 |
|
|
|
Monday, May 7, 2012 - 11:20 pm  I know that in the past, it has been requested that presidents have the option to have a country that does not rely on profit or money. This game assumes that all countries are capitalist, and it's really not possible to have any other kind of system. This has been suggested on more than one occasion, and I think that the addition of the option for a moneyless economy be made a priority by the development team.
| |
| Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - 01:16 am lolcommies
| |
| Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - 11:51 am Well I do think that when choosing a certain form of government for your country there should be flaws or bonuses like there is in the civilization games.
| |
| Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 02:17 am though in civillization democracy is the best hands down they should be more equal in simcountry except for the communists they can be the worst
| |
| Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 02:28 am Gunther, true communist society IS democratic. You are confusing democracy with capitalism. The cold war had nothing to do with democracy; it was capitalism verses communism. To make it fair in this game, all systems should be equally good. Sure, make it a tradeoff, but a FAIR tradeoff for choosing communism over capitalism.
| |
| Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 03:53 am Having different government types could be very interesting. The 'communist' countries could receive more of a benefit from state run corporations, and less of a benefit from private enterprise corporations. However, there is not currently an option for a communist government - socialist is perhaps the closest. And the fit there is very problematic. However, if game effects by country type were to be introduced, I'd argue that game effects were based off the government types as they were intended to be - not the way they were implemented in the real world. The world's largest democracy at the moment is ....China. So, there would be a lot of leeway on how the government types are actually played. What if a country wants to choose neither communism or capitalism? Fascist states are a possibility, and allowed now. Where corporations are allowed, but broken to the will of the state. Run privately, but overseen by the government. The biggest draw for them in the real world was their lack of trade unions, although worker's rights were protected and mandated by the government. I don't think you can get to a money-less society in the modern world. Unless a country is completely self-contained, it is going to need some kind of resources from the rest of the world. Most countries won't barter. (Unless you have something they really want, like oil.) But even them it would be simpler to pay you in currency than in sheep. Much easier to push a button and electronically transfer the funds, than to herd all those sheep aboard a ship or railroad, and bring em over. Less smelly too. (hoping to be marshal ney again soon)
| |
Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 05:05 am
China is not a democracy at all. It is a single-party state. On topic, how would you propose implementing a moneyless society in SimCountry (or at all)? I don't think it can be done in the context of a modern economy...
| |
| Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 05:11 am Very glad you asked, Kitsune. http://international-proletariat.webs.com//pdai-mani-e5.pdf The link above is the Manifesto of National Proletarianism. This is my own proposal for a moneyless society that could hypothetically run in the modern day.
| |
| Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 08:59 pm China (from Wikipedia) Starting in the 1980s, they allow village elections to take place. All higher levels of government are indirectly elected with candidates vetted by the government. As a result, the highest levels of government contain either Communist Party members, their United Front allies, and sympathetic independents. United Front (same source) he United Front in the People's Republic of China is a nominally popular front led by the Communist Party of China. It is managed by the United Front Work Department (Chinese: ä¸å ±ä¸å¤®ç»æé¨) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and besides the communist party it consists of eight minor parties and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce. Yes, it is the world's largest democracy. A different form from the two-party system in the United States, but still fits the bill. Now to go and read Marhal's link.
| |
Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 10:47 pm 
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 04:07 am Everyone knows India is the worlds largest democracy there is no such thing as a true democracy so there is some leeway allowed but China is not a democracy just ask them yourself they'll tell you Marshall I'm not confusing democracy with capitalism I was referring to another game in which democracy and communism are different forms of government its not 100% accurate and I was just kiddding about communism being the worst I just wanted to give you a hard time and I don't know if you can say true communism is democratic because true communism is supposed to manifest in a society in which government is not needed and if communism is a form of economy then why would that have anything to do with being democratic or not its just in history all notable communist countries were dictatorships
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 04:09 am And why is it everytime I press on a link it directs me to the simcountry homepage
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 04:11 am And Richard anyone can post on wikipedia ;) I hated it when my teachers used to tell me that
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 02:56 pm Marshall, I have to disagree with you on a couple of points. Communism is not democratic; it is the very essence of elitism, couched in deceptive rhetoric. The Cold War WAS about democracy vs. communism, but capitalism was able to outspend and out-innovate the socialist Marx-Lenin economic model, while at the same time providing a higher standard of living for the "proletariat". One other observation: the U.S is not a democracy, but a representative republic, though "democracy" is commonly used to differentiate between the free countries and the oppressed countries.
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 03:40 pm The Chinese People do not guide their nation, their Government guides them. In democracy, it is the opposite.
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 08:54 pm I didn't say that all communism is democratic; I said that TRUE communism is democratic. I will also point out that true and pure communism, as envisioned by Karl Marx, has never existed.
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 08:56 pm Well, since my link isn't working, I will just copy and paste the entire text into my next post here.
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 09:18 pm The Manifesto of National Proletarianism By: Karactus J. Blome Fifth Edition I. Capitalism: The Hypocrisy Capitalism: An economic ideology that centers on greed and exploitation. The People are never in a worse system than this abominable, hypocritical system. In a capitalist society, the people work to satisfy only their own wants and needs. Corporations pay each worker individually for their labor, and take credit for achievements; credit that rightfully belongs to the workers who accomplished them! Most capitalists care nothing for the poverty and suffering of the lowly workers, a class that consists of more than half the population. Yet capitalism also promises freedom to the consumer, allowing to choose and purchase any product they wish. Capitalism promises to preserve your freedom. If an individual decided to stop paying back their debt, they could. Do not fool yourself. This freedom is an illusion. If the individual stops paying back debt, what would it cost them? Their home? Their car? So is capitalism truly free? No. Capitalism is never free. Think of the proletarian, who slaves in the factory, contributes greatly to the well-being of the corporation, and ultimately dies in the same status. There is, perhaps, no greater hypocrisy than this. A proletarian, born into poverty, is poor only because he was born into a poor family. He cannot afford college when he grows up, and so he lives his life, as his father before him, working to his grave. This is seen, even in America, the Land of Opportunity, the alleged liberty-and-justice-for-all, free-market capital of the world! All of this, too, is an illusion. They say, in America, that if you work hard, you will become rich. Anyone who works hard can achieve much and prosper. Anyone who says such things must think me a fool to make their lies so transparent! I return, again, to the proletarian, who worked in the factory for years. He works almost ceaselessly to provide for his family, on the brink of starvation. Capitalists talk of freedom and opportunity, and think nothing of the workers who suffer for an opportunity that they never enjoy because they are either too busy or too poor! No one should ever have to suffer needlessly just to provide for their family! What happens to those who are lazy? They lose their jobs, become homeless, along with their families. When the lazy man dies, what of his children? They grow up into poor workers, because of the actions of their father. They should not have to pay for their father's laziness. Those who argue that the only reason people are poor is that they do not deserve wealth or well-being have a pathetic argument, at best. You cannot argue that those children wanted to be poor, or deserve their poverty! And what of the executives who run those factories? Most of them were born into wealth, corruption, and exploitation. Likewise, just as most proletarians do not deserve to be poor, most executives do not deserve their wealth, do not complain that your stock was worthless; your certificate was just paper before the crash, and it's just paper now! The same can be said about money, itself. What is a dollar bill? It is a slip of paper with a famous person's picture on it and a number. It has no practical use, other than what any slip of paper is good for: for blowing your nose, wiping your face, and cleaning your behind!Perhaps currency would make sense if a dollar bill was a unit of how much paper is worth 1 credit, or whatever word you want to use to measure worth. If that were the case, the fifty dollar bill would be fifty times larger than the one dollar bill. If it worked that way, currency would make sense. In reality, the fifty dollar bill is exactly the same size as the one dollar bill, and it is made of the same material. There are only two differences between a one dollar bill and a fifty dollar bill: the fifty dollar bill has a different number and a different face on it. Any paper bill, no matter how much it is supposedly worth, is just a fancy slip of paper with a president and a number on it! People really need to get over their obsession with paper, and realize the truth, that paper is paper, and nothing more! And what of intellectual property? The idea of intellectual property is not merely revolting; it horrifies me, and you should hate this abomination as well! For the sake of clarification, I am going to define intellectual property right now. For our purposes, intellectual property is defined as, "Legal ownership of an idea, thought, or other non-material possession". So now that we have our definition, I can properly explain what I hate so much about intellectual property, and I am not going to sugar-coat this at all. For those of you capitalists out there who are reading this, it will be a hard pill to swallow, so reader discretion is advised. If you think you could be offended, don't read the next paragraph. Intellectual property is the most pathetic and worthless of all the worthless and pathetic points of capitalism! I have absolutely no respect at all for intellectual property! I spit in the face of those who expect me to pay them for an idea! Ideas are also imaginary concepts. Unlike currency, which is worthless, ideas can be priceless if they are good ideas, or they can be worthless if they are bad ideas, but either way, you cannot expect me to accept that your ideas can be converted into more wealth for yourself, simply by slapping them onto a sheet of paper, selling them for three dollars, and saying that nobody else can take your idea! This very manifesto came from an idea, and you do truly believe that I published this with the intention of making a quick buck? I would kill myself before even a penny was made on writing this manifesto! So if you are looking to publish this manifesto and make money by selling it in your pathetic bookstores, it will never happen! I will never copyright this document, nor will I ever sell it, nor allow anyone else to sell it! This document must always be free for all to read and enjoy!It didn't cost me anything to come up with this idea, so it shouldn't cost you anything to read it!Furthermore, hurrah to the video pirates! Hurrah to the music pirates! Hurrah to the software pirates! Never stop pirating until this wretched concept is destroyed, and capitalism overthrown! The ultimate cause of poverty and greed in capitalism is currency! II. Communism We cannot be too harsh on capitalism without first looking at the main alternative. Communism, as envisioned by Karl Marx, is an ideal system. A Marxist society stresses collectivism, and glorified the importance of the people as a whole. Communist nations take pride in what the people accomplish together, through their work and dedication to the community. Communism also forbids private ownership of any commodity, and everything is collectively owned by the community. In communism, wealth is redistributed equally among everyone. While communism sounds ideal, it is not without its problems. There is no incentive to work, as no matter how hard one works, they get nothing out of it. People stop working, and as a result, the system fails. The people's collective laziness causes everyone to become poor. Communism fails because everyone is treated equally, not fairly. Fairness and equality are two completely different things. Imagine if you went to the doctor's office with a headache, and the doctor gives you an aspirin and sends you home. The next patient broke their leg, and the doctor gives him an aspirin and sends him home. Finally, the next patient has brain cancer, and the doctor gives him an aspirin and sends him home. This is the communist level of equality. Fairness is more important than equality, which communism tries to substitute for fairness. As a result, some people have few needs, and get more than they actually need, while others have more needs, and do not get enough. However, I have more respect for communism than I have for capitalism. At least communism tries to be fair to the workers. Capitalism stomps all over fairness and leaves it in the mud. This is our Party's official opinion of communism. III. Socialism One attempt to solve the problems of economics, is a compromise, taking some communist concepts and some capitalist concepts. This is called socialism. Our party believes that socialism is the best of the three systems, but that it still is not an acceptable system. Before I explain why socialism is unacceptable, I will first describe it, both to prove my credibility to you, the reader, and to make clear, the concept, to you readers who do not understand socialism entirely. Socialism is a transitional state between capitalism and communism, where property can be privately owned, or collectively owned, and domestic trading, whether between private companies, or between a private company and the state, is regulated by the state, but otherwise legal. Socialism also uses high income taxes to provide free services to the citizens, and to create a safety net for the poor. Socialism sounds reasonable, but one problem remains, at least, that is visible to me: it is inefficient. The state needs to keep records to ensure that people do not cheat the system. They must exercise too much control over their citizens, and ensure that all trades are fair, by definition in the laws. This can cause too many delays, making trade slow and inefficient. Most socialist states provide free health-care for the injured, the sick, and the elderly. The Party believes in, and supports free health-care, however, we believe there is a better way to implement it. This is our opinion of socialism as a whole. The only flaw of socialism is that it still uses currency. Goods are still bought with a slip of paper. Because of this, the state must still ensure that the trades are fair, and the delays are reducing the effectiveness of the system. So socialism, while better than capitalism and communism, is still not acceptable to us. Nothing more to be said. IV. National Proletarianism If capitalism, communism, nor socialism are acceptable, a new system is needed. I am naming this system 'National Proletarianism'. In a National Proletarian economy, there is no currency of any type. Currency is the root cause of poverty. There are no private companies, as the government controls all means of production. So, all workers work for the government. In place of currency, the state would stockpile the factory production of all the factories in the country, and it would use this production to reward the workers. The