[Deke40]

This clip is over 60 years old but sure could apply to our present situation.

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.c...d-in-1948.html

[wacor]

Oh no

Bad, bad capitalism

We must must control the masses

It aint the capitalists that are just out of control. The govt is leading us down the path to ruin. We can recover from almost anything except this stinking Federal Govt.

[thingamajig]

Great... post WWII anti-communist propaganda.

Wacor, you will spin anything. Have you no pride?

[wacor]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Great... post WWII anti-communist propaganda.

Wacor, you will spin anything. Have you no pride?

By the way it was anti socialist

Some things are never dated

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

It aint the capitalists that are just out of control. The govt is leading us down the path to ruin. We can recover from almost anything except this stinking Federal Govt.

this may be way off topic, but......
if there was ever a statement that pointed directly to the fix we're in, it's this one
it ain't an "either capitalism/or government" thing....it's both, playing a game sort of like ping pong with the forces at work in society.

it's not about different political or economic theory, but the tangible results of our efforts to shape them into a social order....gb sent me a book "Shop Class as Soul Craft: an inquiry into the value of work". It's title might be reminiscent of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintance" to some -and there is a personal philosophical journey woven into it- but that's where the similarity ends.

the author (Michael Crawford) has a PhD in political philosophy, and started out working in a big think tank for big bucks: the book is the result of his realization that he was earning a lot of money but not producing anything: it is a brutal look at the intertwinings of conservative and liberal "politics" since the dawn of the industrial age, and the subsequent growth of "management" to reinterpret -and consumerism to replace- the "value of work"

if you google the book's title, there are chunks of it here and there....i liked this one
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/public...s-as-soulcraft and offer up the following snippet

The degradation of work in the last century is often tied to the evils of technology in one way or another. And it is certainly true that “technical progress has multiplied the number of simplified jobs,” as one French sociologist wrote in the 1950s. This writer pointed out a resemblance between the Soviet bloc and the Western bloc with regard to work; both rival civilizations were developing “that separation between planning and execution which seems to be in our day a common denominator linking all industrial societies together.” Yet while technology plays a role in facilitating this separation of planning and execution, the basic logic that drives the separation rests not on technological progress, but rather on a certain mode of economic relations, as Harry Braverman has shown in his masterpiece of economic reflection, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Braverman was an avowed Marxist, writing in 1974. With the Cold War now safely decided, we may consider anew, without defensive ire, the Marxian account of alienated labor. Braverman gives a richly descriptive account of the degradation of many different kinds of work. In doing so, he offers nothing less than an explanation of why we are getting more stupid with every passing year—which is to say, the degradation of work is ultimately a cognitive matter.

The central culprit in Braverman’s account is “scientific management,” which “enters the workplace not as the representative of science, but as the representative of management masquerading in the trappings of science.” The tenets of scientific management were given their first and frankest articulation by Frederick Winslow Taylor, an unembarrassed evangelist of efficiency whose Principles of Scientific Management was hugely influential in the early decades of the twentieth century. Stalin was a big fan, as were the founders of the first MBA program, at Harvard, where Taylor was invited to lecture annually. Taylor writes, “The managers assume ... the burden of gathering together all of the traditional knowledge which in the past has been possessed by the workmen and then of classifying, tabulating, and reducing this knowledge to rules, laws, and formulae.” Scattered craft knowledge is concentrated in the hands of the employer, then doled out again to workers in the form of minute instructions needed to perform some part of what is now a work process. This process replaces what was previously an integral activity, rooted in craft tradition and experience, animated by the worker’s own mental image of, and intention toward, the finished product. Thus, according to Taylor, “All possible brain work should be removed from the shop and centered in the planning or lay-out department.” It is a mistake to suppose that the primary purpose of this partition is to render the work process more efficient. It may or may not result in extracting more value from a given unit of labor time. The concern is rather with labor cost. Once the cognitive aspects of the job are located in a separate management class, or better yet in a process that, once designed, requires no ongoing judgment or deliberation, skilled workers can be replaced with unskilled workers at a lower rate of pay. Taylor writes that the “full possibilities” of his system “will not have been realized until almost all of the machines in the shop are run by men who are of smaller caliber and attainments, and who are therefore cheaper than those required under the old system.”

one of the things that makes the book significant in my mind is that it is distinctly apolitical.....he's got no problem quoting a marxist, because he's not talking about political theory, but the systematic degradation of human cognition in the modern economic model.

i am constantly reminded of another book "The Underground History of American Education" (John Taylor Gatto) which paints a picture of the development of public education that conforms nicely to the ideas set forth in the "soulcraft" book....that what is truely being "trickled down" in modern society is not the opprotunity of prosperity, but social engineering.

