Syria Disintegrating: Part 2

[Berkut]

WTF?

First of all HP is a horrible example. They were in a declining market with antiquated technology and decided the best way to slow this decline was to buy a company with identical problems. They basically took a knife and plunged it into their own backs repeatedly. Nobody was giving HP crap for simply struggling in a difficult market. Nobody shits on IBM or Dell the same way.

Secondly I get basically what you are saying, I even agree a bit. We see it all over the place in politics, Presidents and Prime Ministers being held responsible for the economy when the overwhelming majority of the time their nations' economy is under the influence of international economic factors way outside the ability of local politicians to control.

But I had to giggle about the poor American CEOs being held responsible. Those people get millions and cushy jobs forever if they succeed, and millions and cushy jobs forever if they fail. It is only their egos that drive them onwards.

I was not talking about them being held responsible, I was talking about how we substitute figurative heads rather than going through the work of understanding what is actually happening. This has NOTHING to do with holding CEO responsible, or any kind of comment in general on whether or not CEO are or are not held responsible enough. The point was that if you want to understand why HP had a rough time, or why Apple succeeded, or why Germany lost WW2, it is foolish to simply talk about Fiorina, Jobs, and Hitleras if they were the primary drivers of those failures or successes, yet we do that all the time.

We are doing it in this very thread, giving Stalin some kind of godlike power to define everything about Soviet Communism, even decades after his death - even to the extent that argument are being made that you cannot even talk about Soviet Communism without the discussion being primarily about Stalin.

My point says exactly NOTHING about "holding CEOs accountable", much less enough about it to justify some inane cheapshot about it.

[Malthus]

WTF?

First of all HP is a horrible example. They were in a declining market with antiquated technology and decided the best way to slow this decline was to buy a company with identical problems. They basically took a knife and plunged it into their own backs repeatedly. Nobody was giving HP crap for simply struggling in a difficult market. Nobody shits on IBM or Dell the same way.

Secondly I get basically what you are saying, I even agree a bit. We see it all over the place in politics, Presidents and Prime Ministers being held responsible for the economy when the overwhelming majority of the time their nations' economy is under the influence of international economic factors way outside the ability of local politicians to control.

But I had to giggle about the poor American CEOs being held responsible. Those people get millions and cushy jobs forever if they succeed, and millions and cushy jobs forever if they fail. It is only their egos that drive them onwards.

I was not talking about them being held responsible, I was talking about how we substitute figurative heads rather than going through the work of understanding what is actually happening. This has NOTHING to do with holding CEO responsible, or any kind of comment in general on whether or not CEO are or are not held responsible enough. The point was that if you want to understand why HP had a rough time, or why Apple succeeded, or why Germany lost WW2, it is foolish to simply talk about Fiorina, Jobs, and Hitleras if they were the primary drivers of those failures or successes, yet we do that all the time.

We are doing it in this very thread, giving Stalin some kind of godlike power to define everything about Soviet Communism, even decades after his death - even to the extent that argument are being made that you cannot even talk about Soviet Communism without the discussion being primarily about Stalin.

My point says exactly NOTHING about "holding CEOs accountable", much less enough about it to justify some inane cheapshot about it.

It is equally foolish to *not* talk about Jobs, Hiler, or Stalin. Surely it is the interaction between these leaders, their followers, and the entities they helped create that is significant. Also, some leaders are simply more significant than others - it makes no sense to discuss the US as if it was the creation of Washington (however important he was), because the US had many effective leading influences in its creation; Hitler has a far more pivotal role in the creation of Nazi Germany; and Stalin likewise in the creation of the Soviet Union.

[Razgovory]

Just to stop you before you go to far, just because Hitler killed Jews doesn't mean he wasn't an anti-Semite.

[Valmy]

My point says exactly NOTHING about "holding CEOs accountable", much less enough about it to justify some inane cheapshot about it.

Ok be that guy.

I was not talking about them being held responsible, I was talking about how we substitute figurative heads rather than going through the work of understanding what is actually happening. This has NOTHING to do with holding CEO responsible, or any kind of comment in general on whether or not CEO are or are not held responsible enough. The point was that if you want to understand why HP had a rough time, or why Apple succeeded, or why Germany lost WW2, it is foolish to simply talk about Fiorina, Jobs, and Hitleras if they were the primary drivers of those failures or successes, yet we do that all the time.

Ok I get what you are saying but those are not particularly good examples. All those people were the primary drivers for how things turned out for their organizations. They all steered their organizations in radical directions they would not have gone otherwise. Hitler was not just the primary driver for Germany losing WW2, he was WW2. There is no WW2 without Hitler.

[Berkut]

OK, never mind. STALINSTALINSTALIN it is.

[Valmy]

OK, never mind. STALINSTALINSTALIN it is.

No no I think you have a good point here. I was just quibbling with your examples.

Stalin did not invent the Soviet Union. The debate is always going to be what extent he defined it during and after his 30+ years he was in charge.

[DGuller]

Berkut's point has merit, but I think he's overstating it.  Obviously the leader of any organization isn't everything, but he's usually the most influential person by far.  And there have been many cases where a single leader has indeed been a very pivotal part of disaster (or success for that matter).  Yes, other people were needed to carry out the leader's insanity, but those other people can be inspired by that leader in a way that they wouldn't be inspired by another leader.  Sometimes someone like Francisco Solano López gets to be in charge, and through a combination of good leadership skill and good luck lays total waste to the organization they lead.

[Razgovory]

Berkut's point has merit, but I think he's overstating it.  Obviously the leader of any organization isn't everything, but he's usually the most influential person by far.  And there have been many cases where a single leader has indeed been a very pivotal part of disaster (or success for that matter).  Yes, other people were needed to carry out the leader's insanity, but those other people can be inspired by that leader in a way that they wouldn't be inspired by another leader.  Sometimes someone like Francisco Solano López gets to be in charge, and through a combination of good leadership skill and good luck lays total waste to the organization they lead.

I think Berkut is on the right track, though it applies differently to founders and successors.  If Stalin had never been born then the Soviet Union would still have terror, collectivization, and mass murder and very likely party purges.  These were already factors in the Soviet Union under Lenin.  It might have been better and it might have been worse, it's easy to imagine the Soviet Union mired in a "cultural revolution" or even open rebellion under another Bolshevik.  If Lenin hadn't been born, it's harder to say what Russia would be like.  The Socialist Revolutionaries would likely have still ceased power, but unlike Lenin's outfit it was a larger organization with more diverse opinions.  Civil war and terror between the factions would be very likely making it more like the French Revolution.

[Valmy]

The SRs were peasant populists right?

[Razgovory]

The SRs were peasant populists right?

I think they were a wide coalition of socialists.

[Valmy]

The SRs were peasant populists right?

I think they were a wide coalition of socialists.

I seem to recall they were a peasant party.

Ok reading up on it, it does look like agrarian populism was the main thing but you are right they had a bit more to them than that.

[Malthus]

Speaking of populists - just think: in the future, people may be having the same conversation about the influence of Donald Trump! 

[Savonarola]

Speaking of populists - just think: in the future, people may be having the same conversation about the influence of Donald Trump! 

Our show trials will have pizzazz!

[DGuller]

Speaking of populists - just think: in the future, people may be having the same conversation about the influence of Donald Trump! 

Ugh, I sure hope not.  Having Trump as president would be bad enough.

[Malthus]

Speaking of populists - just think: in the future, people may be having the same conversation about the influence of Donald Trump! 

Our show trials will have pizzazz!

After his death, his hairpiece will be embalmed, put on public display, and guarded by goose-stepping supermodels.