Manufacturing Quality.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

This is how I learned to make good stuff. I mean stuff that is not defective. By following the manufacturing tenets of Demming you can increase production and quality. It is an all encompassing method of manufacturing. Does communist theory have a similiar philosophy for making defect free product. Please don't insult me with 'this is what will happen under communism' argument.

[Saint-Just]

I think you mean Deming. His manufacturing tenets could be applied in a socialist society.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 2 2005, 05:40 PM
I think you mean Deming. His manufacturing tenets could be applied in a socialist society.
One problem. The concept of value. Quality is value added. There is no need to manufacture quality if there is no value. Quality it difficult to make. I don't really want to do it. It is a tedious and difficult to implement TQM. I'd rather just make stuff good enough and not as 'good as possible'.

Plus how about central control? Is communism a central economy? TQM philosophy is opposed to central control of factory processes.

[NovelGentry]

This is inherent with the if you apply the labor theory of value. Higher quality products would increase the amount of time taken to produce (unless technological improvements made it possible WITHOUT increased labor time)... assuming none of the said improvements, more attention to detail, the addition of inspection and durability testing, etc...etc would mean increased labor time for said product, which would increase the average social labor time put into the product and thus increase it's value.


One problem. The concept of value. Quality is value added. There is no need to manufacture quality if there is no value.

There is value. And the value would reflect the quality of the product.


Quality it difficult to make.

Not so. It may take more time, but difficulty is not necessarily a factor. More time does not mean more difficult.


I'd rather just make stuff good enough and not as 'good as possible'.

And if that's ok with the people then that's ok. If they want better products some people may seek to make them.

There will always be individuals who want an extremely high quality product and if a certain commune. They may produce LESS product, because it takes more time, but certainly they will have less buyers too, since the cost in labor time will be significantly more.

Say you have one commune that makes cars with the quality of ford motor company, and another that makes cars with the quality of BMW. The Ford equivalent will use generic and quicker to manufacture parts, thus the total labor time put into that car will be far less than the BMW which uses specialized and more than likely longer to manufacture parts. The fact alone that the BMW equivalent takes more time to make means their theoretical maximum product output is less than the Ford equivalent over the same length of time, but given that our value relates to this labor time we also see that it's value will be higher. Thus in order to acquire the BMW equivalent a person would have to work as many more hours as it takes for the BMW equivalent to be produced.

EDIT: forgot this part


Plus how about central control? Is communism a central economy? TQM philosophy is opposed to central control of factory processes.

This sorta depends on which theoretician you talk to. I personally believe Marx lays out the groundwork for a decentralized economy with centralized aspects. Explaination: The production and distribution of goods is within the hands of the people, the government has no say in what is to be made or where it is to go. What does become centralized is the credit system (the replacement for money). Credit cannot be circulated as money can... you check in to work, labor time is added, you check out, it stops being added. You go to the store and grab some orange juice and labor time is subtracted with respect to how much labor time the orange juice took to produce.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:42 PM


[quote]Quality it difficult to make.

Not so. It may take more time, but difficulty is not necessarily a factor. More time does not mean more difficult.



I don't doubt that it is POSSIBLE to include TQM into a communist factory.

One thing? You never had to build and manage a product have you? It is very easy to wave your hand and say yes it is easy until you try it.

Do you know what quality practices BMW uses? I don't.

I know about Ford. I have trained under Ford quality manuals. I can not compare the quality between BMW and Ford. I don't know what BMW is doing. I do know that Ford has a very good philosophy that they DON'T follow and the Japanese follow religiously. In this respect I can say for sure that a dedicated team sticking to TQM will build low defect product.

Another problem? You have to MEASURE output based on cycle time, defect, waste, and PROFIT to know if your quality practise is worth while. That is the whole point of TQM. What is the point of making something gold plated perfect? If you do, that is waste. You only have that concept if there is value in the product.

That is why I don't see TQM being implimented by a communist manufacturing system. Is there a system adovated by communist theory?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 06:42 PM
This sorta depends on which theoretician you talk to. I personally believe Marx lays out the groundwork for a decentralized economy with centralized aspects. Explaination: The production and distribution of goods is within the hands of the people, the government has no say in what is to be made or where it is to go. What does become centralized is the credit system (the replacement for money). Credit cannot be circulated as money can... you check in to work, labor time is added, you check out, it stops being added. You go to the store and grab some orange juice and labor time is subtracted with respect to how much labor time the orange juice took to produce.
Hmmmm?

