No, your example is a hypothetical concocted specifically to imagine a case where management isn’t as useful. Even a small factory that needs less than a dozen people for a niche product needs complex supply chains, and moreover is an extreme minority of the total production and distribution. My point wasn’t that everyone needs a direct manager, my point is that management exists because it does solve problems when implemented correctly that horizontalism does not. This gets increasingly complex at larger scales.
I’m not “shackled to capitalist abstractions,” you’re trying to make a point by describing a tiny portion of hypothetical production and trying to layer it over all of production and distribution. This is idealism.
I grew up watching ‘how its made’ while i did my homework, being babysat by my (pedo) uncle who was in industrial real estate, wandering around warehouses and factory floors¹ no sane responsible adult would have allowed a child near, and learned a non-zero amount of mechanical engineering. I am not a specialist, I do not have a degree in this, but this topic was one of my comfort foods as a kid, and kind of a special interest. I do have a real, if not comprehensive, knowledge base. I have been in factories where complex electronics were made.
I tend to take every opportunity to look in on industrial production, because I think it’s cool. I’m not an expert, but I’m not talking fucking hypotheticals here. I’m talking about a composite of real places I’ve been, real people ive known and in some cases fucked who did these kinds of work. I have some actual knowledge, and youre talking about ideal heroic forms of ‘manager’ derived from a russian poster² who never as far as i know actually set foot in a factory and died like a century ago as if that information is as good as modern (or at least living memory) on the ground actual conditions.
Yes there are other things. A car takes a longer supply chain, and a scaled up version of this process still works. Maybe you need a premises matrix or slack server and a local amateur sports league instead of team lunches and an SMS chat. The tools dont even need to be made; they exist already. I have used them.
How the fuck would dedicated ‘managers’ wrangle supply chains better? Why is the factory managing the whole supply chain? Is the supply chain entirely passive and automated and lacking agency? This just sounds like ‘great man’ fetishism. Get over that shit.
Your concept of management may as well involve phlogiston pneuma and agape.
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.
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.
No, your example is a hypothetical concocted specifically to imagine a case where management isn’t as useful. Even a small factory that needs less than a dozen people for a niche product needs complex supply chains, and moreover is an extreme minority of the total production and distribution. My point wasn’t that everyone needs a direct manager, my point is that management exists because it does solve problems when implemented correctly that horizontalism does not. This gets increasingly complex at larger scales.
I’m not “shackled to capitalist abstractions,” you’re trying to make a point by describing a tiny portion of hypothetical production and trying to layer it over all of production and distribution. This is idealism.
I grew up watching ‘how its made’ while i did my homework, being babysat by my (pedo) uncle who was in industrial real estate, wandering around warehouses and factory floors¹ no sane responsible adult would have allowed a child near, and learned a non-zero amount of mechanical engineering. I am not a specialist, I do not have a degree in this, but this topic was one of my comfort foods as a kid, and kind of a special interest. I do have a real, if not comprehensive, knowledge base. I have been in factories where complex electronics were made.
I tend to take every opportunity to look in on industrial production, because I think it’s cool. I’m not an expert, but I’m not talking fucking hypotheticals here. I’m talking about a composite of real places I’ve been, real people ive known and in some cases fucked who did these kinds of work. I have some actual knowledge, and youre talking about ideal heroic forms of ‘manager’ derived from a russian poster² who never as far as i know actually set foot in a factory and died like a century ago as if that information is as good as modern (or at least living memory) on the ground actual conditions.
Yes there are other things. A car takes a longer supply chain, and a scaled up version of this process still works. Maybe you need a premises matrix or slack server and a local amateur sports league instead of team lunches and an SMS chat. The tools dont even need to be made; they exist already. I have used them.
How the fuck would dedicated ‘managers’ wrangle supply chains better? Why is the factory managing the whole supply chain? Is the supply chain entirely passive and automated and lacking agency? This just sounds like ‘great man’ fetishism. Get over that shit.
Your concept of management may as well involve phlogiston pneuma and agape.
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.
¹non-operational, still no clue how I’m alive
²admittedly one of the greats.
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.
Your mom read a good deal more than just capital!
Oooh sick burn! I got you!
Hey is… Is she still mad about the thing?