government obtains these goods through its factories, run by workers who are rewarded with goods from other factories. In our National Proletarian system, the hard workers are rewarded with more goods that are higher quality than the less productive workers. Therefore, there is incentive to work, unlike communism. The goods produced for the state are given directly to the workers who earn them. Additionally, private trading between individuals or groups would be illegal, as the individuals may not have earned the goods they are trading for. However, gift-giving would be perfectly acceptable because you are not exploiting the person who is receiving the gift, and it is being obtained at no cost to them. Extensive labor records will be kept by the government, and will be updated regularly, and compared to the standards that were set democratically by the last generation of workers. If the government finds that you are exceeding the standards set forth at your level, they will increase your quality of living, giving you access to more options, and to more goods of increased quality. This should create the work incentive that is lacked by communism. Finally, two lines will be drawn to determine the maximum position achievable by any individual. Once an individual reaches this level, they will not be allowed to rise any further. Instead, they must work to maintain that position. The other line is drawn at the bottom limit, where it is impossible to drop down any further. This lower limit should be placed right above homelessness. Such an individual will have a home, and all their basic needs met. However, life for those at the bottom should not be pleasant. They will get only the bare minimum. All new workers should begin at the lower limit and work their way up. Additionally, the state would make sure to enforce the eight-hour workday. The workers will not be happy if they are overworked. Every worker will only ever work for eight hours or less. After eight hours, they will be told to go home. Expanding on this, nobody will work on national holidays, and workers will also choose their own work schedule. Some may work weekends if they choose, while others may work on weekdays. That will be left up to the individual. On death, a worker's possessions should be returned to the state. The exception is family heirlooms. Heirlooms may be passed down to the next generation. If a good, earned by an individual becomes defective, the individual need not earn a new one. You would just send the item back to the government, who would ship it back to the factory where it was made. It would be repaired and shipped back to the government, who would relay the package back to you. This would all happen at no cost to you. Even art and music would have an industry in such a state. Although such industries would not be nearly as big as the mining or agriculture industries, art would be industrialized as an entertainment industry, and artists would be rewarded based on how many copies of their work were requested from the state. Because this would require people to know about it, they should be taught to paint and to make music in school, if they so choose. Art shows may be hosted to boost awareness of the work of any artist who participates. A National Proletarian education system should prepare the younger generations for work. They should stress the importance of work, as well as the lessons of history. A National Proletarian economics class should teach of the failures of capitalism and communism. Sciences are also important. True to the ideal of this party, education should be provided to all for free, and should be individualized to train each individual for their own chosen career. Teachers should be rewarded based on the average grade of their students. But how would you reward a scientist? Would you count his equations? That sounds ridiculous; we also have a solution for this problem as well. The job of the scientist would be merged with the job of an engineer. The resulting hybrid will be called an "inventor". Inventors would apply their scientific knowledge to solve problems in mechanics, electronics, or other engineering fields. The inventor would be rewarded based on the number of working inventions they create, or on the number of inventions that fail at first, but are later fixed and shown to work. This solution would be applied to any job that involves intelligence. Our Party takes no stance on religion. Our system will tolerate any religion. Churches and temples can be constructed on the condition that, either the people of faith construct the building themselves, or that they find others who are willing to assist them in constructing the building. Our Party believes that military personnel deserve the highest amount of respect and the greatest quality of life, automatically. Soldiers risk their lives for the well-being of the Proletariat, and should be rewarded with the highest honors. At the head of the military, should be a Marshal. This Marshal should be elected democratically by the other officers in the military. The Marshal is to be supreme commander of all armed forces of the state. This should include the army, navy, air force or air defense force, border guard, and military police. The extent of the Marshal's power should be limited to the military, only. The Marshal is to serve until either retirement, resignation, or death. National Proletarianism carries no prejudice that is based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. The only prejudice that our party carries, is against capitalism, and against those who willingly participate in capitalism. Capitalism and Fascism are both sworn enemies to our party. Additionally, any uniforms, decorations, or similar items should be considered heirlooms, and may be passed down to a soldier's children on event of his death. Law enforcement and emergency services should be integrated into the army. National Proletarianism will not acknowledge intellectual property. In our system, you have absolutely no right to profit from an idea that took no effort to imagine in the first place. I am going to be completely honest about this, but in other words, regarding intellectual property in a National Proletarian state, you have no rights at all, except to receive credit for your idea in the first place. Indeed, plagiarism would still be a crime. Other than that, you have no rights to it. Government will also exist locally. Each township will have a democratically-elected Council of Workers who will be responsible for local legislation. Each town will also have its own stockpile of factory production, with which it will reward the workers. Another way to look at it, is that each township has its own miniature version of the national government, and that the whole state is simply a union of these smaller, autonomous townships. The national government could transfer goods between the townships, in order to assist the growth of smaller towns, and allow everything to grow steadily. Of course, each individual town will not have its own army. Instead, each town will have an army unit stationed in it, to not only provide protection, but also for enforcing local and national laws. National Proletarianism also promotes tourism, and any National Proletarian state will happily provide for the needs of tourists during their stay. All airports and seaports will be owned by the state, and will be open to receive tourists as well as immigrants. The International Party of the Proletariat firmly believes in an open-border policy, and would happily welcome immigrants with open arms. Under our system, the more workers we have, the better. As soon as these immigrants go to a government office and register for work, their names will be entered into the computer system, and they will officially become citizens. They will be given jobs and a home, and they will receive the same respect that any other citizen would get. However, the state cannot allow corporations from foreign lands to enter their lands. Regarding abortion, our party's stance is "pro-choice". It is none of the state's concern. Women have the right to decide what is best for their own body. All National Proletarian states will exist as democratic, self-sufficient, industrial, and militarized nations. V. The Supreme Proletariat On the national level, each National Proletarian state will have only one legislative body in its government. This body will always be its Supreme Proletariat. The Supreme Proletariat will consist of experienced and/or retired workers who have already served their time in the workforce. When workers retire, their entire generation should retire together, and the Supreme Proletarians should be elected democratically from among the generation that is retiring. Once elected, these members would serve for life, or until resignation. This body functions much like the US Congress. However, corruption is not tolerated at all in the Supreme Proletariat. In all National Proletarian states, any member of the government who is convicted of corruption will be hanged immediately. I suppose if you wanted to be even more extreme about it, you could suspend the bodies of these politicians from a steel cable above the capital building and let their body remain on the cable for all eternity, reminding other politicians of the penalty for corruption. I doubt we would really do that but I can't speak for a state that doesn't yet exist. The Supreme Proletariat should collectively hold absolute authority over all legislative matters, but should be kept in check by the executive branch of the government, consisting solely of the Army VI. The Army All National Proletarian armies will be named "Army of the Proletariat". There can be no other names. The Army is the entire executive branch of the government. The Army command structure will have a democratically elected Marshal as its commander-in-chief. The Marshal is first elected democratically from among the military officers in the Army of the Proletariat. After a Marshal has been chosen in this manner, he or she must be approved by the Supreme Proletariat with an approval vote. The Marshal is directly responsible for all military and law enforcement matters. In a National Proletarian state, the Army and the Police are one and the same. However, law enforcement will not be in the same branch of the Army as the combat troops. The police will be integrated into the Army's home guard. The Marshal has the power to veto a bill that is passed by the Supreme Proletariat, unless the bill has passed with a two-thirds majority. The Marshal's veto is not a refusal to pass a law. Instead, his veto is merely a refusal to enforce that law. The law still gets passed; a veto just means it will not be enforced. The Marshal will not be exempt from hanging if he is found to be corrupt. He will be treated just like any other corrupt politician. He will first be impeached and then executed in that order. In addition to a police force, the Army will also have a branch called the "Workers' Rights Troops". Workers' Rights Troops have two responsibilities, which are to ensure that the Proletariat is being treated fairly by the government, and to defend the government from corruption. The Workers' Rights Troops will be the executioners of the corrupt, even if they must hang their own Marshal. The Army of the Proletariat's resources would not be limited by such things as budget. Whatever the Army needs, the Army will certainly get!If there are no factories to produce what the Army needs, then factories will be built to produce them. So if you think about it in that way, you might imagine an extremely mechanized army, armed with tanks that are the size of two-story buildings and massive artillery batteries that can level entire cities within minutes. Indeed, anything you can imagine this military having in its arsenal is not only possible, it's probable that they will have it. There is absolutely no limit to the military power of a National Proletarian state, which is something to think about if you are considering invading one. The Army of the Proletariat will send your whole country straight to hell when they annex your territory, crush your capitalist government, and fly the Hammer and Gear flag over all your ruined cities! VII. Foreign Relations Our Party's official opinion on foreign relations is that the less foreign relations there are, the better. We oppose foreign trade, simply because it is unnecessary in our system. We need not import goods, as we can produce it ourselves. The only reason for a National Proletarian state to trade would be to acquire resources it doesn't already have. In this case, because we oppose currency, the state could only barter for the resources. We oppose any and all foreign private companies who build facilities in a National Proletarian state. We oppose it so strongly, that we would be willing to use military force to stop it. Any privately-owned factories that refuse to give up control to the state would be shelled to the ground by Army artillery, bombed from the air, or torched by soldiers. Our Party's opinion on war is neutrality unless attacked. We believe in fighting wars in defense of National Proletarianism, and that such a state should be prepared to defend its territory. Therefore, we support militarism and encourage the massing of large armies. The Party is also opposed to signing any treaties or joining any alliance, except, perhaps, with another National Proletarian state. This is our official stance on foreign relations. VIII. The Courts Our judicial courts would be directly democratic. We would have no juries, because court cases would be voted on directly by the People; any citizen who wishes to vote "innocent" or "guilty", would be allowed to. This is because we believe that a twelve-person jury is not sufficient for representing the opinion of the People, for how can twelve people represent the opinions of the millions of residents who might disagree? Let the People speak for themselves!They need no jury to represent them. Each case should have a voting period of three days, and after three days, the votes should be counted up and tallied. The fate of the criminal would depend on nothing more than a simple majority. This will also avoid the problem of using the letter of the law to defeat the purpose of the law. Technicalities mean nothing if the People are angry at you. If you cheated the system, or the people it represents, you will be punished for it. Additionally, each crime will have a very specific punishment. There will not be any varying degrees of a crime. For example, if you intentionally killed another human being, we won't care how you killed them; you are a murderer, end of story! Expanding on this example, every murderer will get the exact same punishment as the last, no exceptions. Conclusion Upon this Manifesto, we, the International Party of the Proletariat, establish our principles and concepts, and our ideology. We establish our cause, and we shall continue to fight for a better future of opportunity and freedom for each and every human being on Earth. WORKING CLASSES OF THE WORLD, UNITE AND REVOLT!!!
| |
| Thursday, May 10, 2012 - 09:34 pm Sorry about the lack of a space between some of the sentences. This happened because it didn't copy directly. The actual PDF version of the document does not have these imperfections.
| |
| Friday, May 11, 2012 - 12:18 pm darn, why even bother which type of government. i'm the owner of my empire, none of my companies can make decisions on their own, or can they? a capitalism society could only exist if there are no owner of countries. whatever government you choose, does the GM actually have the knowledge of how each government system works? ;)
| |
| Friday, May 11, 2012 - 08:09 pm Marshall: This is not an attack on you, personally, I think you have given this a lot of thought. However, most of your manifesto is either bunk, ignores physics, or does not take into account human nature. There are a few good ideas, though. Maybe we can debate this sometime.
| |
| Friday, May 11, 2012 - 10:45 pm Well, I am an inventor, not an economist or an accountant. I designed National Proletarianism using the engineering design process, meaning that it's still a work-in-progress (notice that the Manifesto is in its Fifth Edition). National Proletarianism was not 'philosophized', it is 'engineered'. Many people think of me as being a philosopher, and I suppose that I am also a philosopher, in a way. But contrary to what most people think about it, National Proletarianism did not come from a philosopher who dreamed about a 'life over the rainbow', so to speak. Instead it came from the mind of an inventor, who wanted to make life easier. Sure, I am a philosopher, but I was not using that mindset when I was writing the Manifesto; I was in the mindset of an inventor who saw many problems, and sought to invent, or engineer, a solution for them.
| |
| Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 12:25 am Your confusing trade with capitalism Communism believe in government ran markets and the ideal everyone gives everything to a few who distribute it equally. Capitalism believes that the government should have no interference with the markets and that all goods made shouldn't have government influence(This a trade is influenced by private corporations and enterprises). Every nation "Trades" The soviet union in the cold war had many jobs all of which traded goods with other nations. But everything was ran by the government they still had money and used it for operation the "Empire" thought the cold war.
