Capitalistic Nature of this Game

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.

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.

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.

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

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 pro

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.

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 to

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 bein

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.

And thank you for your complement on my post. I rather like it, myself.

You're kind of assuming that everyone has the same learning ability in this last bit of the topic.

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.

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 o

Really? And the GC to register your country every month?

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.

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 a

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

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, t

hmmm...why bother with the government type in this game if it really has not affect on the bottomline?

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 mon

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)

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 pr

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?

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
“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.� Mark Twain

“In the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.� Barack Obama

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.� Edward Abbey

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.� Mark Twain

“I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.� James Baldwin

“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.� Thomas Paine

&aci

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