Help
Quote
Socialism needs a large, united, but independent bureaucracy to function. The number of people needed to make a decision needs to be kept to a reasonable number, but authorities would have to make decisions that would be approved of by the entirety of the state. Socialism would probably be unable to function initially as anything larger than a province, in order to maintain homogeneity, but could eventually expand to cover a larger area.
Also, the nature of a socialist economy will prevent rapid changes in the market. Rapid changes such as the dot-com bubble bursting were caused primarily because everyone wanted to "get in on the action." A socialist economy would be able to ease into a new market more slowly and safely, since individualist tendencies are reduced (although not eliminated).
Also, the nature of a socialist economy will prevent rapid changes in the market. Rapid changes such as the dot-com bubble bursting were caused primarily because everyone wanted to "get in on the action." A socialist economy would be able to ease into a new market more slowly and safely, since individualist tendencies are reduced (although not eliminated).
Is the new market good or bad? No other comment.
Quote
I'm going to shorted "techno-communist" to "technocrat" and dub the Salrilian government a Technocracy, if you don't mind. I don't consider techno-communism a "problem" either, although the apparent lack of free will would be disturbing to some.
Yes except without free wil then the entire system kind of loses all initiative, becomes incapable of change, stagnates, and then dies off. That's why the urge to free initiative is so implanted strongly in our breast, it is because without it, humanity - our possibility of becoming more advanced, and truly innovative ideas - are doomed to die out. Basically if you're advocating a non-freedom state, where individuals are discouraged from expressing themselves you're advocating the destruction of your own system. Umm... no.
Quote
High wages attract people who are capable of administration, but they also attract people who could care less about the job and want money. A successful manager shouldn't earn more than an equally successful worker, and an *unsuccessful* manager (not infrequent in capitalism) should really earn less (very infrequent in capitalism).
The thing though, which really tears you up, is that a good manager contributes much much more than a bad worker. If we could be sure that all managers were raving idealists then this could be solved. Dunno whether we're using 'Ideal Species No. 1' here though.
Quote
In my system, there is a reward for doing your job better - more money - even if you do not advance along the corporate ladder. If you see "helping society" as a reward, you might wish to advance, even without the promise of additional pay. Thus, an individualist will probably strive to be a good worker, and a collectivist will strive to be a good manager.
On another note - I found it interesting in the USSR how they immediately promoted everyone who seemed to do a good job. On one hand, it made more competent people party beauracrats, and on the other - they had a long string of bad/mixed administrators who were significantly worse than the guy they just promoted.
Again, this system of yours is irreverant of individualism because it could only work with commie-ishimans. If you tried doing that with humans, the individualists would *not* collect around the basic industries regardless of money. instead of wanting money, they would attempt to become managers and lust after power - a primitive form of wage ascension. While money itself would experience massive inflation unless the economy was almost perfectly (and impossibly) well fixed.
Quote
Individuals usually don't harm society in their decisions, but they usually don't help it either. After all is done, an individual may have had a positive effect - philanthropists, for example - but often the effect is negligible.
Socialism and communism create the power to significantly harm society, but they also create the power to significantly help it. It's the same thing on a grander scale; a socialist or communist system that harmed society would quickly die out, but those that helped it would have a much greater positive effect than one would ever see in a capitalist system.
Socialism and communism create the power to significantly harm society, but they also create the power to significantly help it. It's the same thing on a grander scale; a socialist or communist system that harmed society would quickly die out, but those that helped it would have a much greater positive effect than one would ever see in a capitalist system.
I think that the collective consciousness with the communal thought is an advanced capitalist system, not an advanced communist system, and we both agreed that this was better. The difference is this - with collective consciousness we are operating without orders and on general consensus, with communism we operate on the commands of the party beauracrat or a special class of administrators. Have any race you want to do it, too.
------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.
MultiQuote
I know that this is called "Trash Talk" but could it be any more, my head might just blow off. 