| |
| Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 10:10 am in relation to simcountry, please clarify how a government type really affect/effect on your empire? i just came across that the GM has some corporations in my countries, and i wonder why in the real world NATO does not have a company in the USA? maybe NATO and USA ain't exactly a good analogy, but i'm sure you got my point if it's my country, i should ran it the way i see fit. these interferences from the GM are not realistic. in my view, the only roles the GM has would be (1) enforce contracts of transactions, (2) make sure the simcountry program is bug free, (3)provide money/loans to players so they can develop their countries those should be the very basic i don't see how system without any form of common denominator will operate either. even in simcountry there are two form of currencies, beign gold coins and simcountry dollars...these are confusing enough already. i'm new on simcountry, so what do i know :D
| |
| Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 02:49 pm @ Xyooj: As far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the type of government in simcountry has no effect on how the game is run, but is a cosmetic option for player satisfaction only. @ Marshall: I agree that there are problems in most any form of government, and that government seems to be a necessary evil, at least until humans are all pure in heart, as it were. Even though our ideas on what constitutes an ideal government are probably very different, I am glad to see someone actually analyzing the situation. Being an older duffer who lived thru the Cold war, I tend to see Red when communism is extolled.
| |
| Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 06:03 pm Yes, SuperSoldier. The Soviet Union traded and had money. But you guys don't seem to get the fact that National Proletarianism DOESN'T USE CURRENCY, and removes the need for trading between entities. My theory states that if you are a diligent and hard worker, you can obtain nearly anything you want simply by asking for it; why would you need to trade? If all you do is trade and exploit others, contributing nothing to your society but greed, then you don't deserve anything but your life anyway! You guys are acting as if National Proletarianism is some outlandish dream that violates the laws of science. In fact, no rules would be broken. Nobody will go faster than the speed of light. I am not proposing that we divide by 0, or create and destroy matter or energy with no regard to the laws of conservation; it's perfectly simple: As long as there are animals and plants to provide us with food, we will always need farmers to run the operations. As long as there are farmers and farms, we will always need farm equipment. As long as we need farm equipment, we will always need workers and factories to MAKE the farm equipment. As long as there are workers and factories to make the farm equipment, we will always need other factories to MAKE the parts and tools that go into making the farm equipment! I think you can see where I'm going with this. In order to make all the tools and parts for the equipment, we will always need the metals, plastics, and other materials from which the parts and tools are made. This creates jobs in mining. ...chain-reaction... In the end, everyone needs to be fed, housed, educated, clothed, etc... This is the principle that my theory operates on. As long as there are people with needs to be met, we will always need each other to help us provide for those needs, and as long as everyone works together and contributes, all needs will be met; no laws of science have been violated by this theory.
| |
| Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 01:14 am One of the laws of physics that would be violated is your justice system. If everyone had to act as jury on every case, with 3-day response time on each case, there wouldn't be enough minutes in a day to do this, even if the proletariat did nothing but vote 24 hours day and night without food, drink, or sleep. This would have a domino effect as no agriculture or manufacturing would take place. And what happens when 1 billion people decide they want, say, i-phones? If you manufactured 100,000 per day (which I bet you couldn't) it would take 25-30 years to make that many.
| |
| Sunday, May 13, 2012 - 09:13 am @maclean, that's what i thought about simcountry too. the political system does not have any affect on the game. even if the political system of the country affect how you manage your countries, i still think the GM will not have enough staff to know the intercacies of each type of political systems anyway. @marshal, if i'm understanding your philosophy correctly, you're proposing that we go back to the age where if i'm a chicken farmer and you're a duck farmer, then if i want to eat duck then i come ask you and you want chicken then you come ask me? or we can trade between ducks and chickens? the problem with this system i see is that my chicken may weight more than your duck, so will you trade two ducks for one of my chickens? if we disagree on the trading terms, then you'll just have to eat ducks and i'll just have to eat chicken only? unless of course if you and i have competitors that we can go to, without bothering each other? and i highly doubt that you would give your ducks away for free, if a thousands of people come to ask for free? my understanding of communism system is that no matter how hard you work, you get the same as someone else who sits around or done nothing. that is perhaps the downfall of the communism system. in a capitalism society, you want to earn more then you have to work more. a problem of this is that the rich will use their money to hire others to work, and the rich does not have to work at all to earn a living (if they're rich enough). the good thing is that it's not a slave system, everyone has a choice to work or not to work for a certain rich person. when i said we need a common denometer, that is the currency we operate on. whatever system out there, there must be a common denometer to make it work. even the physics of changing one form of energy into another form requires a common denometer, which is the converting machine.
| |
| Monday, May 14, 2012 - 08:30 pm Maclean: It takes 30 seconds to cast a vote. Citizens would just have three days to cast it. Besides, voting would not be compulsory. It violates no laws of physics. In fact, a similar justice system was employed in the Greek city-state of Athens. Xyooj: You are not understanding my philosophy correctly. Individuals would not conduct any trade with each other. The following is a more accurate scenario: You are a farmer that works hard to feed the people of your town. Because a great number of workers depend on your farm for food, you are one of the most respected members of your community. Because the State owns all means of production, the distribution of the food that you produce would be conducted by the local government. The local government would maintain a stockpile of your surplus (in other words, you would keep all the food that you need to feed yourself and your family, and you would give the rest to the local government). This stockpile would be distributed (as needed) to the workers who need them. In exchange, you would have access to any product that you want or need. Let's say that you wanted a truck. In that case, you would go to a local government office, fill out some paperwork, and the government would then arrange for the truck to be delivered to your farm. You would get a free truck because you feed the workers; in exchange, the workers operate factories to provide for your own needs as well. And this would be true regardless of what your occupation is. If you are a hard-working member of the community, you will be respected because you're labor is what fuels the powerful system that is National Proletarianism. If you are a hard-working mechanic that does a good job, and there is a good that you want or need, the local government would be obligated to provide you with that good in exchange for your labor. So in essence, everyone works for the State, and the State provides for all. However, if you don't work, or if you are not working hard enough, you should not expect as much support from the government. This is what creates work incentive in National Proletarianism: You only get out of the system what you put into it. If you don't work at all, then you will only be provided with the bare necessities (Housing: probably a 1-room dwelling with nothing inside it but a stove, a faucet with running water, and a toilet. Food: only enough food to keep starvation at bay. You would have naught but your faucet water to drink). This will create the work incentive that communism lacks. Your basic needs are basic rights; you need to work if you want anything extra.
| |
| Monday, May 14, 2012 - 08:48 pm Xyooj: Both capitalism and communism are just terrible. You point your fingers at communists with the accusation that they point guns at their people and force them to work, but capitalists do the exact same thing. The only difference is that communists use guns, and capitalists use starvation. In capitalism, you are forced to compete with your fellow workers in a society of social darwinism; capitalism makes human beings compete and fight each other like animals. Under a capitalist regime, you either work or you starve to death. Capitalism kills just as many people as communism, and the only difference is that communism kills you quickly and painlessly with a gun, and capitalism makes you agonize and suffer by starving you. Given the choice, I'll take the gun over starvation any day! National Proletarianism is just a solution that I am engineering to fix these problems with the existing systems. I just think that all of the unnecessary death should stop. Human beings should not be forced to compete with each other just to make a living and survive, nor should people be forced to work at gunpoint. Both capitalism and communism just downright suck!
| |
| Monday, May 14, 2012 - 10:56 pm Population: (Hypothetical world): 5Billion Crimes per day: (Very conservatively) 0.001% Total crimes per 24 hr period: 50,000 @ 30 seconds per vote, 24 hrs in a day: 2880 votes per day. thus, nearly 95% will not be voted on, and can claim injustice somewhere along the line. and the three-day limit is reaaly just an illusion, since cases would back-log so fast, there would never be any time except the 30 seconds before expiration. And this is assuming everyone makes a decision in 10 seconds as to guilt or innocence. Deliver me from such a system. What would happen is that a small segment of the populace would dedicate all their free time to voting, while most would want to spend time with family, sleep, etc. This would amount to a cadre of highly influential citizens who may or may not be able to be swayed by rewards or threats. If voting is not mandatory, that would be the outcome. If voting was made mandatory, see original comment on collapse of economy. Keep thinking it over; you may get the bugs worked out. No first draft is perfect. I tried to figure out this same kind of thing when I was a young whippersnapper, so I know whereof I speak.
| |
| Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 06:09 am @marshal, very interesting philosophical system of government. i think your system may would work very well when you can engineer human beings to live like robots and any undesireable genetic traits as judged by yourself to be eliminated. as long as the billions of genetic differences within the human beings continue to exist, i highly doubt that your vision for that kind of government will work. i suppose you can get some research data to verify that titles do not mean much to some people. i think it's safe to say most people care much more about survival, power, and influence? your example of the farmer, what if he only produce enough for his own family or what metric is use to determine what is enough for his family? who will be the people running the government? unless these people are robots who have no flavoritism towards any person, then that may work. otherwise human beings will always try to provide more to those closest to them. the beauty of life is in the number of colors/differences within the system. if the whole system is but one color, what beauty is there? i grew up part of my early life in communist society, my father was a community leader and greatly respected by the communist leaders. he said communism is only good for you if you are willing to kill your own family members, should any of them does not follow or are disloyal to the communist party. i'm sure you heard of the practices by Maosedong of China or Stalin of USSR? it's a great system when you're one of the enlite running the system. capitalism at least does not make you a slave, should you choose not to be. i do think that people who're living a capitalistic society don't appreciate what they have, until the live in the other systems. being an observer, everything may look beautiful. but living it may be different. as far as i'm aware there is no government system similar to what you proposed on planet earth, so perhaps something to experiment in sim worlds whatever your religious belief is, i do believe that as living organisms we humans evolved. how do i know that, because my son who is only 3 years old can read already and speak very well. compare to me at that age, i would be consider retarded. his intellects i do think have something to do with me and my wife being very intelligent through schoolings
| |
| Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - 07:45 pm Well this argument is being run by spin doctors, ahhhh. I am a communist and i try to spin my country that way also, but the solution to make the game more balanced and to have more options is gone about the wrong way: 1. Money is needed! The goal of a communist society is first self reliance, then bolstering the proleteriat, that's why their are so many inequitecies involved here. You want to run a communist society then NO public corps and corps shouldn't use cash, they should all share from the feds budget. 2. Communism isn't democratic, Democracy is tyranny Socrates->Plato->Aristotle-&Nicomedes->Kant->Mill->Marx. The will of the majority creates a tyranny the non effatic voter votes for personal interest, not the benefit of the majority. Whether it's labeled or not in the communist manifesto the other ideals supported a certain level of authoratativeness. No so-called communist state has utilized the solution of public welfare, but I have a solution =), anywho the point of 2 is whether you want to a capitilist inhumane country, communist, or fascist has to be delivered through a constitution of sorts, that enable many different options that actually cause a difference to your country. <-that's the in-game change needed (constitional articles would probably have to be multiple choice and probably need a seperate thread then this one) 3. China claims to be a democracy but it is a aristocray. Which would be another potential constutional group of articles, then are at the heart of capitilism and the free market, having few that control wealth can satisfy all needs in an export society, doesn't work for America but the repug's don't get that. Tax the rich to pay for everything, they have the money to start all the jobs, and give the bare essentials for survival. (of course in simcountry that would be the ideal government because the immigration in this game seems very very broken) 4. Communism is rooted in so much efficiency that it doesn't get credit for because of piss poor examples. but i didn't know how to get to this forum and the biggest efficiency boost would be my company merger poll suggestion. It would also hold true in capitilist societies but... all production is owned by the state and so it would be much more efficient if inputs (fmu's, services, etc) financial position didn't matter and the cost could be swallowed up by the outputs (like umm... cars or something). 5. The reason the existence of ideals exist for the proletariat because capitilism has proved one thing over and over again that it cannot properly value their labor. we are the 99%! well not me anymore but a neccessity of communism would be to allow the allocation of value based on work. Even without the communist lean suggestion (and needed) this concept is still broken! Supply and demand consume this game but... there is no supply and demand for labor! This game uses a dictatorship method to determine employment outputs. That isn't capitilism that isn't communism that is supreme authoratitiveness, and not present in any industrial country. So the easy suggestion to allow for more appeasment to the commie, and more real world for the piggy, is to allow % changes to the base pay of individual labor postitions. (this would also have to be accompanied by medium labor will shift to low if their incomes are too comparable, and the same for others, but it should be easy enough) 6. So everything aside communism is intended to be for the betterment of the people as a whole. So it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that enterprises control special clinics and back to work schools. Who is more vested? The country or the CEO? I like the idea of no work, no eat, but... social security destroys my index. I mean with an employment rate of 96% i shouldn't have to be destroyed just because the few that can't find work because of a shortage of low level workers refuse to give up their medium level status. You work you eat, allow the country to invest in special clinics, and back to work schools and actually make a social safety net unlike the non existant one now. Let's see what was the point of this one, so yeah umm... allow countries to control the things that countries control in the real world, and make social security determinant on the welfare of the majority! 7. I know I keep rambling, but in order to fix the inadequacies and establish a root of communism in this game quite a few measures need to be taken and they don't seem to difficult either. The imporant key thing that most communists don't realize or choose to ignore is that communism was always meant to be temporary. To correct socio economical imbalances and raise the economy. In my believe even if you strike democracy out of the equation done right it still will outperform capitilism at every turn. So one must be able to able to ammend their constution and riots should exist for them doing so. But the goal would obviously be to alter the constitution to develop a communist state that has policies assured for permenance. But the ability to cater your policies to your situation brings on greater levels of efficiency. Yeah so that's it, corrections to the post, and the proper way to bring communist option to simcountry, i also believe there should be fascism aristogracy, and oligarchy also. Oops I almost forgot one more thing, a state corp is ran by a country and an enterprise is run by a few investors that allocate small amounts of their wealth to a corp whichh corp has more growth potential? That's right an entire nation supporting a corp should definately have a quality boost before an enterprise does. Don't know how to go about that one, with a huge change of local corps springing up, states or enterprises purchasing them, and that would be way too large of processing power, but supports capitilism hugely.