[wacor]

I would have a headache getting thru that book

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

I would have a headache getting thru that book

i'm doubtin' it, Bill
it is a pretty demanding read, but as a biz owner, a consumer, and somebody familiar with having produced something at the end of the day, much of what he talks about -while it may be a bit much on the research side- will resonate with you.....you've wondered about the things he talks about: most all of us have.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by iltos

i'm doubtin' it, Bill
it is a pretty demanding read, but as a biz owner, a consumer, and somebody familiar with having produced something at the end of the day, much of what he talks about -while it may be a bit much on the research side- will resonate with you.....you've wondered about the things he talks about: most all of us have.

It is his writing style. Not the content

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by wacor

By the way it was anti socialist

You don't appear to know the difference.

Originally Posted by iltos

it ain't an "either capitalism/or government" thing....it's both, playing a game sort of like ping pong with the forces at work in society.

I definitely concur with this. I wonder who is running the government and if it might be Corporate America all tangled up with special interests and long dead ideologies.

We've seen what capitalism can do when allowed to run amuck so it should be kept separate from governance and tapered where required. Social programs and regulations can co-exist with capitalism. I would go further to say that the former are required for the latter to succeed.

Originally Posted by iltos

the author (Michael Crawford) has a PhD in political philosophy, and started out working in a big think tank for big bucks: the book is the result of his realization that he was earning a lot of money but not producing anything: it is a brutal look at the intertwinings of conservative and liberal "politics" since the dawn of the industrial age, and the subsequent growth of "management" to reinterpret -and consumerism to replace- the "value of work"

Again I would emphasis moderation. There is nothing unproductive about great ideas. There are a couple of issues here that have me perplexed: Where is there value in work that is not useful, instructive, or enjoyable to others and thereby consumable? While there is value in the craftsmanship of building something, doesn't it require management to build and distribute millions?

The book appears interesting but it sounds as if it is arguing against the industrial age and mass production. The snippet also shows me a false dichotomy. There is no precise boundary between the unskilled worker and the knowledgeable craftsman. The latter designed the process and the metrics to be used to assure quality control.

Perhaps I am missing the gist of the book as I have not read it. There is still plenty of room for artisans and those who have mastered a craft. R%D, for example, hate to be managed as time lines and milestones have no place in the process of innovation. Even end-goals must be measured against the ever-changing tools at hand.

Perhaps the freedom to craft vs the requirement to produce is the only thing keeping the US in the game. It may also explain why we invent but object little in handing some production off to those abroad. Those who complain the loudest might be those very same unskilled workers who want no part in the changes required for innovation. The US has never been static in it's industry and nor do we want that IMO.

[wacor]

I know socialism when I see it Thingy

Sorry to say you don't

[iltos]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

Again I would emphasis moderation. There is nothing unproductive about great ideas.

His arguement doesn't preclude great ideas....to use just his personal example, however....working in a think tank....my generalization of his point is that the emphasis has moved away from the value of the individual wrt an idea, and towards the "management" of ideas.....at the end of the day, he felt there was nothing he could point to as the result of his work

There are a couple of issues here that have me perplexed: Where is there value in work that is not useful, instructive, or enjoyable to others and thereby consumable?

i'm not sure what you mean by this?

While there is value in the craftsmanship of building something, doesn't it require management to build and distribute millions?

but those are two separate functions, and his arguement is not against the organizational knowledge of management when it comes to distrubution, or the inevitability of mass production as an efficient process for the building of millions of units.....at least, it doesn't seem that way (i'm not done yet)
tho he would point to the management of labor within the process of mass production as one factor contributing to the "dumbing down" of society, because it requires less and less of the kind of ongoing problem solving that exists in skilled labor (the trades .....idealized by the artisan craftsman type)
understand, thingy, that he makes no broad catagorizations about ALL factory workers suffering from the malaise that prompted him to write the book....it is, as he says, an "inquiry"....and exploration into the reasons we've come to celebrate weekends and their "events", for example
and what he says makes a lot sense to me....more and more, we expect less and less that there is a relationship between what we think about when we work, and what we produce when we work.....and the idea of scientific management in the workplace is directly responsible for this: it is more economically efficient to splinter the processes that produce results among many, and to collect them all at the end of the day as "product".....in a bizarre kind of why (and NOT a point he makes), it is somewhat analagous to the organization of terrorist cells