I don't know. Still sounds like money. Sounds like you become working slave vs a wage slave to me? The only difference is under capitalism the money is in my pocket and not neubleous with the government.

[Guest1]

I'm not sure what you're talking about gent. Communism is a stateless, classless gift economy, there is no "credit" system, "buyers", or a "state" to centralize.

There's federated collectives, that work together in a decentralized fashion, but use certain aspects of centralism like general assemblies based on a delegate system to create common priorities and the like.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:38 PM



[QUOTE]Quality it difficult to make.

Not so. It may take more time, but difficulty is not necessarily a factor. More time does not mean more difficult.



I don't doubt that it is POSSIBLE to include TQM into a communist factory.

One thing? You never had to build and manage a product have you? It is very easy to wave your hand and say yes it is easy until you try it.

Do you know what quality practices BMW uses? I don't.

I know about Ford. I have trained under Ford quality manuals. I can not compare the quality between BMW and Ford. I don't know what BMW is doing. I do know that Ford has a very good philosophy that they DON'T follow and the Japanese follow religiously. In this respect I can say for sure that a dedicated team sticking to TQM will build low defect product.

Another problem? You have to MEASURE output based on cycle time, defect, waste, and PROFIT to know if your quality practise is worth while. That is the whole point of TQM. What is the point of making something gold plated perfect? If you do, that is waste. You only have that concept if there is value in the product.

That is why I don't see TQM being implimented by a communist manufacturing system. Is there a system adovated by communist theory?
Any car nut will tell you that BMW make more reliable, safer, faster :lol: cars.
Anyway Fords suck :P

[NovelGentry]

One thing? You never had to build and manage a product have you? It is very easy to wave your hand and say yes it is easy until you try it.

I've built and managed a lot of "products" -- although none of these were for sale.

All of these products I would consider very high quality for what they're used for. Take example PTK, The Podzilla Tool Kit. It is a toolkit designed for embedded devices with no mouse (more specifically the iPod, but could be used on a number of devices with similar controls). PTK is very streamlined, the code base is small, it uses very little memory, is extremely extensible by the UI programmer, and aside from one nasty bug I can't find (but doesn't effect too much) is seemingly bug free.

So what was my incentive to create such a quality product? Well, if it wasn't small, it wouldn't run smoothly on the slower processors. If it didn't use little memory it wouldn't leave enough for the applications coded with it to do anything else. If it wasn't bug free I wouldn't be able to use it to good myself. If it wasn't extensible it would serve little purpose except as a static use for the iPod and would have had no point in being a toolkit to begin with.


Do you know what quality practices BMW uses? I don't.

I know they go above and beyond what is needed. For example in the new Mini Coopers they use a multi link rear suspension... it is a front wheel drive car. While this does HELP handling, it is not something that is necessary in the least, it's going above and beyond the standard quality you might see in other cheaper front wheel drive vehicles.


Another problem? You have to MEASURE output based on cycle time, defect, waste, and PROFIT to know if your quality practise is worth while. That is the whole point of TQM.

Yes, and this would be done under the socialist system aswell. A defective product will not be considered part of what is outputted given the time put in. So say you produce 20 computer motherboards in an hour, and 3 don't work, you've actually only produced 17. As such, you wouldn't calculate that portion of the average social time using the 20, you'd use the 17.

Profit is not a good means of measuring whether your quality practise is worth while. You can increase profit simply by marketting and still making a shit product... or you can weasle your way into control of a market. Microsoft does not make good product in comparison to others, yet somehow they still make the most profit off their OS and their Office Suite... why?


That is why I don't see TQM being implimented by a communist manufacturing system. Is there a system adovated by communist theory?

You're right it would not be TQM, nor would there necessarily be a name for it, and specifically under communism it probably wouldn't even be objectively visible. Under socialism much of the same ideas would carry over, excluding profit as a motive in any aspect.


I'm not sure what you're talking about gent. Communism is a stateless, classless gift economy, there is no "credit" system, "buyers", or a "state" to centralize.

I do apologize that I was not clear on this, usually I specifically state differences between communist and socialist society. What I was speaking of there was under socialist society.

The reason I didn't specify how this would work under communist society is very simply that it wouldn't be accepted by him either way. Afterall, no one wants to make a WORKING cure for cancer when they can make a Placebo! (sarcasm).

General response to the whole thread:

The fact is that very simply socialism and communism are two very different beasts from the beginning of socialism to the final result of communism. Granted they begin to resemble one another more and more as time goes on, and at some point we won't even be thinking about "are we at communism yet?" It will just happen.