| |
| Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - 06:25 pm Maclean: Nobody is required to vote. Anyone is allowed to vote, but that doesn't mean they have to actually sit in at court the whole 3 days. Besides, they don't even have to vote. For example, if there is a murder trial, the only voters will probably be the family of the victim, or friends...Like I said, nobody is violating physics. Xyooj: Read the manifesto before you even say anything more because you have no idea what you're talking about. Drew: My system is NOT communism. You fail.
| |
| Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 05:18 am "Our judicial courts would be directly democratic. We would have no juries, because court cases would be voted on directly by the People; any citizen who wishes to vote "innocent" or "guilty", would be allowed to. This is because we believe that a twelve-person jury is not sufficient for representing the opinion of the People, for how can twelve people represent the opinions of the millions of residents who might disagree? Let the People speak for themselves!They need no jury to represent them. Each case should have a voting period of three days, and after three days, the votes should be counted up and tallied. The fate of the criminal would depend on nothing more than a simple majority. This will also avoid the problem of using the letter of the law to defeat the purpose of the law." "Nobody is required to vote. Anyone is allowed to vote, but that doesn't mean they have to actually sit in at court the whole 3 days. Besides, they don't even have to vote. For example, if there is a murder trial, the only voters will probably be the family of the victim, or friends..." __________________________________________ Read this again and explain whether you are saying that a jury of 12 is always insufficient, or if you are saying that a jury of millions is better, or are you saying that a jury of 2 or 3 is sufficient. Also, what of the victim who has no friends or family, and no one is interested in his trial? What about someone who kills another man because that second man is in the middle of raping and killing the first man's family? As for time of trial, I am assuming there is a system of online voting, etc., that takes only 30 seconds to log in and vote. You will still never get a fair trial and verdict in a majority of cases; either no one bothered to vote, or worse, voted willy-nilly without paying any attention to the trial, or could be swayed by elegant rhetoric to turn loose a guilty man, or execute an innocent one. Note that I am not saying that our current system is flawless, far from it. But there are worse ones out there.
| |
| Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 05:19 am I never said it did, but i was reading and reading and i gave up when I noticed it was just bickering about history and current events, and most contains falsities. You were defending communism, mediocrely so I figured I'd do you a favor and give suggestions to give players alternatives to capitalism, not only communism but as a commie myself it is what i'd highlight. BTW- you're making implied suggestions, dealt on misunderstandings. The problem with capitilism isn't competition it's the lack of. A corp will buy out competitors or merge with them, too allow themselves to inflict consumer harrassment in the form of price tags. Communism also was never intended to be a forced labor camp either you work you eat was the intent. So your post is backwards, communism you starve captilism you get ripped off and stolen from. So you fail! national proletariat you have no idea what those words mean obviously.
| |
| Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 10:33 am @marshal, good luck at your political system i doubt you even understand what you written though!!! humans have not evolved to be honest, compassionate, and perfect in every spects yet. give a few billion years and maybe your system can be tested. anyways, as you said, if someone ask for something, others in your system would give. so from a simcountry player to a simcountry player, can you please give me say 10T SC$? this be a test of your political system thank you
| |
| Thursday, May 17, 2012 - 01:02 pm Idleness is the stupidity of the body, and stupidity is the idleness of the mind.
| |
| Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 01:02 am Marshall your system does not seem like a place where I would want to live and I would fight it to the death if the country where I reside decided to partake in this fallacy
| |
| Sunday, May 20, 2012 - 01:03 am and I agree with maclean the judicial system would be terrible I shouldn't be allowed to vote on something that I'm not required to learn anything about
| |
Monday, May 21, 2012 - 02:53 am QFT.
| |
| Monday, May 21, 2012 - 05:39 am What's wrong with trading stuff?
| |
| Monday, June 4, 2012 - 07:37 pm I have not been online lately, so sorry for my delayed response. maclean: This judicial system worked pretty well in ancient Athens, so why wouldn't it work anywhere else? Gunther: That is your opinion. If the country adopts my system, then leave. It's that simple. Jojo the Hun: Trading is a form of exploitation. Everyone: Look, I understand if you don't agree with my opinions or my system, but I should still be allowed to employ National Proletarianism in this game...we should have lots of options...there could be a capitalist option in which we play the game the way it's played now, there could be a communist option in which we employ Marxism, there could be a Fascist option, and there could also be an option for National Proletarianism, where the country uses my system. Nobody can say that my system doesn't work until it's tested!
| |
| Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - 05:36 am You guys are funny. You should realize that each system has both positives and negatives and rely on the culture within them for success. Pushing Communism or even strong socialism on a country like America where love of competition and individuality is like forcing a wolf to eat a salad. Highly populated areas must have some kind of capitalism to reach it's potential due to the lack of sense of obligation of citizens for fellow citizens. Communism and socialism work well in small, tight-knit communities BECAUSE of the sense of obligation for each other that people have in said communities. Capitalism in such communities however would usually result in a couple of extremely rich people within the area while the rest would be left the poorest of the poor due to the wealthy soaking up everything of monetary value (Wealth usually grows exponentially with capitalism). I'll never understand why people demonize a mercantile system or why they think the entire world should be dominated by one in particular. Capitalism is great under the right circumstances. People work hard, are very intuitive, and tend to develop many of the worlds' industries much faster under capitalism than other economic systems. On the other hand, Socialistic and Communistic social structures can in many cases, cultivate a better social and creative environment. People within well run socialistic communities are, surprise surprise, more social and communal toward each other. There is a greater sense of family and kinship between its citizens. Forget words like "exploitation". You sound like a lazy person who doesn't want to work as hard as others to make what they make. That may be far from the truth but it's the impression you make when you use damning words such as that in place of compensation. Compensation for ability, compensation for opportunity, compensation for hard work, these are good things. On the flip side, if you want a system that diminishes monetary importance in favor of a community focus beyond the immediate family then that is not bad either. Just understand everyone has different desires and values. Each type of government or mercantile system uses and gives a platform to specific ones. None of them are better or worse than the others, there is just proper and improper placement of each based on the size of community and the dynamics of the people within them.
| |
| Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - 03:01 pm Marshall: the judicial system in Athens worked only because there were relatvely few citizens. In a country like China with over 1 billion, it would be a total disaster and impossible to implement anyway. as for trading being exploitation, words fail me...If I have 100 sheep that are eating my land into a desert, and I need wheat for bread, and my neighbor has more wheat than he can ever consume in any form, and is slavering for a joint of mutton, where is the exploitation if I give him a bunch of sheep which are doing me no good, and he gives me wheat, which is valuless to him? OK, "trading" at gunpoint could be exploitation, but I assume that's not what you are talking about, since that is not really trade. Explain how trade is exploitation, please. Yesman: at the risk of sounding like a "yes-man" in the classical sense, you make some good points. I would allow that the one form of socialism that has worked well is the kibbutz system in Israel, and that appears to be a unique case.
| |
| Wednesday, June 27, 2012 - 04:06 pm Maclean: Regarding the judicial system, like I said, nobody is required to vote. If they have a problem with getting people to vote, perhaps they will throw a little reward in with it as incentive, but this is a finer detail that can be tweaked until it works. Trading is exploitation because you are taking advantage of another person's situation. In the example of the farmer with the wheat, you are still taking advantage of his predicament. Conversely, he is taking advantage of your own. Sounds like exploitation to me.
| |
| Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 03:28 am Yesman you are completely accurate. But that doesn't mean that the system can't be shifted. Modern day capitilism doesn't inspire any creativity as the only one's with the resources are the uncreative. If a communist BASED system can be shifted to allow for motivation then it would prove to be superior. And as I pointed out before communism is conceived to have temporary roots that most so-called communists especially Americans don't understand. If America would adopt such a culture for 10-15 years you would see a golden age to the extent the world has never seen before. As the creatives will have the resources to actualize their potential. Which reaffirms the problems with capitilism, why innovate if only the financial system will profit from them. There are obvious exemptions to this like mark zuckerberg but i would put the creativity of the american citizen up against anyone else in the world.
| |
| Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 04:23 am Finally!!! Somebody with some COMMON SENSE!!! Thank you, Drew!
| |
| Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 07:54 pm Marshall: Reward people for casting a vote in a criminal case?? (remember, we are talking about jury trials here, not whether to allow casual Fridays). [sarcasm alert]Oh, that won't lead to corruption and a perversion of justice! Bribery causing someone to alter his vote? Never happen! You have to think this out to its inevitable outcome. Either I and 5.9 Billion people are cynical and out of touch with human nature, or you and a couple hundred million are naive. no offense. Mutual exploitation: Example: You need a blood transfusion immediately to stay alive. I need food immediately to stay alive. I have your blood type, and you have more food than you even want. Loads of it. So it is mutual exploitation if we trade? Land's sake, sonny, think these things thru! In this case and the other one I mentioned, both parties are benefitting, NOT being exploited. Mutual exploitation, forsooth! How would anyone survive under your form of government? Everyone, somewhere along the line, has to trade something; it violates the laws of reality not to, unless your whole society is a society of psychopathic savage hermits, and even then some trading is gonna take place at some level, you can bet. Forbidding trade on the grounds that both parties are being exploited is the epitome of the jack-booted nanny state on the neck of the People. @Drew: I agree with most of the last part of what you say, but I have to take issue with the idea that once you get some wealth, creativity disappears. People with an incentive are creative, yes; that doesn't atrophy once they benefit from their creativity. i am leaving out the trust-fund elite; they are what would seem to prove your point, but they are the vast minority. I will state my views again to clarify; responsible capitalism is the best form of economic system to increase the well-being of the citizenry. This includes a safety net for those who need it ( not those who just want it), and enlightened self-interest could be utilized to do this without coercive taxation. The inflexibilities of Communism, and the confiscation of wealth, with unequal redistribution (common to both communism and socialism), while sounding good in theory, stifles the human spirit both as an economic system and as a governmental system, except in a few isolated cases (the aforementioned kibbutz system, for example).
