Socio-economic engineering?

[The Industriallist]

The way machines in cantr are implemented is an unfair advantage for communist systems.

Since there is no limit on the productivity of, for example, an iron drill, except for the number of workers, you really only need one. Ever. But only if you cam make sure that everyone works on the drill and splits the proceeds fairly.

To counteract this, I would suggest that machines have a maximum productivity, so there is no point in having more than, say, 5-10 people per machine.

Much more capitalistic that way.

[Jos Elkink]

Good point, actually ... Projects on machines should have a productivity less dependent on the number of workers and more on the capacities of the machine. Never thought of that ...

[Spectrus_Wolfus]

What Comrade you don't like to share with your fellow workers ?

[The Hunter]

What Comrade you don't like to share with your fellow workers ?

What? Sharing in a communism? Only in Marx's original ideas. I believe the widespread idea was: It's mine, it will be mine and you can either get it by killing me or to offer me a really good deal on it.

That's what you get when goods are rare.

Actually, i really think objects ingame especially in the "old" area's should be more rare. Object deterioration should really be implemented soon. My first character travelled for years to find iron only to find out that in some places they were giving it away. Opens up new prospects for tradesmen and manufacturers. I think the game should be more "possesion" based anyway. After a few weeks of playing your character can have all he needs. I'd say, halve the "gathering" yields, especially for food.

[Pirog]

Umm...who says communistic states would be less productive then capitalistic ones?

In those countries in the world that isn't so scared of communism that they shun all their ideas out of the mere principle of it, it's becoming pretty obvious that the way workers in most capitalistic societies feel alienated from their work has a big effect on the productivity.

In Sweden there has been attempts at a three way shift system, were people work 6 hours instead of nine with full pay.
Since everyone works more effective, and that the free time drastically cuts down on the amount of people calling in sick, they actually make more money on the three shifts then they did with two.

[The Hunter]

Gorbatjosv: And? how is the potatoe harvest this year?
Min. of agriculture: Great, If we would put all potatoes on a big heap we would be able to reach god in heaven, so high.
Gorba: But comrade, you know God doesnt exist, dont you?
Min. of agriculture: Neither does the pile of apotatoes, Gorbi...

Very old joke. Overall productivity in communistic countries is very low. Why? they dont work for themselves but for the party, and, whether they work hard or very slow, it didnt matter. You wouldnt get fired anyway. I also heard female workers were standing in line in front of the shops instead of being present at work.

And don't forget. Productivity is the key in every economy. Especially in sweden where labour is expensive and where you have to make up for that disadvantage to be more productive to be competative. Every 100th of a percent will make a huge difference. Reason to experiment.

Oh, by the way, I think communism is the best goverment style there is. In theory. It might work in small communities (dont forget, in most european areas they had small "communistic style" communities, before the Romans who introduced capitalism and nobility.

[Pirog]

Orion>

I think we have pretty much the same view.

I'm not sure the world will ever be ready for communism, but if it would work it would probably come pretty close to being an ideal society.

But many of Marx's ideas about production can be implemented in a society that isn't purely communistic.
If it wasn't for the bad reputation communism got, more countries probably would.

In Cantr though, pure communism could actually work.

[Spectrus_Wolfus]

socialism would work great for the world everyone woud be fed everyone would work and have clothes and the such only thing wrong with it.


all it takes is a few greedy buggers to ruin it for everyone

[Meh]

Your looking for an evolutionary change in a species that has stopped evolving. While we can be all proud of working together and buildings and such, we still have a little bit instinct left in us. The primary instinct is the one to "rest" when your needs are met. Having such large egos we call that "rest" being lazy. Being lazy can be considered the highest form of greed, "time greed". All other forms of greed are "time greed" once removed. It is the intelegent desire to have a cache of things so the "rest" can be extended as long as possible. Quests for power are a farther extention of greed. It is the intelegent desire to have the cache become self filling, guarded, and prepetual. Just becuase I call it intelegent doesn't mean I belive it to be smart or right. This is just what a thinking mind does by default when tied to an instinctual desire for rest.

Without rest we would have sleepless worn out short lives that would not prepetate the species.

Anarchy/Socialism/Communism can only work if people change and if people change in such a way then they cease being people and are something different.

Goverments can only be highly effective if they have a mechanism for channelling the greed. It's a zen thing like channeling angry into something else etc.

So if someone calls you a slacker just tell them at least your not pretending to be something your not.

Even God rested.

[kroner]

ummm.... back on topic. capitalism makes a much more interesting game despite your socio-political views on the matter. i mean, if everyone in cantr had an equal share and enough to eat and the tools they needed, where would the fun be in that? i want to see more class disparity, more poverty, more cut throat money men (and women), more wheeling and dealing. to sum it up, we need more economy. economics is the science of allocating limited resources in the best way. it's all about scarcity, which is too elusive in cantr right now.

[west]

Not in Sring Sri.

*mutters*

stupid iron-hogging bastards.

[Meh]

ummm.... back on topic. capitalism makes a much more interesting game despite your socio-political views on the matter. i mean, if everyone in cantr had an equal share and enough to eat and the tools they needed, where would the fun be in that? i want to see more class disparity, more poverty, more cut throat money men (and women), more wheeling and dealing. to sum it up, we need more economy. economics is the science of allocating limited resources in the best way. it's all about scarcity, which is too elusive in cantr right now.

ummm....no fair calling "back on topic" when your not on it either.

So

ummm...back on topic

maximum amount of people on a machine - OK

should there be minimums or is that too far off topic?

[kroner]

yeah.... I guess you're right. It was back on cantr at least....

[The Hunter]

OK. It's not really ontopic but not off either. But Kroner summed it up nicely for me. Resources or the collecting of those is really easy. You can gather enough food in a small amount of time, same for other resources. I'd say that the more scarce resources are, the more people have to work together, which is the thought behind the game isnt it? No need for a farmer, you can collect enough food on your own. No need to buy or lend a tool. Iron or other resources are, after the initial struggle for the control of them like on the new island, available in abundance. I'd say: make it all a lot harder, make people struggle for survival, group up with other "poor" people. We should see that governments will have to change their ways to keep their communities running. Because what is a society simulator without the gap between poor and rich? That's one of the major issues in all societies IRL. Now Cantr isnt IRL but it does use it as a template on which it is based afterall.

Maybe something for a new thread in suggestions?

And it would be nice if there were indeed minimums for using machines. Like three people minimum. Like I said, i think people should be forced somehow to work together. Like in Sring-Sri indeed, now that's poverty, but together with my char on the new island, my most interesting char in the english area's.

[Solfius]

The thread title to me is a big ambigious, and I don't think anyone has been off topic thus far, but maybe bits of it would have been better in General Discussion, but it doesn't warrant splitting IMO.

The lack of scarcity is one of the reasons one of my friends belive achieving a real economy in Cantr is impossible.

And I think what makes the game interesting is conflict, which is what capatalism provides a lot of, but there is pletny of potential for conflict whatever the system, so I'm all for variety in government.

But making things harder to get, a maximum number of users on machines, and other such changes to make resources scarcer or harder to get would improve the game a great deal, even if it does make it harder for existing groups in he long run I think it would be a worthwhile change