Capitalistic Nature of this Game

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.

Comrade Drew, what do you think of National Proletarianism?

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.

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

Poor? A poor person is not someone who has little, but he who needs a lot.

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.

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.

National Proletarianism is my own idea.

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

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.

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 =)

my touchpad is funny sometimes its jumps around the screen at times and words get misplaced so i'm sorry about those misplaced words

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"?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Specialization of work? The difference of a person making 10 or 12 widgets per hour... irrelevent?

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.

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.

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.