| |
| Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 09:52 pm maclean: You completely misunderstand the system itself. Regarding the courts, what I proposed is not bribery because the citizens would be rewarded the same, regardless of what their vote actually was. It wouldn't matter what their vote is, they would get the reward all the same as long as they vote at all. This is not a bribe. A bribe would be if the citizens were rewarded ONLY if they found the defendant guilty (just for example), but they would not be rewarded for finding the defendant not guilty. THAT would be a bribe. You see the difference? The state doesn't care whether the citizens find the defendant guilty or not; the state only cares that the citizens vote at all. That is the difference. As for trading, I suppose that trade would still take place, but it would not be in the form that you are most familiar. I should have mentioned this to clarify in the Manifesto, but the Manifesto is only referring to PRIVATE trade between individuals. We would only be abolishing the most familiar form of trade, where I have five chickens and you have two cows, and I give you three chickens for a cow. That would be abolished. A different form of trade would take its place. This form of trade is where every citizen trades his or her labor for the products that they want and need. Furthermore, it would all be run by the state (similar to communism). This is to say that, in exchange for your labor and contributions to your collective community, your community pays it back by providing you with the goods that you want and need. Let's return to the example of the farmer. He contributes his labor and his surplus produce to the local community, and the community rewards him by giving the farmer whatever products he requests from them. "But how do you know the community will reward him," you ask? To this, I will respond by pointing out that if the community doesn't reward the farmer, then he will not have the necessary resources to operate his farm. Now, that farmer is the one who feeds everyone else, so they absolutely NEED to make sure that the farm is operating, or else everybody starves! That is the incentive. And this is not a threat that the farmer actively makes. The farmer doesn't say, "Okay, I'm pissed so nobody eats today." This is just a matter of the farmer not having the resources he needs to run his farm, making him unable to produce enough food to feed everyone. Additionally, the community also needs to make sure that the farmer is happy. So in addition to the getting the resources he needs to run his farm, the farmer will also get any other products he requests, and the community will provide these goods so that he has incentive to work in the first place. So, there would really be two trade agreements happening: Firstly, the farmer would be trading his SURPLUS PRODUCE to the community in exchange for the supplies he needs to run his farm (the necessities). Secondly, the farmer would be trading his LABOR for whatever other goods he requests (his own personal needs and wants). Allow me to illustrate the concept of this system. Suppose that you are a blacksmith, and you live in a national proletarian community. All of the other workers in the community need metal tools in order to do their own jobs. So, the local government commissions you to make tools for all of the workers who need them. What happens here is that you trade the tools you make for the supplies you need to produce them. But even having these supplies will not necessarily give you any real incentive to run your smith in the first place. So to give you a reason to work at all, the government commissions you a second time. This time, you are trading your labor for your own personal needs and wants. Does that make it clear? So I suppose I need to revise the Manifesto, because you are correct in saying that we cannot abolish ALL trade. Rather, we are abolishing trade in its most familiar form. We would abolish private trade. This means that the only legal trading would be between an individual and the local government (or the local community if we are referring to the more anarchic version of this system). So everybody works for the government, and the government provides for everyone who works. As a result, we would have absolutely no need for currency at all. This is also part of the national proletarian philosophy. Under this system, material goods have absolutely no value at all. Not even gold or diamonds would have value. Sure, these materials are certainly in limited supply, but what the heck do people use gold for, other than for coins (remember, no currency in my system), or jewelery? Gold only has a few practical uses, and it would only be used in a practical manner. Even when gold is used, such as in electrical wiring, it would be used in a way that benefits everyone, and it would not just be made into useless gold bars and traded by people who are pretending that it's worth something it really isn't. Diamonds also have practical uses, due to its hardness. Diamond would only be serving a practical purpose, and would not be wasted by making it into jewelery. Now that I have cleared that all up, what is your opinion?
| |
| Saturday, June 30, 2012 - 02:34 am Maclean: My explanation was pretty vague so i understand your point of view, standing against me. How do you make money in a capitilist system? You can be really good at analyzing market shifts, you can get tons of education and get a really good job, or you can think of something completely unique and bring it too society. OR.. you can win the lottery. We are going to throw the lottery out is it so hard to argue against that one, but understanding odds of the lottery it is a fantastic investment in many cases(Financial). Claim 1: So my point lies in those who make their money by being good finance people aren't exposed to specialized training that can't develop anything new, they are non-creatives. (In general, not law) Claim 2: Those who work there but off and get tons of schooling and get paid good amounts of money can potentially self fund there stuff. Not likely they have bosses that are [Claim 1] Finance men that are the one's that get the money. But even if they can develop a prototype or fund the startup they will always end up using the funding from [Claim 1] the finance men, to expand quicker, or to renovate. Why should he dillute his income, his wealth creation because our system doesn't believe people should have the resources to actualize their ideas without the help of useless money middle men, that supply nothing except for theivery? One could argue that without the finance men he wouldn't be able to get the funding, but whose to say if they didn't steal so much he wouldn't have been paid significantly more? This concept holds true to the truly creative wh probably doesn't have a lot of money. Well capitilism is good for him? he has no chance without it right? Therein lies the problem, his only chance is to get robbed by the finance men. A state regulatory policy can protect against that. Communism without a closed reward system, in which people have a more accurate compensation for the job they perform, but mantain state ownership can lessen the need for the borgieous the thieves the finance men. That too is kind of vague, but my book is almost done. You'll get a full explanation if I can find a publisher and you buy it. ;). Not that I think about it, I probably could've cut and pasted some stuff from that, oh well.
| |
| Saturday, June 30, 2012 - 09:29 pm Comrade Drew, what do you think of National Proletarianism?
| |
| Sunday, July 1, 2012 - 09:32 pm I'm not for it, it inspires a level of democracy that is too severe. People can't be trusted to vote. Here is what I support: -Those with expertise should utilize it, those without have no business. (in the case of the US those who watch fox news shouldn't be allowed to vote) -In all enterprise, people should be required to get a business liscense with a very strict policy of if you haven't worked to build infrastruction (ie manufacturing farming etc) then you can't own anything -Education isn't top priority it's the only priority -Debt will no longer be used for anything -No representatives, 1 entity with supreme power. However simple policies that don't allow any vetoing but mere removal, and replacement. There is more, and will come out in my book, but I can't agree with your ideas, because people are inefficient, they don't have the big picture. The human species has never been efficient as whole, and as society grows more complicated efficient use of resources is the only way to ensure a bright future. The more people involved in anything the more it deviates from the direction it was intended to go. Another example from America to back this claim. The deficit can be closed by increasing taxes and not reducing spending, OR by cutting spending and lowering taxes, but what happens if you cut taxes, but don't touch spending? Or how affordable is the affordable care act, if the medical mandate is imposed but medicare is not extended? Doesn't that make more expensive, with all other variables aside, taxxed if you can't afford it, but it is still more expensive? Yeah so I guess the point is I really do believe in unity community, and stand against corporate power and self interest, but I don't have faith in any man too make any decision without either ignorance or self interest ruling him, and that's the difference.
| |
| Sunday, July 1, 2012 - 09:33 pm But I do support outside options as part of this game. But then you will be an economy based on self suffiency and will be be poor due to labor restrictions
| |
| Sunday, July 1, 2012 - 09:37 pm Poor? A poor person is not someone who has little, but he who needs a lot.
| |
| Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 09:01 pm poor as in not able to achieve all the resources you need. Cause and effect Marshal. No money -> forced self sufficiency, how are you going to get resources if your money is worthless to outside traders? Self sufficincy -> you need to make everything for yourself. Choose fish OR bread, choose cheese OR wine, choose cars OR schools. A place without cheese I can live with, but if I have to choose an education or cars I choose crossing a border, life is too harsh. Now this can be different outside the parameters of the game. But services as depremental to any economy as wealth is only created as something of non value is given value, ie manufacturing. So with trade fixatating around a service industry creates no wealth and so eventually the alue of all things will become unstable, and social classes will incur. A seperation from those that make, and those that work. If a tend your garden for an orange the economic desparity will grow. Because then you get a situation worse then capitilism a system of forced monopoly. There is a chance I don't understand fully. I understand capitilsm and the stregnth of the bullying borgeious. I understand communism and how the sense of welfare doesn't allow people to strive towards innovation. Plus all the other details of each. But this is different and if I understand correctly the no private ownership of property is too be extended to all or most property, that I can't support. I don't even support the no private ownership of property only corporate property should be disallowed. Anywho whose work is this National Proletariat? I'm not against learning more about it. I would prefer to learn at the source though.
| |
| Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 11:34 pm You do not understand correctly. I did not say that all private property would be abolished. I said that all private trade would be abolished. Whatever you earn for your labor is your property.
| |
| Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 11:35 pm National Proletarianism is my own idea.
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 12:09 am but that limits specialization of skills. Who is going to be a scientist, how are they going to eat when their contribution to society isn't tangible? Who is going to lead when their contribution to society isn't tangible. No private trade-> no currency-> no taxes-> no public works-> no administration-> Anarchy-> COMPLETE DISASTER looking forward to your reply
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 01:50 am Read the manifesto that I posted wayyyyy above. You have to scroll almost to the beginning of the thread, but it should answer many of your questions.
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 08:44 am Retirement is missing. Very very important. The idea of getting what you work for is my idealogy also but there is problem with having no currency. You can stockpile steak, or even TV's because technology improves and things go obsolete. Without a concept of permently benefitting your situation you move into the communist problem of lessened motivation. Also I want to excentuate the key to utilitarianism aka roots of socialism, desires and material things don't bring pleasures only contentment long lasting achievements are the only things that bring true happiness to hapiness to people. With the state rewarding productivity in the now, desperation takes away the greater good. This is a fundamental flaw with your system. No long term gain can be earned because of enhanced risk of achieving an adequate level for success. The same goes for concept of retirement. Acquiring consumables that can never be redeemed later lacks progress. You will be rewarding people for being what Plato calls the worker class. They are educationally retarded and only work for material posessions. This makes society stupid, it is the same attribution that plagues capitalism. That endeavor doesn't plague utilitarians though. I think before you misdefine socialism you should read John Stuart Mill and Jeremey Bentham though. Because socialism isn't built around the idea of over taxing people to give services. Is it built around not impeding on CIVIL liberties, and the taxes are only place to pay for it. Sure that sounds the same but it isn't the egg that comes from the chicken but the chicken from the egg. So the core conflicts with both capitalism and communism are still present. Rewarding people with material pleasures brings about a sense of greed and people never learn a sense of community. Instead you will see more corruption in more basic forms of work, corruption that will lead to self interest. Marx believed communism being temperory because of this phenemenon in which people only need to be granted enough to supply the neccessities for life so that one can then accomplish greater things without distraction. That is why you can't reward with material things that to is a distraction, it is what happens to good people that become the borgioues. The communist stink is those minimalists out there will not the see the point in working hard for mere material posessions. If they had money they could provide their own contributions to welfare. This completely destroys their motivation and with it the same attribution to the flaws of communism. And all else are workhorse slaves that will never reach their telos. Teleology being another philosophical term that I believe started with Aristotle but I like Immanuel Kant references it better. Anywho it means there true purpose. The thing I'm probably against most is that ^, You have to reward creativity it brings about the future it brings innovation and progress. Intellectual property stunts the ability for people to be productive in a sense and blocks people from building on an idea but it is the only thing capitalism does right, it gives people a purpose and if you cannot convey a reason for one to express those ideas it will never come about. ALWAYS reward creativity especially if you turn off your trade borders because it would be foolish to believe that the creativity of others will be traded to you for chickens. And last for now, that is one expensive and tedious system. Accountability is so lacking in the ewsa but that level of supervision is so vast that you need levels of quality control on those that evaluate performance, so vast that you must have quality control for those who evaluate the evaluators of the people's performance. Then who evaluates their performance. And finally who says what the rations or whatever you want to call them goods disbursements i guess are accurate are fair. So called communist regimes are supposed to bring unity and community but china and russia turned them to oligarchies and aristocracies instead. This is supposed to do the same thing but whose to say the system won't repeat dong or stalin where the state compensates half of what it should so the state could have the rest? This level of control is immense and not neccessarily wrong I like governmental control but there needs to be controls to keep things honest. Looking forward to your reply =)
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 08:48 am my touchpad is funny sometimes its jumps around the screen at times and words get misplaced so i'm sorry about those misplaced words
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 11:34 am i will answer more at length later, but a question for Drew and the Marshall: Where does art and literature stand in this utopia? Does the government decide what is art, and then comission people (hopefully with a modicum of talent) to create it? Ditto literature. One other thing; You say that gold and gems will be worthless; does this mean that if your country was sitting on a huge deposit of gold and/or gems, that you would sit there with your thumb up an orifice and shout, "'Tis worthless, so we won't mine it or trade it to other countries which are not so enlightened"?
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 12:21 pm Ummm... don't group me in with that. I said it my last you MUST reward creativity. I can't agree a different societal plan is viable (not necessarily best) until the major holes are filled. But from my understanding people can't trade gold or gems so it would have to go to the government to trade to other countries but I don't how the exchange will happen without an incurrency as it too would be worthless to the society unless a commodity could be exchanged but then I'd think it would be difficult to get what the public needs for such exchanges He did though explain art and literature. It to would work on commission. Compensation would be based on how much the artist is requested. But for the record, I'm still not sold that this is a viable concept.
