Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mrhappyface]

Fah, Dwarves are Marxist, not Maoist. Their strength lies in industry, not farming!

[Bludulukus]

Fah, Dwarves are Marxist, not Maoist. Their strength lies in industry, not farming!

The revolution will not come from the complacent craftsdwarves, it will come from the Farmers who toil away plucking plump helmets from the soil.

[Monk321654]

"The revolution will not be civilized."
"This is a dwarven fortress, it was never civilized."

[Kerbalrocketry]

Actually thinking about it.
IF Dwarf Fortress used Capitalism, what would the players roll be?!   

Currently you are the overseer, assigning projects. Dwarfs take what they need from the common storage and do any work that needs doing, in a system of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' . If a dwarf is injured they can go to the hospital, if they are hungry they can take food. Their is no rationing as everything is assumed to be in surplus (which is seen to be the condition for true communism).
Of course once things stop being in excess your fort starts to fail. But that would be true of a capitalistic fort, except in that case it would take more to fix than just importing food or expanding a hospital.

Under capitalism you would have to do nothing but watch as your dwarfs set up industries. Of course you would never see a hospital till you start getting very rich dwarfs, and every room would have its own defenses and military. However the player can do nothing, as any influence would mean it wasn't capitalism.

[AutomataKittay]

Actually thinking about it.
IF Dwarf Fortress used Capitalism, what would the players roll be?!   

Currently you are the overseer, assigning projects. Dwarfs take what they need from the common storage and do any work that needs doing, in a system of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' . If a dwarf is injured they can go to the hospital, if they are hungry they can take food. Their is no rationing as everything is assumed to be in surplus (which is seen to be the condition for true communism).
Of course once things stop being in excess your fort starts to fail. But that would be true of a capitalistic fort, except in that case it would take more to fix than just importing food or expanding a hospital.

Under capitalism you would have to do nothing but watch as your dwarfs set up industries. Of course you would never see a hospital till you start getting very rich dwarfs, and every room would have its own defenses and military. However the player can do nothing, as any influence would mean it wasn't capitalism.

With that gameplay idea, the player's role would be to be the 'invisible hand', adjusting price and demand modifier. It's also not be very DFish at all in model and you'd have to pray that they have brain enough to remember farming with how valuable trap parts can be and sieges.

Though if you want a peek at how captialism works in DF, play 40d with economics enabled ( I don't expect new economy for in-fortress to work similarly )

[towerdude]

I just found this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-281028.html

"Katthir Uvarrag begins putting more hours into work, doing other jobs as well as being an animal trainer. He doesn't ask anyone for help, finds his own seeds, starts planting them, and starts trying to train his animals to hunt.

For Katthir opposes the inefficency of the Communist system, believing in a natural right of property. And he hopes to spark a political crisis to break the system..."

-----

"Also Neverwonagame, all dwarves believe in a monarchy, its just that they don't have the capabilities or the right to start an economy until a proper capitalist (tax collector) gets there to start it up for them. So they have to start off with a simple system of sharing until that comes along. It's not a forced Communism and it is not called Communism, its just a general idea of the dwarves to share the stuff until the Baron (or Baroness) comes along with a tax collector and they go to a money system."

-----

"Why do they need to wait for a tax collector? Do they not even have an idea of property yet? If they do, then why not start with that? I think Katthir, at least, should advocate such."

-----

"The tax collector just makes the money system... official and tied towards the main market. Until then, the dwarves have better things to do like drink booze and/or hold parties and do a bit of work. No time for spending and capitalism! I recommend you play Dwarf Fortress for a bit, at least until the RP starts"

-----

"I don't see any reason why Katthir can't be somebody who wants to get rich, and therefore an advocate of starting the capitalist system earlier."

-----

[Kerbalrocketry]

Actually thinking about it.
IF Dwarf Fortress used Capitalism, what would the players roll be?!   

Currently you are the overseer, assigning projects. Dwarfs take what they need from the common storage and do any work that needs doing, in a system of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' . If a dwarf is injured they can go to the hospital, if they are hungry they can take food. Their is no rationing as everything is assumed to be in surplus (which is seen to be the condition for true communism).
Of course once things stop being in excess your fort starts to fail. But that would be true of a capitalistic fort, except in that case it would take more to fix than just importing food or expanding a hospital.

Under capitalism you would have to do nothing but watch as your dwarfs set up industries. Of course you would never see a hospital till you start getting very rich dwarfs, and every room would have its own defenses and military. However the player can do nothing, as any influence would mean it wasn't capitalism.

With that gameplay idea, the player's role would be to be the 'invisible hand', adjusting price and demand modifier. It's also not be very DFish at all in model and you'd have to pray that they have brain enough to remember farming with how valuable trap parts can be and sieges.

