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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Because producers did not pay real-value prices for raw materials, fuel, and other things, enterprises often used them inefficiently.
- 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.
- 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.
I also was thinking about it, maybe the solution is sort of tick-tock (or more like achieve, optimize, replan) approach, I.e meet quota in however many hours it takes and then based on results in different industries reshuffle the workforce around after say 3 years. It’s kinda the question what you optimize towards: meeting production quotas of the plan; reducing total society labor hours; producing maximum amount of stuff. I think highly specialized work would be an issue, but some people do get bored of their work.Motivation to reduce ones own labor hours seems like a strong one, but how do you correct it without resentment during reshuffle?
Edit The problem with managers seems like a hard one, it’s either have a sort of consulting like force (would be hated probably) which will go around factory outliers in production or having some sort of factory work force motivation to reduce the management role.Edit 2: Also, also: current state of computers allows to consider any factory as just a small matrix multiplication to input-output sources. Inefficiencies can be found by half-trained 15 year old, so the economy can be extremely fluid. So I think in static state all of the problems except managerial ones can be solved already, the only issues would be to add defect rates and ecological damage/spillage. Dynamism can be added via small democratic demands/wishlists in an app (I.e. we want black jeans this year), and computer can optimize to it.Disregard all that.
Can some up or down bear the following posts, so that I know at least one person read it🥺Thanks unknown comrade!Ok, that post got more and more confusing,
let’s imagine a modern planned economy then. Input output tables live in the machine, which sole goal is to a) satisfy maximum amount of needs, probably with some vouchers (I.e. you can wish for 5000 labor hours a year worth of products, outside of food, medicine and housing) b) reduce socially necessary labor hours. c) optimize for material efficiency I.e. minimum ecological impact.
Let’s say then, that designs for products can be freely submitted in the special vault, where a) people can wish for them b) if the product already was made, the labor hours estimation is stored. Also let’s assume that used design is compensated for labor hours spent on its creation, to promote evolution.
Now let’s say people select a new phone design: it’s raw material cost and processing steps required are roughly known, so it can go to production. Considering we are optimizing for ecological impact, most optimal resource would be used electronics as a source raw materials, which are then processed and remade into a new phone.
We have left with two thorny issues: why factory would optimize its own production and how managers would fit into it. Here we can look at the internal structure, and say that for example labor hours required from that factory a) weakly influence received labor hours wishlist rate for workers b) the work cannot exceed 8 hours a day. If the inefficiencies exist, their removal would lead to to higher compensation for workers and managers, if they don’t - new factory would be made with additional work force (or old one expanded).
Now the questions are a) how do you navigate a shitton of designs in the vault b) how weakly or strongly do you compensate productive individual workers c) how do you provide to disabled comrades. B and C both collapse into the question what is the floor and the ceiling of available worker hours for wish lists, and where between them you put disabled people. A) dunno, lel, maybe someone else has an idea.