Hacker News Reader

Comment by CapitalistCartr | Hacker News Reader

I used to belong to a model railroad club. There were two members who argued about nearly everything; didn't get along at all. Eventually, one of them resigned from the club. I thought: Finally, things can run smoothly now, without that nonsense. But from that point, the club slowly died. It took over a year, but that was the inflection point.

The conflict had been part of keeping things moving forward, but I didn't recognize it.

View on HN

The conflict probably exasperated everyone, while creating a hostile environment that wasn't interesting for new people to join the club.

Cases like that are sometimes called "creative tension".

Edit: super surprised by the multiple downvotes. I guess the connection is obvious to everyone else - so could someone spell out for me what parent poster likely had in mind?

----

Original comment:

I am having trouble seeing why this was brought to mind for you. Was the moral of your story, for you, that when members argue bitterly ("didn't get along at all") to the point of one of them resigning, it means things are moving along?

Okay but what reminded you of the Xi story - there was really no arguments mentioned?

If I extrapolate your lesson too far (I don't think this is what you're saying) it could be that you say, where there is no bitter member conflict, projects die? So, if the members agree that Xi should stay in power, without bitter argument, it is a sign the Party is dying?

That seems absurd. But then I just don't understand why you thought of your anecdote.

EDIT: I'd just like to understand your point.

It's the stagnation of very low friction systems (aka yes-man systems).

It happens in corporations. It happens in political systems.

Take someone like Steve Jobs. He was emperor, in this example. That was particularly the case in his second stint at Apple. His personality sparked friction however, he cultivated it on purpose, constantly seeking it out. He wanted to fight over ideas and got upset when people wouldn't fight with him. Had he not done so, stagnation would be the only possible outcome given his managerial dominance, it would have led to a yes-man system, and Jobs would have been flying entirely blind (his yes-men would hide everything from him, lie to him, tell him only what he wanted to hear, etc). For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.

Gates and Bezos also likewise cultivate/d friction, despite being emperor equivalents in their companies. Gates liked to aggressively challenge people to combat him on ideas. He inserted friction. He similarly would get upset if you walked away from a battle without resolution (Paul Allen describes that in his book).

Putin and Stalin as dictators and personality contrasts, crush/ed friction, and ruled by strict edict. They require/d unquestioning allegiance and obedience, seeking minimal challenges to their approaches and ideas. That's extremely common in political dictatorships. That approach can only lead to stagnation, which you have historically universally seen in political dictatorships. Obama has a good quip about this aspect of political life in his episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Comedian in Cars, in terms of interacting with dictator types.

> For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.

Mussolini was not different. For example whenever he went to visit a military airport, they would bring airplanes from all over Italy to increase the numbers. What he thought was part of a big airforce were in fact the same planes over and over. When he went to war with Hitler he probably thought he had a good army. In practice since the suppliers of the army where chosen through corruption and nepotism, the soldiers couldn't even get working boots.

Yeah, like e.g. fake storefronts at G8 summits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22738710

IIRC Russia has entire fake building facades for the upcoming World Cup.

The drive to please higher-ups/Putin is quiet strong there. See their election turnout "encouragements".

If you incentivize an action, it's going to happen. Here there is a incentive to lie.

One of Bill Clinton's qualities, is he listens to everybody and speaks and engages with them on a personal level. In most cases the leader is just a judge on a excellent team. Team does most of the work.

I found your comment useful, but you mention contrasting examples, and you don't mention where Xi falls. What is his approach to his inner circle?

Parent comment was an anecdote that basically implies that there would be less opposition within or outside the party to counterbalance Xi & supporters the longer he remains within power. Opposition is a form of conflict or argumentation to provide a counterbalance against bad/extreme ideas. So if there's less opposition, then likely this could signal the beginning of the end of the current system in China.

I wonder what would have happened if the other person had resigned?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com