Though if you want a peek at how captialism works in DF, play 40d with economics enabled ( I don't expect new economy for in-fortress to work similarly )

Eh?
A: what's a 'price and demand modifier' i've studied economics and never heard that phrase and google turns up nothing.
B: that's not what the 'invisible hand' is. It's a metaphor for how markets work and is actually an argument AGAINST the type of interference a player would introduce saying that ANY thing the player does is WRONG.
C: 40d 'economics' was disabled for a reason. In that it was bollocks.

[Loud Whispers]

Actually thinking about it.
IF Dwarf Fortress used Capitalism, what would the players roll be?!   

Instead of the Overseer who gives orders on a frontier system, he manager who allocates resources to ensure maximum economic survival and exploitation of resources.

[AutomataKittay]

Actually thinking about it.
IF Dwarf Fortress used Capitalism, what would the players roll be?!   

Currently you are the overseer, assigning projects. Dwarfs take what they need from the common storage and do any work that needs doing, in a system of 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' . If a dwarf is injured they can go to the hospital, if they are hungry they can take food. Their is no rationing as everything is assumed to be in surplus (which is seen to be the condition for true communism).
Of course once things stop being in excess your fort starts to fail. But that would be true of a capitalistic fort, except in that case it would take more to fix than just importing food or expanding a hospital.

Under capitalism you would have to do nothing but watch as your dwarfs set up industries. Of course you would never see a hospital till you start getting very rich dwarfs, and every room would have its own defenses and military. However the player can do nothing, as any influence would mean it wasn't capitalism.

With that gameplay idea, the player's role would be to be the 'invisible hand', adjusting price and demand modifier. It's also not be very DFish at all in model and you'd have to pray that they have brain enough to remember farming with how valuable trap parts can be and sieges.

Though if you want a peek at how captialism works in DF, play 40d with economics enabled ( I don't expect new economy for in-fortress to work similarly )

Eh?
A: what's a 'price and demand modifier' i've studied economics and never heard that phrase and google turns up nothing.

Of course it wouldn't be, it's not economics thing. I'm pretty much pointing out what role player can do, to encourage them to do something or other. Closest example I can think of in real world would be commecials, propoganda, sponsorship, and so on, for reason I'll put in the next question since I should clarify what I meant anyway.

B: that's not what the 'invisible hand' is. It's a metaphor for how markets work and is actually an argument AGAINST the type of interference a player would introduce saying that ANY thing the player does is WRONG.

So then, you cannot influence them, even by making options seem more preferrable. Though I should clarify the modifier I meant wouldn't be direct modifier ( I'm quite bad at explaining concepts ), but rather perception of how valuable and necessary such and such could be. The invisible hand is pretty much the activity of market toward end of those that can afford it.

After all, shouldn't you encourage the wealthy ones to set up an hospital by making it seem more favorable to their senses? Or maybe make them suspect that maybe food should be produced and so on. It's not government regulation or limits, though nobles sure acts well enough to block export and demand things as is.

And I'd argue that it's an argument -against- truly free market since it only serve the interest of those that have the gold and not well-being of everyone. But that's off-topic anyway.

C: 40d 'economics' was disabled for a reason. In that it was bollocks.

That much I agree with, it just happen to be only pre-existing example, and well, I think it illustrates free market and elitism even under full player control well enough without dwarven control of industries.

Anyway this whole self-running captialistic fortress sounds more like simcity than DF

[Kerbalrocketry]

You aren't thinking of a full capitalist fort, proper Anarcho-capitalism can't be controlled.

Making an option 'seem more preferable' would be what you currently do of ordering things to be done, and again from the viewpoint of a capitalist(which i am very much not, but have studied economics) would be distorting the market and apparently would lead to failure.


Of course what capitalists think is generally wrong as ,unlike most pro-capitalists, we aren't all just machines wanting to be 'better' than others. (you note that very few capitalists even mention Charity when talking about how important greed is).

Hospitals are actually commonly used examples of Why capitalism doesn't always work, as that's what's called a "merit good";

As can be shown without intervention the amount produced would be PQ but if more was produced up to PQ1 society as a whole would benefit.
While people might benefit privately from vaccination and treatment they would also benefit from other people's vaccination, the more people vaccinated the better. Which is why Hospitals should/are Nationalised.

The Military is a different example of why Capitalism doesn't work, in that it's what's called a "Public Good", in that everyone benefits from its existance and them benefiting does not degrade or use-up the resource. As such they have no reason to pay for it as their marginal cost is 0, but the first persons marginal cost is the total cost and so they would not pay since it is astronomically expensive, so public goods do not exist in anarcho-capitalism.