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 06:35 pm Drew, the Manifesto deals with retirement and education. Once retired, the state provides for all your needs. Education would actually be a lot better than it is in the US...a construction worker would need a 6 year degree...all builders would be masters at what they do. That is not educational retardation.
| |
| Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 11:18 pm I rechecked and couldn't find it oh well. So will the state give basic needs to retired people or luxuries based on past accomplishments? Anything to say about a material driven workforce? Any defense for rewarding those you create, or perform long term innovation other than thier allowed a few failures first. As if you birthed a zuckerberg or a steve jobs (not really a fan of either but...) they created something big and awesome but get a one time gift of a house but then will have to go back to being janitors? Doesn't exactly scream a great career choice, yet it is the most important piece of society, innovating for the future
| |
| Thursday, July 5, 2012 - 07:03 am Inventors' jobs are never finished. If they finish one invention, its on to the next. For the retired, its based on past accomplishments. Material driven workforce? No idea what you're talking about.
| |
| Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 02:14 am Well material driven workforce is a combination of ideas by Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill states that simple desires that fill appetite (appetite being symbolic for frivelous things) can never bring you happiness only temperory contentment. When you become motivated by ummm... stuff you become addicted to undeeded stuff. But when you work for the greater good you achieve true happiness. The free market did in fact have this in mind but that addiction grew too strong and created modern capitalism. Karl Marx developed this idea furth with the Marxian Materialism concept. Stating that people only need few things. What had happened though was the obvious 'why work for something without reward?' So what will be inevitable to happen when you reward your people with more and more stuff you are going to watch your government shift to a capitalist system but not legal, white collar crime will spring up to such an extent that it can't be stopped. People will become addicted to the rewards never work to build society and lie cheat and steal to increase their proposed productivity. That's what I'm referrng to, if you reward people with stuff, they will never work for the big picture. Especially when inventors get screwed. If I invented the laptop, escuse me sir but I'm never working again give me stuff! Because there is a collosal difference in someone who creates something from nothing like that. They need to be extrodarniarily compensated. But without a source of currency or trading he will have too work for food at the bery least till he's ready to retire. If there is one thing our current society doesn't reward enough it is inventors. As you always live paycheck to paycheck in your society you reward them even less. No one will do it! No one will be an inventor! Your society will stagnate! As for retirement that's interesting. So do you know what a major cause of the pension funds disapearing was? Defrauding of the pension funds with sharp salary raises to execs closing in on retirement. This severely increased their disbursements and everyone was cool with it because it was just money out of jo schmoe mail room employee. I think it would be even worse in National Proletariatism.
| |
| Saturday, July 7, 2012 - 09:55 pm But you are missing the point about retirement. There are no salaries; no currency. Remember that we have no currency at all. As for the problem with inventors, perhaps technological stagnation is a good thing. The less jobs that machines have, the more jobs that humans have. Besides, it's a country run by the working class...I can't see them being afraid of at least a little human labor. It's good for the body. It's exercise Okay, material driven workforce. I understand what you mean now that you have explained it to me. However, I don't believe that national proletarianism would be nearly as prone to this as communism. The reason comes from the political component of the system. The Supreme Proletariat would be the ones who make all of the legislative decisions. These people would be retired and old, which has its pluses. Elders have lots of wisdom and experience that their capitalist and communist equivalents lack. These elders would not be as likely to go corrupt because...well, lets face it; they won't have long to live and enjoy the fruits of their corruption to begin with, because of their old age, as well as the death penalty for corruption. Furthermore, corruption is driven by money (no currency), and trade (state-monopolized). Besides, even if people do start lying, cheating, and stealing, then they will have to answer to the Army of the Proletariat.
| |
| Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 06:57 am Ok so you don't think some 30 year worker ready for retirement would NOT have made friends with his boss, who reviews his production level. You don't think he might start nudging those figures in order to give his friend a better retirement? Most people don't see this but it's huge in corporate America. Even without currency people will still want more stuff right? Because people after all are confused and material driven. I did like your response though, but you are confused about one idea. In a corporation robots lead to money savings for the corps those layoffs pay bonuses to the higher ups. With a state ownership driven system you want robots to take the jobs. You want smaller costs to the state for one, and second and more important labor is societies most important resource. If you have labor you can make any other resource your missing. The more labor you have the more things you can make, and the more things you can make the better the quality of life. In also brings up the % of skilled jobs compared to low level jobs which gives citizens purpose. Not really like it deters the system in fact its an improvement but I just wanted to point our the flaw in that system. Currency's value is determined by what it can buy, money makes sense. Their are many uses of money that are counter-productive. But it would be ignorant to assume that direct goods disbursements wouldn't have many of the same problems as money. Their are also many things that are much more inefficient without money also. Like if everyone gets cerial and someone never eats it, then they guy always wastes it. Not the greatest example, and I can guess your response from that also, but the problem exists nevertheless. A little secret the real answer to having the greatest system of government isn't 1 currency, it isn't no currency, it's 2
| |
| Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 07:21 am Your boss would change from job to job, especially with jobs where you are out and about, like in construction work for example. You would have a different boss for every job. And chances are, you will not be working in the same factory your whole working life. If you work in a factory, then you will work in whatever factory needs your labor at the time. If you are needed in the automotive plant, then that's where they'll stick you. If you are in the automotive plant and all of a sudden, another automotive plant opens and they need workers, guess what! Congratulations! You now work in the new plant because the other one is already well staffed. So you won't have much opportunity to become close to your bosses.
| |
| Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 10:26 pm Specialization of work? The difference of a person making 10 or 12 widgets per hour... irrelevent?
| |
| Monday, July 9, 2012 - 03:10 am Another thing is that if the boss does start playing favorites, he is going to get his ass kicked by the Workers' Rights Troops for discrimination. The Workers' Rights Troops would not be under the command of the State. It would consist of workers who are protecting the rights of their fellow workers. On a side note, I also wrote a book about my vision of how life would be like in such a state, and it is not unlike the communist vision. Both national proletarianism and communism attempt to accomplish the same thing, but through different means. The URL to download my book (for free) is below. Clickable links don't work so you will have to copy and paste it: http://international-proletariat.webs.com/A-Day-For-The-Workers.zip I wrote this book myself, just as I wrote the manifesto. Enjoy.
| |
| Monday, July 9, 2012 - 06:48 am Marshall: one of these days I, too, will write a book(short story, more likely) about life in your ideal state, from what I perceive by studying your ideals and rules for the state. We will see how they differ. Not to offend, but your ideas about how things work in a real situation are still full of numerous holes. Side note: for an example of how a communist/socialist/Marxist regime rewards invention and creativity, check out Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of the rifle system that bears his name. He lives in a tiny apartment in the city, on a tiny pension. The Kalashnikov system was a great leap in weapons design, especially to the erstwhile Soviet Union, and any other country would have been glad to reward him handsomely for his creativity. His reward was intangible and near non-existant; he never invented anything else in his life. No point in it, really. I still intend to express my opinions on what I perceive as problems in the National Proletariat system, just don't have time right now, but I find this an interesting exercise.
| |
| Monday, July 9, 2012 - 03:26 pm But you don't even understand the system as it is. You haven't even read the whole manifesto, all you do is read the bits and pieces of it that seem relevant.
| |
| Monday, July 9, 2012 - 03:29 pm You don't even know the correct name of the system! It's National Proletarianism, not 'National Proletariat'. I will also add that if you want to write your own book, you should probably read mine first.
| |
| Monday, July 9, 2012 - 03:34 pm I will also point out that you are very biased. You don't seem to even recognize any of the good things that could come out of my system. All you are going to do is show the negative and say how it's 'so terribly bad and gastly', compared to capitalism, which you will show as being the best system in the world. I've been in the propaganda business, I know exactly how it works. I have written a book. You will write propaganda.
| |
| Monday, July 9, 2012 - 07:06 pm I don't mean for any of this to offend you, Maclean, but I can't see you as somebody who will approach this with an open mind. I'm not asking anyone to believe what is written in my manifesto, I am only asking that it not just be swiped off the desk by some self-righteous, closed-minded capitalist who believes that capitalism is the only valid system and refuses to accept that anything else could ever exist. One thing that we all should agree on (or at least I would hope) is that nobody can say whether National Proletarianism will work or not until experiments are done and the system is tested in the most accurate manner possible. Test the system, and then we'll know. Until National Proletarianism is tested and shown either to work or not work, it is and should remain controversial.
| |
| Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 04:31 am Sunday, July 8, 2012 - 10:26 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specialization of work? The difference of a person making 10 or 12 widgets per hour... irrelevent? I hope you too answer this question still for me. I hate captilisim too. =) If for nothing else answer my questions because they can lead to preventable solutions with your system. I still don't think your system adequately rewards creativity and efficiency shouldn't take a back seat to conviencence, or anything for that matter. But... I'm not nitpicking these are important questions. I'm only returning to this thread because I find it interesting. So I hope you don't have ill favor of my comments and criticism. Because they are only so I can either be given an explanation or to bring insight to your situation. Umm.. also you too seem to throw around the "you don't want to understand stuff, because your a capitilist" I feel you suffer from this as well, plutocracy, utilitarianism, motivation linkage, materialism, Plato's gaurdian class, seem like foreign concepts to you. I'm not saying that to be mean either. I say it because motivation by citizens drive society forward and there are a lot of uncertainities in a social system. The only reference we have is the past, and that isn't even a good indication of how your system would work in practice. Because in all likeliness your system would not be able to produce the luxuries we've grown accustomed to. Definetely a more stable economy, but stable bordering the third world. That is why you need to understand the principle driving forces of society and frankly those without extensive philosophical study won't be able to make those calls. Reading Marx, Bentham, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Mill, are the most important ones, but aquinas, locke, rousieou (however you spell it), or confucious to get more argumentative reasoning and justification of liberties and authrority, In short you are most likely underqualified. But I too am underqualified to make that assessment. I do highly suggest that you read some stuff.
| |
| Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 05:09 pm I am taking a philosophy course in summer school at my college. It's actually called Critical Thinking, but philosophy is, for the most part, just thinking critically about things. I have read the Communist Manifesto. I know of Plato and Aristotle, and have also read some of their works. I am, in fact, a former communist. But then I realized that communism isn't without its own problems. And sure, national proletarianism isn't perfect either, but I have my beliefs and I have my arguments and reasons for those beliefs. National Proletarianism would reward inventors very well. I don't know where you guys got the idea that it would neglect creativity; it wouldn't. If you invent something that the community can't live without, the community won't want you to just stop there...they will encourage you to keep going, and to take your new technology as far is it will go. Good inventors will live like kings in a national proletarian state, and many of them will probably be elected to the Supreme Proletariat. By absolutely no means, would my system neglect to reward creativity. I don't know why you think that.