The aim of socialism should always be to move towards communism, and with the way socialism is constructed we will not achieve communism UNTIL people are ready for it, after all, it is THEIR final decision. But this is the "what if" that we pay for true democracy. WHAT IF the masses don't want to destroy the credit system? WHAT IF they feel the job of the administrative should remain functionally separate from the workers counciles? These are not things we can answer or definitely say WILL happen until we see them happen. The fact of the matter is, however, that there's more for it than against it.

I'm a bit dismayed that you didn't follow up on the "no" answer I gave you ahhh_money_is_comfort on the other thread to your question about your supposed cure for cancer. So let me answer that here. The reason I answered no is that you don't have a lifetime of writing which gives me any evidence what so ever that your cure for cancer is indeed a cure for cancer. Marx on the other hand devoted his life to explaining the how's, why's, and when's of communism. I have seen no arguments so far that genuinely refute his explainations. There are of course some flaws in his work, as I've said before the labor theory of value is horrible as a independent critique of capitalism, but it is a wonderful means by which we can realize a much more sustainable economy.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Who really cares about the inherent flaws in the capitalist method of production? They do not relate at all with the production methods within a Communist society.

The fact of the matter is that there really is nothing "mystical" or even substancial to Ed Deming's observations.

Quite simply they are mundane in every aspect.

What misguided kids like our friend here never recognise is one simple question:

Why exactly were "new observations" in regards to production quality actually needed?

Because capital costs will consistently need to be lowerd exponentially with the market value of goods in order to maintain profitability.

Period.

As value and profit cease to exist within a Communist environment, so would this exploitive phenomenon.

Period.



There is no need to manufacture quality if there is no value.

Who says?



Quality it difficult to make. I don't really want to do it.

Ahh, the beauty of capitalism; no one ever really wants to do their job, they do them because they have no other choice.



Another problem? You have to MEASURE output based on cycle time, defect, waste, and PROFIT to know if your quality practise is worth while.

Again, what exactly do archaic capitalist production methods have to do with Communism?

[commiecrusader]

Who gives a fuck about AMIC's narrow-minded and pedantic bollocks. 'Quality' can equal 'Value' in a Communist society, it just won't be monetary value. I would value a good car more than a shitty car that broke down every 3 metres and killed plants as it drove by. The 'Value' comes in an ephereal, rather than materialistic way in a Communist society. It could be expressed through increased friendship, compelmentary behaviour, favours, whatever. There is more to life and 'Value' than money.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:01 PM




[QUOTE]Quality it difficult to make.

Not so. It may take more time, but difficulty is not necessarily a factor. More time does not mean more difficult.



I don't doubt that it is POSSIBLE to include TQM into a communist factory.

One thing? You never had to build and manage a product have you? It is very easy to wave your hand and say yes it is easy until you try it.

Do you know what quality practices BMW uses? I don't.

I know about Ford. I have trained under Ford quality manuals. I can not compare the quality between BMW and Ford. I don't know what BMW is doing. I do know that Ford has a very good philosophy that they DON'T follow and the Japanese follow religiously. In this respect I can say for sure that a dedicated team sticking to TQM will build low defect product.

Another problem? You have to MEASURE output based on cycle time, defect, waste, and PROFIT to know if your quality practise is worth while. That is the whole point of TQM. What is the point of making something gold plated perfect? If you do, that is waste. You only have that concept if there is value in the product.

That is why I don't see TQM being implimented by a communist manufacturing system. Is there a system adovated by communist theory?
Any car nut will tell you that BMW make more reliable, safer, faster :lol: cars.
Anyway Fords suck :P
Do you know why? I can only guess at what BMW is doing. I know for sure about Ford. They have a very good quality philosophy that they do NOT follow.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:49 PM
Who gives a fuck about AMIC's narrow-minded and pedantic bollocks. 'Quality' can equal 'Value' in a Communist society, it just won't be monetary value. I would value a good car more than a shitty car that broke down every 3 metres and killed plants as it drove by. The 'Value' comes in an ephereal, rather than materialistic way in a Communist society. It could be expressed through increased friendship, compelmentary behaviour, favours, whatever. There is more to life and 'Value' than money.
One problem with that idea regarding value. It can not measure factory output, efficiency, and waste. Only a money type value of the product can say for sure if the defects that you strive to fix are 'worth it'. Only a money type value can measure if you produce enough product efficently and if your production line is under control. Or else your only guessing if you wasted resources and man power to produce product. You may simply wave your hand at me as say 'so what'. To you I say this is very important. If you can not measure waste and efficiency, you don't know if your wasting effort and material. I am sure that extra human effort and material can go somewhere else. If you can not control the process to make your product, then to you I say you most likely making defective product. That is what TQM is about. Control of the production line and process of manufacturing. If those are out of control, your making defective product, and waste.

