Socialism is profitable.

In a socialist society, the profit-motive (at least profit as you think of it) isn't what drives the economy, efficiency, quality and need are. Supply and demand without the greed.

But why would a person want to improve efficiency, produce high quality products, and meet needs unless he were rewarded for doing so? Humans are inherently greedy and changing the form of our economy or government can't change that. The best way to motivate people to be efficient and produce high quality work is to set up a system which rewards those who do this.

How could there be "no taxes," "no money" and "taxes would be collected as they are now?" These are diametrically opposed to each other.

But why would a person want to improve efficiency, produce high quality products, and meet needs unless he were rewarded for doing so? Humans are inherently greedy and changing the form of our economy or government can't change that. The best way to motivate people to be efficient and produce high quality work is to set up a system which rewards those who do this.

Money does exist at 1st. Only in it's most advanced stages will money be abolished.

You have yet to explain how that is going to work--specifically. And where does the money come from at 1st?


Being payed more money then they can ever hoped to be payed in a capitalist society (in the early stages) and keeping a bit of what they produce (a car for an auto worker for example) isn't a reward?

You need to give examples. Many complain, many come up with brilliant ideas, then there are those who also come up with ideas that actually work. The working one is what I want to know.

Originally stated by russ
No money? Or no fiat? Double coincidence of wants?

Who are the main proponents of this system?


Anton said:
That doesn't answer my question.

No, that was my question to David, I think you mistook me for him.

Any answers, David?

No sweat. Respectfully, this is a little like drawing blood from a stone.

Maybe the stone is bloody.

Case in point. :rollinglaugh: Answer a question! Your system will never see fruition at this rate.

Pose a question and I would.

3rd time lucky?

No money? Or no fiat? Double coincidence of wants?

Who are the main proponents of this system?

You may want to pose that question better. You know, actual sentences so I know what you're saying?

Oh dear. But you've figured out an economic system? I guess I'm done here.:what:

"Some states are extremely simple"

Examples?

Money does exist at 1st. Only in it's most advanced stages will money be abolished.



Being payed more money then they can ever hoped to be payed in a capitalist society (in the early stages) and keeping a bit of what they produce (a car for an auto worker for example) isn't a reward?

Mr Mugabe's little robbery-machine in Zibabwe, for instance, nowadays - but you could go back to earlier versions of many contemporary states - England for instance - which were, in essence, merely the king's estate plus the power to call parliaments to get taxes. I reckon most international companies are much more complex than that.

So your first example is of an utterly failed state, and your second example anachronistically compares modern companies with historic states. Then you conclude most international companies are more complex!?

You go there and see if it is a failed state, sonny. It has the normal monopoly of legal violence, the key definition of statehood, and would see you off to jug so fast your feet wouldn't touch the ground. You were talking about 'states', if you recollect, so if I choose I can go back to Ur of the Chaldees that would be okay. If you want a discussion of C21 states, okay too.