RE: Re: RE: capitalist versus socialist progress

["Nathan Newman" <nathan.newman@xxxxxxxx>]

>On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
>
> Nathan, Bettleheim, some time ago, made the point that the
> urgency of war caused
> Lenin to establish systems of control much like those of the
> capitalists.  I
> don't want to get into a Lenin vs. Trotsky, etc. line, but I think it is
> important to remember the context.

There is a distinction between internal controls for labor monitoring versus
market mechanisms for product monitoring. They may go together, or they may
go seperately.   There is little question that Lenin's Soviet Union aped
Taylorist workplace organization and often favored piece-rate employment
incentive systems.  Thus, the US and early Soviet Union internal labor
monitoring systems were often quite similar.  Given the monopoly nature of a
lot of US production, the similarities should not be that surprising. They
both actually reflect exactly the quantity-focus of much early industrial
production.

Of course, even then the quality and innovation issues were still very
important, but more in the production processes where labor monitoring is
involved than in the actual goods produced where market monitoring is
needed.  But as the goods produced have greater and greater qualitative
differences and as services, inherently differentiated by quality, become a
larger portion of economic production, it becomes harder to manage
production strictly through planning.  Consumer evaluation of
qualitatively-differentiated goods and services becomes much more important
not only in overall social efficiency, but even in giving firms feedback on
labor efficiency where internal controls may have trouble fully evaluating
them.

To give an example, Dell Computers has been successful because they have
worried about quality and service at a reasonably high level.  Since getting
a Dell laptop, I have been relatively impressed not only at their service
level, but also at how obsessively they listen to feedback.  At one point
right after I bought the computer, I complained about a rather minor
engineering problem (the computer was a little wobbly on tables), so they
asked me if they could replace the whole computer so they could study the
problem.

Now, this is a market response to the problem of monitoring quality, but
there are many non-market solutions possible, from clearer structures for
democratic input from consumers (a well-funded Consumers Union approach to
systematic consumer surveys and testing) to empowerment of workers (real,
not just rhetoric) to self-evaluate what is happening in the work process.

The point is not that there is an obvious solution, planned, democratic
feedback or market, to these kinds of qualitative issues, but that they pose
very different problems in many cases from the raw mobilization of labor and
capital characteristic of much of early development where less
differentiated human needs are the focus.  Given technological changes (for
good or bad), even much of production for basic needs are now more subject
to differentiation and innovation-based variations (think
genetically-engineered food).  So the early success and later failure of the
Stalinist models does not seem so odd.

-- Nathan Newman