Message from @Dr.Wol
Discord ID: 473048519150927885
no, the manager doesn't have a gun
why does the mopper do his job then?
cuz you send a KGB level agent after him if he doesn't
you don't have to directly threaten him
he just has to know the threat is there to follow
how do you make sure the agent does his job
the ratio of commissars in the soviet union wasn't 1 : 1 with the population
do you point a gun at him?
no, he gets benefits for loyalty
so you pay him then
yes
you pay him, so you can trust he will do his job
so he will do it well
you pay him, and hold a gun to his head too
so he can take care of himself
you put a gun in the hand of someone and then pount a gun at his head, eventually it will bite you in the ass
no?
you give him a gun only for killing someone else
after that he hands it back
and
aite so now you have an armory with a entire paperwork factory behind it
you see how the cost of enforment ramps up really fast?
because no one is motivated to do what you want them to do, you gotta manage everything you want them to do, which costs more resources then you will get out of the labour
assuming soviet gulags are anything to go by
its not any different than the cost of capitalism
People prefer life over money
problem is that under authoritarianism, people have no incentive to be above-accepted
that is why authoritarian societies stagnate in progress, and capitalists don't
that doesn't change that making things work, is still more efficient in authoritarianism
and im saying with the soviet data is was clear it wassnt
What was the context where he said that? I only remember him saying that an authoritarian government has an advantage in being able to act quickly in cases of emergency, so in the case of a hostile invasion a dictator would be able rally the troops without asking anyone, but under a pure direct democracy people would have to meet up, vote, etc, or under a true anarchy they'd lack coordination to do much
he gave an example of making a guy mop a floor
Guns don't hold nearly enough liquids to do that effectively
what Schedrevka said is the whole argument
in the long run, Authoritarianism stagnates
But in the short run, its effective because you bypass any negotiations
workers are always trying to minimize their work, cause they didnt get anough food to survive otherwise. managers always said they did enough work each day, to not get demoted into becoming workers, managers manegers always said they reached the camps quotas even though the work was shoddy and there wasent enough product, or risk being trown with the workers
Also a benevolent dictator is rare, and even if you can find one you probably won't find another when he dies even if no one tries to usurp him or whatever
at the end when they wanted to sell their producs you got a bunch of shit that didnt work, and no one to blame except the entire camp
and then all the money you did get for your product, goes into paying the salaries of the people holding the gun, cause on that level even the soviets admitted that capitalism just worked better
they just payed someone to hold a gun to force others to work, where it would have been more efficient to pay someone to work