CCCP's Workshop.

[GeneralTacticus]

btw, I'm not against Planned per se, I think it is a necessaity in the early years to speed up our growth and industry. I just take issue with people saying we should use it because it is right; I'm in favour of using it just because it works.

[GeneralTacticus]

Pande: But who does the planning? Somebody has to. And that means the planners are effectively telling everyone else what to produce and consume. Centralization != efficiency, nor does it equal fairness.

[Pandemoniak]

The planification of economy doesnt represent orders from a superiror authority to industrial and economic infrastructures : it is the application of a plan. Needs are planned, counted and archived, and then these needs are fulfilled for everyone. The centralisation of this process by the State and the Government is actually a bad thing, while it makes it long and (-2) inneficient. Others would prefer free markets, meaning self regulated markets.
My choice, personnaly, favours Planned Economics for the fairness of these. Achievment of happiness by material ways and meaning is rendered possible to all, because of Planned, while Free Market will only make it accessible for a few privilegiates, self regulating their own wealth.

The most important impact of planned economics is that the planification of work and industry will allow us to save our production : this way, we can save up to 10% of building costs. On the other hand, this choice would allow us to have a perfect control of bases infrastructure, providing home, food and bases for living to many families, thus increasing our population growth.

Feedbacks welcome.
Pandemoniak,
in [U]Working Men and Planification[U]

[Schinkenjoe]

I don´t think planned is ideolcically justified, cause there always somebody who says anybody what to do and produce.
I think it doesn´t matter if this somebody is legitimated democratically.
Then it would be democratic injustice.
But i think a period of wealth in combination with childrec creches is very good, because the resulting growth brings us much wider possibilities.

[GeneralTacticus]

Can "planned" be considered to represent collective direction and ownership of capital even in conjunction with a "wealth" choice? That would leave "free market" to represent private ownership, land-lords, and other such atavisms. What do we think?

Though I'm not a party memeber, I can say that the 'Wealth' choice simply represents a focus on economic and industrial development, and it does not require capitalism.

[lucky22]

Here's a quick question for our informal association of like-minded citizens: Can a SE decision of Planned/Wealth be ideologically justified? Having gotten hold of a copy of Velocyrix's guide, I notice he outlines one early game strategy involving such a combination, with Children's Creches in each base. Gamewise, the efficiency hit is basically nullified.
As far as a real-world analog for such a combination, it seems to look something like northern Europe and France, though I could be sorely wrong. Marx discusses both revolution and evolution as means for the progress of humanity, and I do think that modern Europe would probably hold up as an illustration of his (and Engels') evolutionary outlook. Not that we're talking about paradise or anything.
Can "planned" be considered to represent collective direction and ownership of capital even in conjunction with a "wealth" choice? That would leave "free market" to represent private ownership, land-lords, and other such atavisms. What do we think?

[Main_Brain]

No Internet for a Week ahhh..
now if I only knew what

"quirky"

means
*search Dictionary*

[lucky22]

Ironically enough, RAH has gotten back to me indicating tmb is not listed as a banned person. -sigh-

[Maniac]

Indeed. Eightteen active participants according to my recent thread...

[moomin]

Originally posted by Maniac
The problem is many people here are rather individualistic and don't want to compromise on certain issues and join a group to get the other more important issues through. As a consequences parties are useless here.

I dunno. I think the main problem is that we are too few. Seems the vast mojority of the people who signed up have left the game already.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by themagicbanana (on another thread)
tassadar sux. WHERE THE F**K IS THE UNN!?!?!? IT WAS DUE, LIKE, A WEEK AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was over in the P4's thread. I'm aghast. Main_Brain, for instance is a "quirky" citizen, with occasional non-sequiturs making for humor. themagicbanana is in a different category. I've been sticking up for a total troll. AAARRRGHHH

[Maniac]

The problem is many people here are rather individualistic and don't want to compromise on certain issues and join a group to get the other more important issues through. As a consequences parties are useless here.

[Hercules]

Members of political parties hold a broad common outlook (they agree with more of the party's policies than they disagree with) which may and should change over time. In joining a political party you compromise to varying extents in the interests of efficiency. A party block vote or a coalition vote can succeed in getting a number of measures ( agreed actions) passed quickly. Also through matched pairing, not everyone needs to vote everytime on every issue (based on an understanding that if need be a party whip can be enforced).

However there should also be provision from time to time for plebsites / referenda on issues, provided that a) the parties internally are split on the issue or b) enough citizens call for one and taking the cue from the central council cannot be run again for 10 years after the vote.

However I suspect when we eventually start to meet the other factions and also when the size of our faction starts to really expand we will find the need for political parties, otherewise we'll get bogged down in polls on what action at each base.

Also one party rule is boring

[lucky22]

I strongly second both Schinkenjoe and Pandemoniak here. We run no electoral college, our parties are strictly voluntary associations. Any reframe into an NGO simply alters the label, making the CCCP in particular seem more like a "no on FM" campaign than an "institution". But that is truly all in the seeming- and cetainly moreso for us than for at least one other party I can think of.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
Not really. An NGO is a straight discussion body, nothing more.

Since our democracy is not governed by parties, but by directors ordering from polls, any party of the UN Peacekeepers is non-governmental, and organized. It is therefore a NGO.

And since our party remains a discussion place, within a defined field of ideology (Let me remind to Darkness Edge that despite we all are gathered under the same banner, we all have different political opinions, else it would be boring).
Moreover, for the elections, no consign has ever been given, no agreements made between members. Every member of the CCCP always remaint free of his vote, and free to claim his vote, even and especially when he voted for a direct opponent to on e of the CCCP's members. (Remember Tassadar voting MWIA facing Lucky22).
Last, but not least, myself, being the most active "CCCPian", and being its funder, never used in my directore my influence in this party. Never did I gave my opinion on the polls I started, here in the CCCP, nor in the polls themselves. I remaint an independant director from his party.

All this is, IMHO, the proof that political parties are NGO.