The book appears interesting but it sounds as if it is arguing against the industrial age and mass production.

against it's present efficiencies...yes...but his arguement is decidedly not anti-capitalist, in the sense that most conservatives here speak about it as the "mother of opprotunity and invention"....if i had to pidgeon hole it, i'd say he's speaking (roughly) against the "too big to fail" trend in business....but it is the social implications, as they translate to our acceptance of "mass media" and "mass consumption" that is his major concern.

The snippet also shows me a false dichotomy. There is no precise boundary between the unskilled worker and the knowledgeable craftsman. The latter designed the process and the metrics to be used to assure quality control.

give it some thought....the precise boundary is identified in your statement....the knowledgable craftsman -even in this day and age- is someone with a working knowledge of most aspects of his production....from the selection of materials through the determination of what processes will yield the best results, including both an appreciation for and an understanding of what to do when things go wrong.
today, this group of individuals in big corporations are probably called "troubleshooters", aren't they?.....they are the exception processors: people whose job it to be skilled enough in the process to identify and solve the exceptional

but the process itself is designed to minimize their need.

Perhaps I am missing the gist of the book as I have not read it. There is still plenty of room for artisans and those who have mastered a craft. R%D, for example, hate to be managed as time lines and milestones have no place in the process of innovation. Even end-goals must be measured against the ever-changing tools at hand.

he would agree.....his book is only about the trend towards the shrinking amount of "plenty of room", and how the value of work within that place faces a barrage of social forces that minimize the perception of its signifcance......fwiw, i'd say he points to both today's unions and today's capitalists as favoring the smallest "plenty of room" possible....for the good of "the economy"....one of the "isms" that OP elixir offers up for consumption.

Perhaps the freedom to craft vs the requirement to produce is the only thing keeping the US in the game. It may also explain why we invent but object little in handing some production off to those abroad.

good points again.....and the fact that they are working AGAINST each other is at the root of his inquiry...why should be this so?.

Those who complain the loudest might be those very same unskilled workers who want no part in the changes required for innovation.

They might be....but would they?.....the only obvious threats i see are outsourcing and increased automation.....leaving you with the argument that you used to criticize the author...to wit

The book appears interesting but it sounds as if it is arguing against the industrial age and mass production

The US has never been static in it's industry and nor do we want that IMO.

don't know what the author would say about that...but i'd ask: if the TREND is static in its direction but multifaceted in its dimensions, doesn't that amount to the same thing?

[thingamajig]

Originally Posted by iltos

His arguement doesn't preclude great ideas....to use just his personal example, however....working in a think tank....my generalization of his point is that the emphasis has moved away from the value of the individual wrt an idea, and towards the "management" of ideas.....at the end of the day, he felt there was nothing he could point to as the result of his work

I can empathize with this in that any really significant ideas can be stifled whenever thought production becomes incestuous. The same group of collaborators or competitors review each others value, reward what is viewed as success, and recommend (or market) an approach for further funding. This creates a cell network where the participants become the management that propagate complete fields of study, industry, thought, or artisanship that never gains any value outside the group. It is sold to be of value by those who are alone qualified to make the assessment or educated toward a specific biased view.

I see this as a trap that can result from a free open market capitalism through mass marketing, a corporate monopoly, a government program, a purely socialistic system, a political party or ideology, over-management where the process becomes more important than the product, and obviously from a closed partitioning in society regardless of its source.

Originally Posted by iltos

i'm not sure what you mean by this?

I was speaking of the slight against so-called "consumerism". If consumption is desired than a product, idea, or methodology must hold some value to someone. There is no perfect system to break a self-rewarding closed cycle so I'd try every tool in the shed.

Originally Posted by iltos

understand, thingy, that he makes no broad catagorizations about ALL factory workers suffering from the malaise that prompted him to write the book....it is, as he says, an "inquiry"....and exploration into the reasons we've come to celebrate weekends and their "events", for example

I think mindless work might be inevitable to many but treasured by others who are able to take pride in their own part of the process. Perhaps one thing working against that is the mass media's celebration of the trappings of wealth and adventure. We tend to choose the wrong role models in sports, performing artists, and the excessively wealthy. The wealthy protect their piece of the pie and the poor protect their heroes. We aspire too much to win the lottery.

