  1. Productive capacity was under-utilized. Problems of distribu­tion led to excessive unused inventory. Because of irregular ship­ments, there was a tendency to hoard more than could be put into production, further adding to shortages.
  1. Improvements in production would lead only to an increase in one's production quota. In effect, well-run factories were punished with greater work loads. Poor performing ones were rewarded with lower quotas and state subsidies.

Particularly 1,4 and 8. I'm interested in available solutions cause tbh nothing comes to my mind and the book wasn't about that.

    • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
      2·
      4 years ago

      I wholeheartedly agree with a bottom-up approach. If someone has a good idea, it will spread and then somebody who is elected up through elected positions will arrive at a counsel of decision makers and they'll say, "our firm found a good idea." They can do the same thing when somebody is pulling bullshit.

      Examples like:

      "You increased our quota without giving us more employees"

      "Our quota is higher than what we need by a lot"

      "This pollution is fucking shit up, we need an alternative"

      Or any kind of whistle blowing

      In my worldview, there are plenty of people who are naturally curious or lazy who will try to take the shortest route to hit every point necessary. If you empower enough lowly people to explore instead of putting their nose down to be a cog in a machine they'll never see the profit from, you'll find that they'll come up with good ideas - especially if they don't burn the fuck out after a year and a half. Not only that, you can also have education and academic research more robust. Scholars can be put to tasks other than seeking grants by promising short term profit. You can have a bunch of scholars, scientists, and engineers with bright eyes and a dream of improving industry. If you go to a college campus and ask a bunch of people how to change the world, you'll have a bunch of different answers. Currently, none of those ideas fucking matter because the students are all there to become baristas and 1 or 2 of them work for a weapons contractor.

      I'm also not opposed to innovators and hard workers getting rich. Perhaps really fucking rich. Just not the kind of rich where you hire a wealth manager to buy up a bunch of houses, precious metals, businesses, majority stocks, etc. You can't seize un-elected control of the means of production, hoard personal property, or get in the way of shared prosperity. But if you honest to god find a way to make enough to travel the world as a vagabond with a blog never touching labor again in your life before late stage communism, then more power to you, I guess. You'd miss out on jobs that focus on personal development, social integration into communities, engagement with purposeful labor, and a direct link to the core vision of shared prosperity. Jobs would also have shorter hours, higher purchasing power, more vacation time, and a slew of quality of life benefits.

      Edit: I also realize that this was about books and a request for literature instead of conjecture. As I rebuttal: my posts own and I'm keeping it here. 😎

    • foxodroid [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      This is my favourite method by far. It sounds more intuitive / in line with what regular workers want