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

he'll be alone, you have the rest of the government backing you

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVI6KeZnHyU

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

Anyone else seen Death of Stalin?

No, but that gave me an idea for a movie: Weekend at Bernie's, but Bernie is a dictator