Capitalistic Nature of this Game

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 operatio

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.

@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 botherin

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). Thi

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

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 origina

@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

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 sta

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.

"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 a

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.

@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

Idleness is the stupidity of the body, and stupidity is the idleness of the mind.

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

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

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

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<!-/Quote-!>

QFT.

What's wrong with trading stuff?

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!

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 th

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 sys

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.

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.

Finally!!! Somebody with some COMMON SENSE!!! Thank you, Drew!

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

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 tra