| |
| Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 10:37 pm If you know Plato, you've read the republic? The three forces that guide people are desires/spirit/wisdom. That's not exactly proven but seems pretty right to me. Now what happens when you reward people with desires? They become fixated on them. Rewarding productivity will lead to people becoming addicted (addiction leads to corruption/Rosseiou) to it, making them more productive, however they will not grow as human beings. The people will be sheep that flock to whatever occupation shows the largest effort->reward payement ratio. And though I hate to say it the free market regulates salaries to an extent (not fairly, or accurate in any way). How does your system control labor so you have the proper specialization of labor? or do you just leave them as smarter monkey's.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 12:27 am Well, that is where National Proletarianism tries to achieve the same effect as communism, but through different means. The difference is that true communism is powered almost completely by a desire to serve one's community and to work together. Marxist theory assumes that in time, human greed can be worked out of the equation. This is where National Proletarianism is different. National Proletarianism is powered by the same force that powers capitalism; the only difference is the way in which this force is harnessed. In capitalism, human greed is harnessed by the ruling class and the bourgeoisie when they exploit the working class, known as the proletariat. By lying to the workers and promising them that the hardest workers will become rich, these workers will work all their lives, and the ruling class never does deliver on the promise. If you don't understand what I mean, think back to when you were growing up; how many times were you told that if you worked very hard, you would become rich? We are almost brainwashed into believing this, but I can tell you right now that it's a lie. If you are a working class citizen, you will most likely never get to wear a white-collar shirt in your entire life. How many people who start in the working class actually end up in the ruling class? With very few exceptions, none. So the rich just keep living like kings who contribute very little to the world, while the poor workers are forced to compete with, and fight each other over jobs like animals. That is how capitalism harnesses human greed. It uses the greed of the workers to feed the greed of the rich. National Proletarianism harnesses the same exact force, human greed. Unlike communism, which assumes that we can work greed out of human nature, National Proletarianism assumes that humans are greedy bastards, and always will be. It is different from capitalism because instead of using the workers' greed to further the agenda of a ruling class, their greed is used to make life better for their community, and ultimately for themselves. National Proletarianism gives the workers the same promise that capitalism gives them, that if you work hard, you will enjoy a very successful and happy life. However, unlike capitalism, National Proletarianism actually delivers on that promise because of the way that the workers' greed is harnessed. Nobody is forced to compete for a job. If the local government runs out of jobs to give people, they can order the construction of new facilities. Guess what? Construction requires labor -> tada! Instant jobs! Once the construction is finished, they are gonna need workers to run these facilities -> Poof! Even more jobs! The type of facility that would be constructed would be based on fields where there is a labor surplus. If there are extra workers in the medical profession, the facility might be a clinic or a hospital. If there is a surplus of teachers, the facility might be a school of some sort (depending on what level of education the teachers specialize in, it might be an elementary school, a high school, or a college/university). If there are extra inventors, the facility might be a laboratory. You get the idea. Just like capitalism, the workers have a choice in what they want their profession to be. However, unlike capitalism, all jobs (with the exception of soldier), would be treated equally. For example, let's say that there is a medical doctor and a builder, and each of them does their job equally well. If this was in the context of capitalism, you would know immediately that the doctor will always be richer than the builder. However, if this was in the context of National Proletarianism, the builder and the doctor would both get the same reward. But doesn't the doctor require a lot of schooling, you ask? Of course he must be well educated, but if you recall from our discussion on education, so does a builder! Why are soldiers the exception to this rule? Well, it is explained in the manifesto. A soldier has the most dangerous job that anyone could have, especially if there is a war to fight. What if there isn't a war to fight? Well, the army is the police. It's also the fire department. This is intended to correct another problem that I found with capitalism: the police, fire department, army, and other emergency services are all their own separate organizations, each with their own command structures. The problem only became apparent on 9/11, when the firefighters went into the towers to rescue people. The police received information that the towers were collapsing, but because the police and the fire department had separate command structures, the police were failed to communicate the information to the firefighters who were still inside. As a result, 340 firefighters died. Since 9/11, the US has gotten better about this, implementing the Unified Command Structure and the Incident Command System, but my idea in integrating both the police and fire department into the army just avoids the problem altogether; the soldiers that defend the citizens from invaders will be the same soldiers that defend the citizens from fires, hazardous materials, and dangerous criminals. So the army's mission is not only to defend its citizens from foreign invaders, but to defend the people from any physical threat at all. Makes sense? I don't call myself an expert on Plato or his works. I said that I have read *some* of his works, but The Republic is not one of them (it's on my to-do list though). I have read Crito, as well as Allegory of the Cave.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 05:34 am Actually I give you credit for this response. Great job! I still wouldn't prefer it and it has faults as does the alternatives, we have a different value structure, it doesn't mean that you didn't do a fantastic job on that post. Hmmm... interesting. Fun fact up until mid roman times battlefield professions always doubled as civil justice people. I can't think of any exceptions. I always liked that, in todays world it leaves shortages in times of war, but in peace it gives them something to do and be productive. But I can't think of any situation where an excavater would need as much training a doctor. Carpenter is simple compared to an electrician. Nuclear Technician compared to the dog walker. Its a step in the right direction compared to straight communism. Look up the american communist something on wikipedia it should be a quick read though, you might like their approach better than this. Despite it being just a more liberal approach to marxian communism.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 06:15 am Well, for most things, a builder would not need as much training as a doctor. However, this is just a matter of quality. If education is free, we might as well teach those students to be the best builders in the world. Teach them to build structures so strong that no natural disaster will ever bring them down. If you are gonna be a builder, they will ensure that you are one of the best, a master of the craft.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 06:18 am And thank you for your complement on my post. I rather like it, myself.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 07:59 pm You're kind of assuming that everyone has the same learning ability in this last bit of the topic.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 08:27 pm Not necessarily. We all have talent in different fields, so that's why individuals would be allowed to choose what career they want (just like capitalism). People tend to be good at things that they enjoy doing, and I would assume (or at least I would hope) that you wouldn't choose a career path unless you enjoyed the kind of work involved.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 09:01 pm So since the GM would need an idea of how to go about implementing a moneyless economy (such as National Proletarianism), this post will describe my idea of how to implement it in this game. For starters, a player would have a choice of whether to play the capitalistic model or the moneyless (National Proletarian) model. The capitalist model will, of course, be playing the game as it is right now. The National Proletarian model would be different in the following ways: -There would be no financial data (such as country cash or tax rate or anything involving money) on your country page. Instead, your country's economy will revolve around its Supply Index. If your country is doing well, your supply index should be relatively high, and your country's newspaper would show few shortages. That would be a good sign that your economy is strong. -CEO's would, of course, automatically be forbidden. -All of the goods produced in your factories would be automatically transferred to your country stock, for use by either the citizens or by other factories that need them. When your factories run low on any given supply, the product they need would automatically be transferred to the factory that needs it. If the product isn't available, then it's a sign that you need to open more factories that produce that good. -Things like hospitals and schools would not be built by corporations. In order to build hospitals, your country would use construction to build the hospital, it would need the materials and supplies (both to construct the hospital [building materials, bricks, wood, etc...], and to run the hospital [medical materials, pharmaceutical products, medical supplies, etc...]), and finally, it would need workers to both construct and run the hospitals. The same would be true of schools. -Just like in the capitalist model, your population would consume a variety of goods, which would be deducted from your country stock. -You would not need to nationalize private corps that are already in your country when you switch from the capitalist model. Instead, you would be given the ability to use your military to forcefully preempt these private corporations. Instead of costing you money, it would be a battle as if you were attacking an enemy state corp; the CEO would likely hire mercenaries to protect their property, so you would have to win the battle in order to seize control of the factory. I will explain the positives and negatives of using this model over the capitalist model later, as I must go to class now. Obviously, the National Proletarian model seems very over-powered, so after class, I will describe the checks and balances that I propose to make it fair.
| |
| Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 10:55 pm Really? And the GC to register your country every month?
| |
| Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 02:56 am Well GC's will always be needed for that. But GC's are never used by your country, itself. GC's are linked to your account, not your country. So GC's will not be a problem. Checks and balances: -Countries using the national proletarian model would be forbidden to use the international market or direct trade offers. As a result, it would force you to produce all of the goods, yourself. This includes weapons. -It would also forbid use of the stock market. So clearly this is a trade off. In exchange for the economic stability and strong military advantage of national proletarianism, you sacrifice the instant access to goods that the capitalist model gives you with the international market (which is fair). Think about it, you would need to make everything yourself. This could be a grave disadvantage if you do not have a large population base to draw from.
| |
| Thursday, July 12, 2012 - 05:13 pm The military advantage would manifest itself in the form of having no limit to spending space, as there is no money to worry about. So the more factories that you have producing weapons, the more weapons you will have available to you. Furthermore, the corporations that produce weapons in such a country would not be costing your country anything in terms of losing money. In the capitalist model, weapon corps (and especially strategic weapons) are extremely unprofitable. However, the National Proletarian model would get around this problem because these corps would not be concerned about making money. As long as you have the raw materials needed to keep this corp producing, it will keep producing until you close it. All weapons that the corp produced would be automatically transferred to your country stock. So the military advantage is that you would be able to maintain extremely large weapon stockpiles, and the only thing it would cost you is the amount of ammo, gasoline, and military supplies it uses. This would lead to the ability to amass a huge army in a short period of time. The economic stability comes from the way it would be set up. Without having to worry about a cash meter, you will never go into debt, and as long as you keep your supply index at a decent level, you should never run into issues. However, these advantages would come at a very high cost. Start with your inability to use the international market. If you are fighting a war and you run out of ammo, you won't be able to buy more, you would have to wait until next month when your factories produce more of it, and a lot could happen in a month's time during war. You could not engage in direct trade with another country or CEO, so there would be no hope of obtaining ammo through those means either. Also, the game levels would have to change for countries that use this system. For one, there is no cash level. Instead, your game level would rely heavily on your supply index. I suggest that the requirements for game level advancement also become higher for countries that use this model. Also, instead of joining common markets, national proletarian states would have communes. In a commune, the countries pool a set percentage of their resources for use by all the other members of the commune in order to supplement their supply indices. Countries that use this model would be allowed to join federations, and even be allowed to join federations that have capitalist countries in them. However, they would not be allowed to join common markets. Similarly, capitalist countries would not be allowed to join communes, nor would enterprises for that matter. Finally, after you change the economic system that the country uses, the game should not allow you to change it again for at least 1 real life month, to avoid abuse of this feature. This is my proposal on how to implement a moneyless economy on this game. GM, you rely on people buying GC's in order to fund your servers, and this moneyless system would not be a problem with that, as the players would still need GC's in order to buy boosters, use the space market, and to extend their memberships. Your business would not suffer, and it would also provide us all with a new way to have fun. You would probably get more players, and more players equals more money for you. Everybody wins!
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 03:58 am im looking forward to macleans book as he seems to be the only one with any sense and marhsall this was a while back when i said i would fight to the death against your system and you told me i could just leave...that is insulting i love my country im not just going to leave my country in my opinion is a piece of shit right now but it has a good history and i still love its founding ideals im not just going to run away like a bitch
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 06:23 am Well the obvious roblem with this thread is it is in the wrong section. This could be a conversation piece sure. BUT THERE IS NO WAY THIS IS EVER GOING TO BE ADDED!!!! Why add a nonexistant government type when there are underrepresented current one's? Plus as I mentioned before your system can't work in this game, no country can satisfy it's demend for product. It needs to feed its pop then those corps need supplies, and those do, and those do... and so on. Without a concept of mini corps this can't be implemented. Sorry but facts are facts. No one to run the needs of the corp, and having practiced government forms not utilized alone destroys this. There are also plenty of other things that SC wouldn't go for. Creation of merc groups? no way! CEO's developing provate armies? don't think so. I love the fact that you are willing to challenge the status quo but be realistic, this is not a suggestion for sc this is a suggestion for rl. And Gunther you say I make no sense?
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 10:17 am hmmm...why bother with the government type in this game if it really has not affect on the bottomline?
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 04:26 pm Drew: I don't care what the system is called in the game. Call it whatever you want, but we should still have the option for a moneyless system, regardless of what its name is in the game. Call it the Communist system, and it would still be accurate to call it that. I will also point out that my system is gaining popularity, slowly but surely. Here's a bit of irony for you: my Manifesto has won me a corporate scholarship. Can you believe it? Those capitalists actually PAID me for writing about how much I hate capitalism! I guess Comrade Lenin was right: capitalists will happily sell you the instruments of their own suicide. Gunther: Oh, yes. Your capitalistic stubbornness has a very long history. Capitalism has existed for as long as civilization has existed. Even the European monarchies were capitalistic. And you ask, "Well how can that be? They had no freedom!" You're right, they had no freedom. But even in a monarchy, you have a ruling class that is exploiting a working class. Seems like capitalism to me. The only difference between the monarchies and capitalism today, is who's in the ruling class. Back then, it was the kings and the nobility. Now, it's the corporate executives and corrupt politicians. But the system is still basically the same. Let me ask you something, Gunther. You stated that you love your country. What if America was founded on communism instead of capitalism? Suppose, for one moment, that America was communist and had always been communist from the moment of its birth. And by this, I mean true Marxism, with a classless society and a nearly non-existent government. I know this has never actually existed, but suppose that it did, and that America was founded on Marxism. If you had grown up in Communist America, would you not still love this country? It is, after all, still America.