[NovelGentry]

I am sure that extra human effort and material can go somewhere else.

Cause we all know this is what happens under capitalism when workers get laid off. Not to mention how the company sells the material at rock bottom prices to whoever needs it the most!


If you can not control the process to make your product, then to you I say you most likely making defective product.

15 + years of the Free Software movement disagree... but you refuse to take it as an example. I don't use Linux just cause it's free software, it's simply a BETTER product than it's proprietary/capitalist counterparts.

[commiecrusader]

Once again AMIC, you seem to be missing the point, blinded by an obsession over money and profit.


One problem with that idea regarding value. It can not measure factory output, efficiency, and waste. Only a money type value of the product can say for sure if the defects that you strive to fix are 'worth it'. Only a money type value can measure if you produce enough product efficently and if your production line is under control. Or else your only guessing if you wasted resources and man power to produce product.
Money doesn't solve everything. You can see if you are producing your product efficiently and under control by, say, actually joining in the manufacturing process rather than puffing on a cigar in your office. Profit is irrelevant in a Communist society. The only significance that waste and efficiency have is on overall output which still ideally needs to be high, and not wasting resources, purely as this is wasteful and pollutive, not because of costs incurred.


If you can not measure waste and efficiency, you don't know if your wasting effort and material.
You can measure it by taking part. And from my opinion, I wouldn't say I'd wasted my effort and materials if I had created a quality object to the best of my ability that will do it's job as good as any other out there.


If you can not control the process to make your product, then to you I say you most likely making defective product. That is what TQM is about. Control of the production line and process of manufacturing. If those are out of control, your making defective product, and waste.
See NovelGentry's argument.

For future reference in further posts, repeating the same point 3 times in one post does not constitute a strong argument. Rather, it constitutes a very narrow argument.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2005, 09:32 PM
Who really cares about the inherent flaws in the capitalist method of production? They do not relate at all with the production methods within a Communist society.

The fact of the matter is that there really is nothing "mystical" or even substancial to Ed Deming's observations.

Quite simply they are mundane in every aspect.

What misguided kids like our friend here never recognise is one simple question:

Why exactly were "new observations" in regards to production quality actually needed?

Because capital costs will consistently need to be lowerd exponentially with the market value of goods in order to maintain profitability.

Period.

As value and profit cease to exist within a Communist environment, so would this exploitive phenomenon.

Period.



There is no need to manufacture quality if there is no value.

Who says?



Quality it difficult to make. I don't really want to do it.

Ahh, the beauty of capitalism; no one ever really wants to do their job, they do them because they have no other choice.



Another problem? You have to MEASURE output based on cycle time, defect, waste, and PROFIT to know if your quality practise is worth while.

Again, what exactly do archaic capitalist production methods have to do with Communism?
Point I'm making here is very important. I have an existing practise that I can see, push, poke, and observe. It is a well understood machine. I have theory + a machine using the theory.

There is no such case for communism. You either go and get a machine you can observe and watch, then copy else where, or all you got is a religion. It is a 'belief system' that it will work as promised and nothing more.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:13 AM

I am sure that extra human effort and material can go somewhere else.

Cause we all know this is what happens under capitalism when workers get laid off. Not to mention how the company sells the material at rock bottom prices to whoever needs it the most!


If you can not control the process to make your product, then to you I say you most likely making defective product.

15 + years of the Free Software movement disagree... but you refuse to take it as an example. I don't use Linux just cause it's free software, it's simply a BETTER product than it's proprietary/capitalist counterparts.
If your equating making software to making durable good on a production line, your totally making a wrong comparison. Sorry you don't understand manufacturing. Factory production is a process. The is a series of steps that is repeated over and over again for maitaining consistancy. If something is defective and you don't know what it is, you only fiddle with ONE step and nothing else so you don't ruin the consistancy. If that does not work go back to the original step and fix something else.