So, the worker watches the clock, races out the door at quitting time, and is always looking forward to that next weekend. It's the only time they get to pursue their dreams but if it is focused on something other than winning at the slots, those weekend dreams can and often do turn into reality. I see the point in having a look at the mass media and mass consumption as part of the equation. Ultimately, the individual chooses how to spend their free time and money.

Originally Posted by iltos

and what he says makes a lot sense to me....more and more, we expect less and less that there is a relationship between what we think about when we work, and what we produce when we work.....and the idea of scientific management in the workplace is directly responsible for this: it is more economically efficient to splinter the processes that produce results among many, and to collect them all at the end of the day as "product".....

I'm not sure what to the think of the causal relationship being placed between scientific management and disconnect between our work and our product. I would think a well managed organization would take measures to alleviate the risk of complacency in its workers. An organization that is top heavy will eventually tip over.

Nor do I have a sense of it progressing system-wide. To the extent that it is, then I can only find solution for the worker to change jobs (given there are opportunities) or in those weekends and perhaps a little more vacation time with a lot less time-wasting activities like sitting in front of the tube.

Originally Posted by iltos

if i had to pidgeon hole it, i'd say he's speaking (roughly) against the "too big to fail" trend in business....but it is the social implications, as they translate to our acceptance of "mass media" and "mass consumption" that is his major concern.

Again, I'm not sure what is being proposed as the cause and effect. Certainly having a business too big to fail presents risks to continuity. Although, I'm not sure that breaking continuity and shaking the pot every now and then is such a bad thing.

Originally Posted by iltos

give it some thought....the precise boundary is identified in your statement....

True enough and I guess I didn't explain my thoughts well. I would say there are many categories from mindless complacency and those who take pride in simple things. A similar spectrum exists between the low-end worker, technicians, process engineers, troubleshooters, inventors, entrepreneurs, and management.

Originally Posted by iltos

today, this group of individuals in big corporations are probably called "troubleshooters", aren't they?.....they are the exception processors: people whose job it to be skilled enough in the process to identify and solve the exceptional

Often outside consultants are hired (that don't have a horse in the race) to design an unbiased test to find problems in production. Shutting down to do any troubleshooting is not taken lightly due to the expense of the lost production. Statisticians and the skills of designing experiments are valued in this arena.

Originally Posted by iltos

he would agree.....his book is only about the trend towards the shrinking amount of "plenty of room", and how the value of work within that place faces a barrage of social forces that minimize the perception of its signifcance......fwiw, i'd say he points to both today's unions and today's capitalists as favoring the smallest "plenty of room" possible....for the good of "the economy"....one of the "isms" that OP elixir offers up for consumption.

I guess I'm following some of the arguments in that too much of any ism or ist is not healthy (?)

Originally Posted by iltos

good points again.....and the fact that they are working AGAINST each other is at the root of his inquiry...why should be this so?.

Good question. It doesn't have to be. However, it seems that in our history we have always had a tendency to either import or export our labor. From the sweat shops in the textile industry to imported labor for building the railroad to outsourcing and including immigrant farmers. We talk of the latter as if it's something new - which it isn't.

Of course I can't critique the book as I don't have it and I probably won't buy it. I respond to your comments.

Originally Posted by iltos

don't know what the author would say about that...but i'd ask: if the TREND is static in its direction but multifaceted in its dimensions, doesn't that amount to the same thing?

A static trend? You lost me on this part.

[TRS-80 vet]

There is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9.

Listen to archival footage of politicians speeches. Listen with a very discerning ear...

There is NO new thing under the sun. Different (and faster) ways of doing the SAME thing, but there is NO new thing.

[wacor]

Holy cow look who arose from the ashes.

I thought you had been banned.

Or did you just come back from Jamestown

[TooBad]

Iltos, very good post and snippet. Unfortunately it cuts very close to home with my job and you may have heard of ITIL training. Everything must be a process that is repeatable and even contains processes for improving the process. They seem to think that they can remove the PFM from computer tech work, but as long as computers are designed and work the way they do, those that have the "touch" will be needed and no process can explain how it works. I think that there will always be a need, even if small, for true craftsmen as no process can truely replace the knowledge, wisdom and experience of such a precious resouce.