81–90 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The end goal of communism is supposed to be the elimination of government - a stateless, classless and functionally anarchist society. Unsurprisingly no state which ever implemented communism ever took that part seriously.
There's many different communist philosophies.
i think the reason this works is an implication that the article doesn't explicitly cover: if you tell somebody you're going to to do something, you're not asking them to take responsibility. you're telling them that you're taking responsibility for whatever you're going to do. If you ask somebody's permission, you're asking them to take some portion of responsibility for what you're doing. which is the same risk tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
*failed communist state In proper function, ownership is an essential identity of any government.
I would love to hear an example of a successful communist state. You can even restrict it to a limited period in time (USSR 1959-1968 or something). I promise that I will not try to discredit your answer. I'm just curious what people think. But if you come back with "the communism I have in mind hasn't been tried yet" then I will definitely make fun of your answer.
Basically, all of them
They were so successful that the west (meaning mainly the U.S. and the Brits) have invested gigantic amounts of resources in fighting them.
Imagine what they could have done for their citizens instead...
And yet, communist ideas are still alive and kicking, while capitalism is hated everywhere, not only by the people living in anti-capitalistic countries, but also by those living in capitalist countries and by several über rich capitalists, nowadays. Modern capitalism isn't market economy, it's not fair in any way, it doesn't promote growth nor it does empower the masses and all the successes attributed to capitalism, for example The Marshall Plan, were an implementation of socialists ideas under a different name.
Capitalism doesn't even improve living standards anymore, now that it distantiated itself from the socialist idea of the welfare state and promoted an unprecedented concentration of wealth and resources in the hands of the very few, who don't care about the society at large and have no problem in enslaving the people working for them.
The real problem that you can't see, because your brain has been programmed to not see it, is that the U.S.A. empire is the worst in the history of mankind and it showed all its cracks and flaws in less than a century.
Imagine how failing so hard and still claiming victory sounds to 90% of the world's population not brainwashed by the U.S. propaganda...
i think the reason this works is an implication that the article doesn't explicitly cover: if you tell somebody you're going to to do something, you're not asking them to take responsibility. you're telling them that you're taking responsibility for whatever you're going to do. If you ask somebody's permission, you're asking them to take some portion of responsibility for what you're doing. which is the same risk tha…
You can only take responsibility if you also have ownership. Large organizations very quickly become like communist state, nobody own anything and any individual action is suspicious.
here we are again: someone attributing to communism what capitalism is factually based on.
https://i.redd.it/46norpbeuut51.jpg
> nobody own anything and any individual action is suspicious.
do you own anything at your job?
again: that's capitalism
i think the reason this works is an implication that the article doesn't explicitly cover: if you tell somebody you're going to to do something, you're not asking them to take responsibility. you're telling them that you're taking responsibility for whatever you're going to do. If you ask somebody's permission, you're asking them to take some portion of responsibility for what you're doing. which is the same risk tha…
Absolutely! This is a point that tends to kill introverted/insecure people I think. They assume that asking for permission is making things easier for people, but there's a limit where you're not allowing others to delegate responsibility onto you. Your job is for others to not have to think about the things you take care of.
i think the reason this works is an implication that the article doesn't explicitly cover: if you tell somebody you're going to to do something, you're not asking them to take responsibility. you're telling them that you're taking responsibility for whatever you're going to do. If you ask somebody's permission, you're asking them to take some portion of responsibility for what you're doing. which is the same risk tha…
You can only take responsibility if you also have ownership. Large organizations very quickly become like communist state, nobody own anything and any individual action is suspicious.
Do NOT do this with your manager. The key part of this article is: > When you have something you want to do and that you feel is in scope for your position, but you want a bit of reassurance or to let the boss know what you are up to, it’s common to reach out and ask them for permission. Don’t. Don’t ask for a yes. Instead, offer a chance to say no, but with a deadline. If something is not in scope for your responsib…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know the "no response" happens all the time. OK. I'm your pointy haired boss Thursday morning. > Hey, @waisbrot. You didn't mention anything in your note whether you got a response from the Sales team. I got a call from the VP Sales. He's pissed. You know they're at [big sales conference] and busy. The system outage impacted two Top 10 customer account demos. Why didn't you call me if you thought it was important…
Poor management will find a stick to beat you with whatever you do.
I'm assuming you don't disagree that this "lighting a fuse" approach on something you're unsure about without manager approval (and you think you need their permission -- which is said in the article) is way riskier for your corporate career. You're just taking asymmetric risk.
That's the main point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only place you're in disagreement is that you don't see any room for nuance when something is your job but worth notifying the boss about in advance. You read a different article. FTA: > ”Hey, boss, I am going to install action X, which should solve the XYZ problems we’ve been having. Will take care of this on Monday unless I hear differently from you.” The parent's point is that lighting a fuse and saying you'…
> The parent's point is that lighting a fuse and saying you'll do something when the fuse runs out regardless of the boss' approval in a situation where you want to run something by them...is career suicide. It's not, if that action is a part of your job, something you COULD do just on your own but "you want a bit of reassurance or to let the boss know what you are up to". It's not really a notification on a fuse, th…
> ask them for permission
I humbly submit you're still glossing over this. This framing is subtle. There's a difference between getting a peer review from your boss and asking your boss for permission when you think you might need it. Trust your gut.
Compare that to situations where you just want peer review/re-assurance. I agree with you on those situations to just pull the trigger.