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 09:01 pm i love my country no matter what (so i dont see what your trying to point out)...perhaps i would want to change it because i hated my government but my country i love and i think everyone in the world does and who knows if i would like communism or not if i grew up in an actual communist society i probably would... life experiances are a powerful thing but ive been around for awhile and my education and other life experiances have already put me firmly against communism i think competition in the market or anything you do is a beautiful thing and it pushes people to be great unlike your system from what i understand....capatilism is not perfect and never will be the way i see it is the government needs to create an environment in which people with enough ambition and other skills can succeed it will never be an even start but there should be an opportunity for everyone to be a corporate executive or corrupt politician (hopefully not corrupt) or the so called "ruling class" this is better then communism because history tells us that the ruling class in communism were the ones who killed destroyed and subjugated the most effectively....not to mention capitalism always provided more for the proletariat then communism the "champion" of the proletariat by the way i dont ask how can that be when you tell me european monarchies were capitalistic it was definitly capitalism just without social freedoms that allowed for social mobility and advancement pretty shitty example of capitalism but modern governments were just in there infancy and it took a long time for the world to improve
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 09:13 pm this has brought up an interesting topic a moneyless system in SC that is impossible how would you acquire enough goods for your country without purchasing some.....what if you were trading on the world market would you exchange products relative to their current market price would you use gold? technically you can produce an infinite ammount of gold to buy things that would give countrys and CEOS a direct involvement in the currency system and is bound to cause problems like inflation.......now ik your system is against trading because it exploits atleast one party which is completely false ex im missing two kidneys and will soon die you are missisng two lungs and will soon die we trade "gasp" and we both live sounds pretty beneficial to both partys which is usually how trade is conducted obviously there is alot of exploitation but the good far outweighs the bad.........but anyways since you are against trading you would have to produce all the products you need with a limited population which is hard enough considering corporations produce a fixed ammount of goods and use a specific ammount of population you would over produce some goods and wouldnt be able to produce other goods at all (with the current system) but it would be very interesting if the game could implement a rudimentary system which allows you to control how big your corporation is (how many people it employs and how many goods it produces) perhaps the bigger the more efficient (thats what its generally like in the real world in most cases i think) (assembly line VS cottage industry) but being able to choose between several different levels of how big the corp is would make it more interesting you could build one big oil corp instead of 3 and you could build one small clothes corp that supplies all your countrys needs without over producing interesting concept i think sounds like a big project to implement but something to put on the ajenda perhaps i dont see any problems with it besides more work for the gm
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 09:38 pm You would still love your country if it was a communist state. So if the country had not always been communist, and it changes from capitalism...let's say that there is a revolution today that overthrows the government and the ruling class, and the new provisional government institutes Marxism. Even after the revolution, perhaps the government has changed, but it would still be America. It would still be the same landmass, with the same people, just a different form of economy and government. Would you not still love your country? It is, after all, still your country right? You were still born there and raised there. Would you not love your country even if it changed?
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 11:07 pm i love my country so i would fight the detestable form of government that had been imposed on it here are some qoutes that i feel explain my reasoning âLoyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.â Mark Twain âIn the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.â Barack Obama âA patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.â Edward Abbey âPatriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.â Mark Twain âI love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.â James Baldwin âThe duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.â Thomas Paine âThe greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously.â Julian Barnes âHere is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.â Theodore Roosevelt âBut you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.â Patrick O'Brien âThe notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.â H.L Mencken âThere are two kinds of patriotism -- monarchical patriotism and republican patriotism. In the one case the government and the king may rightfully furnish you their notions of patriotism; in the other, neither the government nor the entire nation is privileged to dictate to any individual what the form of his patriotism shall be. The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Our country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had:-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.â Mark twain âI love my country, not my government.â Jesse Ventura as you can see my sentiment is not an uncommon one again i dont see what your trying to prove its quite a simple idea
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 11:11 pm just going back a little to this qoute in your manifesto under the section titled socialism "Socialism sounds reasonable, but one problem remains, at least, that is visible to me: it is inefficient." would your system not be just as inefficient if not more considering the lack of currency you never explained why your system would be more efficient you said the only difference was you didnt have currency and some vaguely explained differences in how healthcare would operate
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 11:13 pm That question is flawed. Capitalism is founded in control. People love America because of the opportunities. And those opportunities aren't for everyone. So people love this country because their controlled or their deceived. There isnt that kind of deception in other countries. Anywho my argument stands. Moneyless is unique is to your system, every country uses money. Many countries use universal healthcare you don't see an option to raise your welfare by x and eliminating all welfare from heathcare to 0. The same could happen for education. Most governments have closer economic classes you don't see any options to raise income taxes or manipulate the salaries of workers in comparison to other workers. You don't see wealth off citizens like rich HTX capable of owning an operating a HT corp. You don't see countries with high unemployment, low population and low welfare doing their own farming lowering the amount of food government needs to feed. You don't see manufacturing contracters empty corps that produce whatever goods asked. These are real world used pronciples in the world, anything never utilized should not be added until this game better simulates options available in the real world. I also think it's ironic that the corporate world rewards people for being creative in creating a system that doesn't reward creativity. Because think of this once your system is adopted and you get compensated for it. You won't get to eat again until you do something completely new. Food for thought if the capitilists are truly scared of you they wouldn't give you an education. Or your ignorance could be more dangerous. Once you are educated then you will learn what's wrong with your manifesto.
| |
| Friday, July 13, 2012 - 11:30 pm lol good food....im not sure i understand the rest of your post were you talking to me or were you responding to trumans last posts about loving your country
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:09 am Truman. I probably should have proof read a little better. I'm just reafirming my stance that you can't give an imaginery option to the game until you give real world alternatives.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:14 am Lol it's Trumm. Truman was the dick who dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:23 am WOW im not even going to try to debate that... you no what they say you cant argue with the insane or delusional......i thought it use to be truman i remember you changing it sorry i will remember next time do you understand my stance now on loving your country because i still dont understand what your point was
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:27 am Look at the Amish. They don't use money in their own communities, and they do just fine. The only reason they have stagnated is because they believe that technology is a sin; at its heart, it's a somewhat anarcho-religious variant of proletarianism. If you look at the way their communities operate, you will find that it very closely parallels what I envision, at least on the economic side of it. There is my real world example.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:28 am No. My name was never Truman.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:31 am Are you suggesting that I am insane, just because I believe something different than you do? There's a capitalist for you! You are not the first person who has dismissed me as insane and delusional. I am not deluded though. Insane? Perhaps. But not deluded.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 12:44 am lol ok i thought it was truman for awhile sorry...can you tell me what percentage of the population decides they want to be amish...and why do you think that is....there is a large difference in the ammount complication there is in an amish community VS a modern country it would take an extremely large beauracracy to run your state just as in a socialist state yet you complain that socialst economys are inefficient what about yours you never said there was any difference between your economy and a socialist economy except you dont use money and yours is basically almost communism i would say yours is more inefficient
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 01:14 am I thought Gunther's reply was going to be: Are you calling me a capitalist? There's a communist for you! Actually, I do know communists like that.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 09:22 am I agree with gunther there. The more accountability you need the more administration, the more the administration the less people you have growing your country. And then there is the whole against robots taking jobs away thing, which would be a godsend for your country.
| |
| Saturday, July 14, 2012 - 06:29 pm At least this takes us away from religious 'debates'
| |
| Sunday, July 15, 2012 - 07:21 pm This debate has gotten nowhere for anybody. All of us are deeply entrenched in our stances and I can tell that nobody is going to convince anyone else anytime soon. So I am ending this pointless argument. Let's agree to disagree.
| |
| Monday, July 16, 2012 - 07:04 pm NOOOO!!!!! Challenging the system is the only way to evolve the system. I appreciate your outlook, and I'm estatic someone is still willing to think outside the box. I don't agree with you, fine. No one else does fine. But in part because you are unwilling to redefine and come up with culpable solutions to the problems that present itself in your system. Don't think you need to change our minds. You're focus should be twofold (getting this suggestion approved for sc {should probably give up on that one], and to take intellegent criticism from the community to grow your system into something that no one can argue. Create a Utopian government! But the thing is you should be realizing the faults in your system and adapting your system to minimize the fualts. Your probably still a young kid, you should know that with some insight you can grow as a person and combat new barriers that stand in your way. I'm only 25 myself BUT... I'm not willing to accept the fact that any of my ideas or ideals can be built upon and improved. Either should you. When I say robots will free up labor to increase the level of productivity in your state without having a negative impact on your employment, you should be like oh my gosh you are right! When I ask you should the motivation of the workforce be how much stuff they should get. You should be able to answer yes, or no, or begin to comprehend the situation. When the question moves to how difficult self sustainability is you should consider alternative plans to remedy the situation. Not stay complacent in your current design. If you have fallen into this. I only have one more thing to say. "That's a National Proletariat for you, unwilling to listen to anything that doesn't fit with exactly what he thinks." If you haven't fell into the grasp of egotism then I look forward to hearing your reply.
| |
| Monday, July 16, 2012 - 08:51 pm Well, I acknowledge that all of you have brought up many problems with national proletarianism. However, I believe that I have reasoned many of them out to find the implications of the issues at hand. Many of the problems that have been examined were due to a misunderstanding of my theories. An example of that would be the issue of rewarding inventors. You simply misunderstood the theory. This accounts for at least a few of the issues with my system. The other issues are indeed problems with the system itself. Regarding robots: The issue that I have with using robots to free up labor is that it takes jobs away from humans. National Proletarianism is run by manpower. Human labor is essential. Going back to the concept of trading your labor for your desires, if robots are doing the labor for you, then you have not earned your keep. While it would increase productivity, I cannot see why we would need this increase in productivity, at least in most fields of work. In national proletarian society technology is used to make your job easier, NOT to do your job for you. Besides, labor is exercise; it's good for you. However, computers would definitely be used heavily in this system. Labor records would need to be stored, rewards would be documented... computers would have a huge application in this system. So unlike the Amish, I would encourage the use of technology but I would detest replacing the work force with machines. Yes I am 19 years old, so I am still young. The most common thing I am told about myself is that I have fire in my eyes. Even when presented with a lose-lose challenge, I almost never back down from it. Maybe national proletarianism will defeat capitalism and completely change the world, or perhaps the whole idea will die with me. Whatever happens, I will stand by it to the end, because this is what I believe. I am only the father of the system. All I did was invent it. Most of the problems that emerge when it is put into practice will have to be corrected through legislation by the Supreme Proletariat. I have to go to class now. Talk to you all later.
| |
| Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 06:16 am wow, at age 19 and got the world figured out? this reminds me of a story, ...when at young age, the boy's father is his idol ...when in teen years, the boy said his father's an idiot ...when the boy's in middle age, he won't do anything without asking the old man when i was a teen, i thought isaac newton's ideas were just crazy, and albert einstein's theories were idiotic. when i attended the university, i found out who's the fool
| |
| Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 03:16 pm Well that was you. My father is dead. Newton was clearly a genius. So was Einstein.
| |
| Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 09:37 pm Newtonian physics is only a small hint at the the real constructs of the world. Einstein doubted himself to the extent of making things up to make his math work. And he has also been proved incorrect in some things. The only real fool is the person who doesnt question everything.
| |
| Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 10:22 pm Rethink robots again please. You have 2 corps in your national proletariat system. If robots invented can do a 1/3 of the work. Then as the government has ultimate control you can make a third whenever, wherever you want, this increases the stuff you can give to your people, and increases the level of occupation you can give to your employees. Giving the workers better jobs and increasing production levels are incredibly beneficial to your people. If unemployment comes a problm you make more employment and in the process your peoople get to have something they never had before like 2 kinds of cheese instead of one, or cars AND motorcycles. There is an amazing thing about your system. You are not dependant on the free market to create labor, so you have complete control, to master it. Don't waste that on a misconception.
| |
| Tuesday, July 17, 2012 - 10:35 pm Personally, I am against replacing men and women with machines. However, this probably won't be up to me. Again, it would be the decision of the Supreme Proletariat if this is ever brought up.
| |
| Wednesday, July 18, 2012 - 01:15 am "The only real fool is the person who doesnt question everything" +1 for that some people tend to want to make themselves the center of importance, without looking around themselves live and learn....that's the beauty of life. would like to see how this proletariat system work in a game, before deploy on reality. i wish the gm/owner of sc have the resources to take political philosophies/theories into the game. would be nice? and if a player has as many countries as there are products in sc, he/she may not need the world market. provided that his/her countries are productive in what they do
| |
| Wednesday, July 18, 2012 - 01:30 am +1 xiong
| |
| | Sunday, October 14, 2012 - 06:42 am Authentication ErrorBy: (IP:118.249.146.139) You can only post messages if you are logged on as player of simcountry.You must also have a country in one of the worlds. New members can join the forum about 48 hours after registration.
|
| | Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 10:44 am Authentication ErrorBy: (IP:173.0.50.3) You can only post messages if you are logged on as player of simcountry.You must also have a country in one of the worlds. New members can join the forum about 48 hours after registration.
|
| Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 04:36 am plus 1 authentication error
| |
| Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 12:26 pm plus 2 authentication error
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 12:16 am has been many months now, i'm still on the $10T i have asked when will i get this money?
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 12:46 am Never! I took it :P
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 11:43 pm oh well, what a waste of forum space for this topic, can't walk the talk?
| |
| Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 11:56 am were do you expect he 10T to come from?
| |
| Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 02:44 pm From ID. So its ID 10T
| |
| Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 11:54 pm @andy, your question is directed to the OP or me? the OP wants a money-less society, where any one could ask the government for what he/she needs, so i'm asking the OP for 10T SC$ because that's what i need to build my sc empire. most of us on sc knows that "Andy is GOD in Simcountry" so i highly doubt that the OP will be allowed to be another GOD and simply send me 10T? for us that money has to come from somewhere, either earned or created out of thin air if the OP is also a GOD in Simcountry? everything in sc has to be on a debit and credit system, otherwise nothing will work? just like on earth life....there is no free lunch, someone has to pay for it?
|
