re Les's post (and sorry for the delay:) Years ago I stumbled on Microsoft's version of Gantt charts (Project and/or Scheduler). I never actually used them but it seemed they had potential for democratic planning. I think the excerpts which Les posted are valuable to include in a discussion of planning potential. I like the context in which the tools are situated, i.e. the WWI and after planning boards - totally undemocratic but ripe for seizure. All of this even more true given today's logistics revolution. ps: I think the Plumb Plan is another relevant example.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:36 AM Les Schaffer <[email protected]> wrote: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > At the moment i am involved with a rather large project and have had to > deal with the > uses and abuses of something called a Gantt Chart, a graphical method of > scheduling > project tasks that allows management to oversee the productivity and > timeliness > of workers. Though in a perfect world the Gantt Chart would perhaps help > anyone manage the > complexity of large projects, in practice it doesnt work out that way, as > many here can > imagine. > > As i wanted to know something about the history of the Gantt Chart, i did > a little > web research this morning and found the original 1919 treatise by one H L > Gantt, online. > I have included the Preface, below, to give you an idea of the ideas and > the period > out of which his "great tool" was developed. you may want to look at other > sections of > this book, it is very interesting as an early document of the > engineer-capitalist > response to the Bolshevik menace. Check out the last chapter, for example. > > it is particularly interesting to note Gantt's focus on central planning > as a tool, > and how Gantt saw his efforts in comparison to the developing Soviet > system. i wonder > what Gantt would have made of the larger scale industrial efforts of the > Soviets in > the '30s. Though in the preface, below, Gantt refers to the Soviet > experiment as a > political experiment, in his first chpater he refers to Soviet efforts as > industrial > > in any case, i am curious if anyone here knows of any critiques of these > project > planning methods. > > Les > > > > > 1. Preface to "Organizing for Work" by H L Gantt, 1919 > http://www.ganttchart.com/OrganizingforWork.pdf > > > The two greatest forces in any community are the economic force and the > political force backed by military power. To develop the greatest amount of > strength for the benefit of the community, they must work together, hence > must > be under one direction. > > Germany had already accomplished this union before entering the war by > having > her political system practically take over the industrial, and the Allies > rapidly followed suit after the war began. > > We also found soon after entering the war that our political system alone > was > not adequate to the task before it, and supplemented it by a food > administrator, a coal administrator, a war labor board, a war industries > board, a shipping board, and others, which were intended to be industrial, > and > as far as possible removed from political influences. There is no question > that they handled their problems much more effectively than was possible > under > strictly political control. > > The Soviet system is an attempt to make the business and industrial system > serve the community as a whole, and in doing so to take over the functions > of > and entirely supplant the political system. Whether it can be made to work > or > not remains to be seen. Up to date it has failed, possibly because the > control > has fallen into the hands of people of such extreme radical tendencies that > they would probably wreck any system. > > The attempt which extreme radicals all over the world are making to get > control of both the political and business systems on the theory that they > would make the industrial and business system serve the community, is a > real > danger so long as our present system does not accomplish that end; and this > danger is real irrespective of the fact that they have as yet nowhere > proved > their case. > > Is it possible to make our present system accomplish this end! If so, > there is > no excuse for such a change as they advocate, for the great industrial and > business system on which our modem civilization depends is essentially > sound > at bottom, having grown up because of the service it rendered. Not until it > realized the enormous power it had acquired through making itself > indispensable to the community did it go astray by making the community > serve > it. It then ceased to render service democratically, but demanded > autocratically that its will be done. "It made tools and weapons of cities, > states, and empires." Then came the great catastrophe. > > In order to resume our advance toward the development of an unconquerable > democratic civilization, we must purge our economic system of all > autocratic > practices of whatever kind, and return to the democratic principle of > rendering service, which was the basis of its wonderful growth. > > Unless within a short time we can accomplish this result, there is > apparently > nothing to prevent our following Europe into the economic confusion and > welter > which seem to threaten the very existence of its civilization > > 2. from Chapter I, The Parting of the Ways > > American workmen will prefer to follow a definite mechanism, which > they comprehend, rather than to take the chance of accomplishing the > same end by the methods advocated by extremists. In Russia and > throughout eastern Europe, the community through the Soviet form of > government is attempting to take over the business system in its > effort to secure the service it needs. Their methods seem to us crude, > and to violate our ideas of justice; but in Russia they replaced a > business system which was rotten beyond anything we can imagine. It > would not require a very perfect system to be better than what they > had, for the dealings of our manufacturers with the Russian business > agents during the war indicated that graft was almost the controlling > factor in all deals. The Soviet government is not necessarily > Bolshevistic nor Socialistic, nor is it political in the ordinary > sense, but industrial. It is the first attempt to found a government > on industrialism. Whether it will be ultimately successful or not, > remains to be seen. While the movement is going through its initial > stages, however, it is unquestionably working great hardships, which > are enormously aggravated by the fact that it has fallen under the > control of the extreme radicals. Would it not be better for our > business men to return to the ideals upon which their system was > founded and upon which it grew to such strength; namely, that reward > should be dependent solely upon the service rendered ... > > > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: [email protected] > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5333): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/5333 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79555899/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