That is not software or coding. Software and coding is more craft and NOT production.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:25 AM

Do you know why? I can only guess at what BMW is doing. I know for sure about Ford. They have a very good quality philosophy that they do NOT follow.
Your ignorance is not some kind of a trump card. The fact you don't know shit about your own industry is a bit disturbing, infact.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:12 AM

If your equating making software to making durable good on a production line, your totally making a wrong comparison. Sorry you don't understand manufacturing. Factory production is a process. The is a series of steps that is repeated over and over again for maitaining consistancy. If something is defective and you don't know what it is, you only fiddle with ONE step and nothing else so you don't ruin the consistancy. If that does not work go back to the original step and fix something else.

You may be suprised to know the methods you just described are often used for software debugging.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Latifa+Jan 12 2005, 02:23 AM--> (Latifa @ Jan 12 2005, 02:23 AM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 05:25 AM

Do you know why? I can only guess at what BMW is doing. I know for sure about Ford. They have a very good quality philosophy that they do NOT follow.
Your ignorance is not some kind of a trump card. The fact you don't know shit about your own industry is a bit disturbing, infact. [/b]
I'm honest about what I know. I don't pretend to to know what humans will really do in a communist system without any previous verification of real human behavior. I don't pretend to know what humans will really do in a communist factory. I don't pretend to know what human motives will really drive a communist sytem. Sir you do.

Software dubugging is also a process that can be written down and followed by a procedure. It is NOT the same as making identical widgets. You don't sit down and write the same lines of code over and over and over again for each copy of media you sell in a box.

[Latifa]

Software dubugging is also a process that can be written down and followed by a procedure.

This is true. Now why does the rest of your post contradict this?


You don't sit down and write the same lines of code over and over and over again for each copy of media you sell in a box.

Normally you want each of your Microsoft Office or whatever to be the same.


It is NOT the same as making identical widgets.

It is SO the same as making identical widgets.


I'm honest about what I know. I don't pretend to to know what humans will really do in a communist system without any previous verification of real human behavior. I don't pretend to know what humans will really do in a communist factory. I don't pretend to know what human motives will really drive a communist sytem. Sir you do.

I'm glad you came foward and called yourself a dipshit. Unfortunately, you are still retarded.

[NovelGentry]

If your equating making software to making durable good on a production line, your totally making a wrong comparison. Sorry you don't understand manufacturing. Factory production is a process. The is a series of steps that is repeated over and over again for maitaining consistancy. If something is defective and you don't know what it is, you only fiddle with ONE step and nothing else so you don't ruin the consistancy. If that does not work go back to the original step and fix something else.

And thus it becomes apparent you've never programmed, at least not seriously.

Programming is also a process, in fact, it's as much of a process as manufacturing a car on a production line. Let me also note that this may not be the case in the open source software world because indeed it is more of a craft there. It is also OPEN to all, thus the production is not organized except through the technical means by which patches, etc are submitted. But this is, whether you want to believe it or not, part of the goal of communism. As workers we should take pride in our work, and all work should be a craft of sorts, we should not just be extensions to the machine.

I'm sorry you don't understand programming.

Properly designed software is very much like any manufactured good. If there is something wrong, you fiddle with the function (the step) that deals with that. Well made libraries are the "pre-manufactured" goods that go into other manufactured goods. For example, a good password library is the doors and locks on your car.


Sir you do.

Yes, because we know what communism is -- you obviously do not. This is the same argument capitalists use when they say "we're not really in capitalism." And they're somewhat right, we're not. It has a majority of things in common with capitalism, but it is not STRICTLY capitalism. But your statement is no different than saying, here is theory X, theory X applies to principles A B and C. How do you know that X will adhere to principles A B and C? Because those are what theory X IS.


Software dubugging is also a process that can be written down and followed by a procedure.

The general ideas can, yes, but there is no definitive way that all software bugs can be fixed. Just like there's no difinitive way to fix anything on a manufactured good, if something breaks, there's a PROPER way, yes, but there's also the makeshift way that one who doesn't have time to deal with the proper way can do it. This is very much the same in the software world.


It is NOT the same as making identical widgets.

Yes, it is, and this is why in programming we have things called widgets. For example, a scroll bar is a widget. All programs made with the same toolkit will have the SAME EXACT scrollbar. Just like every 1999 Ford Taurus will have the SAME EXACT door.


You don't sit down and write the same lines of code over and over and over again for each copy of media you sell in a box.

No, that'd be foolish and inefficient. Instead you simply copy the binary. Source code is much like the parts of the parts. Widgets and library functions are in essence the simple parts. And the application as a whole would be the final manufactured product.

What you propose would be as foolish and inefficient as someone sitting down and redesigning the engine of a car for each and every car you sell, despite the design of the engine being exactly the same every time. You design once, copy repeatedly, and assemble the number of products from those copies.