I realise this thread has gone off topic and gone from a "my friend is from 70s america" to a "Economics 101" but i see nothing wrong in that.

One interesting thing i've noticed is that most people associate Anarcho-Capitalism with post-apocalyptic settings (everyman for himself, and high inequality) while they associate Communism with Utopia (perfect eqaulity, no resource scarcity).

[Man In Zero G]

TL/DR due to rage
Dwarves are not communists, that's pretty much forum community pseudo-canon.
They are explicitly a feudal monarchy, by in-game events (tiered nobility being given right to rule over chunks of territory in the name of the dwarf king) and game mechanics: The very things people point out to call it communism were, in fact, either also present in feudalism (everything is owned by the nobility, peasants are tenant workers given shelter and enough food to live on in exchange for their toil does look a lot like communism from far enough away) and/or are the end effect of features that are not yet implemented in the game (the economy actually functioning properly). They are not toiling for the collective as communist workers - they are toiling for the nobility as peasant and craftsdwarf serfs. Feel free to have your friend look the definitions up. Also, everyone who's about to disagree with me to defend your pseudo-canon, feel free to look it up too. I personally could care less if you want to pretend they have a different form of society than they actually do, so don't bother arguing.

Towerdude, your friend is just.... a sad little person. Pretty much. When I opened the thread I was sure the morally offensive part would have been about dwarven child care, nobility-ending magma chambers, the ancient art of mermaid farming, or some other actual moral gray area, not something that is so stupid.

[coldmonkey]

they are toiling for the nobility as peasant and craftsdwarf serfs

Only if you haven't accidentally your nobility.

[Dyret]

Of course what capitalists think is generally wrong as ,unlike most pro-capitalists, we aren't all just machines wanting to be 'better' than others.

Of course we are. Just go anywhere on the intartubez to find a million angry nerds arguing who's the biggest loser virgin based on salary or youtube subscribers or something. Or just a any schoolyard for that matter. Or suburb.

[towerdude]

Of course what capitalists think is generally wrong as ,unlike most pro-capitalists, we aren't all just machines wanting to be 'better' than others.

Of course we are. Just go anywhere on the intartubez to find a million angry nerds arguing who's the biggest loser virgin based on salary or youtube subscribers or something. Or just a any schoolyard for that matter. Or suburb.

I bet you are sarcastic, since he meant "be better" largely by economical means. I guess this should indicate a driving force behind the market, in some scenarios the word "greed" could replace "the need to be better, than others". I know a lot of people who are quite content with their humble livelihood.

-----

I had an argument with a friend (a different one), where I said:
(rough translation)
- (me) Surely there must some kind of reasonable boundary for one's desire for wealth. I mean if one has a 100 vacation houses around the Globe s/he can't use them simultaneously, even if s/he tried to use all of them one after another it doesn't really make sense.
- (him) If they have the money, they can buy whatever they want, it doesn't matter even if they never ever use that stuff in their life.
- Okay, but for example if you have 3 planes and you have one in a hangar, in a country you never visited and never will, is it reasonable to have that one? Just for the thought that you have it? It's almost like, you imagine, that you have one on the Moon. It has the same effect on your life.
- A lot of people spend their money in unreasonable ways, would you also tell somebody to not spend their salary in the casino? It's their personal choice, they have the freedom to do stuff, and isn't necessarily for their benefit. People have the right to be stupid. By the way that's a sumbjective term.
- But I was talking about that there must exist some kind of boundary for someone's needs. For instance at least the whole accumulated material and wealth Earth has? I mean it would be phisically impossible for anyone to use that much stuff in their life time, not even a fraction of it.
- When I say I look forward, and I want to better myself, I don't have limit for my desires, not even the whole wealth of the Planet. If you want to achieve something, you shouldn't have any limit on that. Don't get me wrong, I know it is pretty unlikely that I will be that rich, however nomatter how rich you are, you always have to demand more. You have to be self-respecting, high-standard.
- Okay for me, a family, a brick house (with a ground-floor and a first-floor, plus garden), one car, and a montly salary of $1350 is perfectly enough. Does that mean that I am not self-respecting and low-standard?
- I am afraid yes, people who settle down in the middle, doesn't even deserve more. My kind will exploit your kind, for the better of all of us. The more people without unlimited desires, the more richer I will get. This is capitalism, you mustn't stop.
- I think you over-simplified capitalism.
- You can always represent complex ideas, with simpler, compact concepts.

-----

So who is right? Is there (or should be there) a reasonable limit for one's desires? Can someone strive to infinitely better her/himself? What's the point of having 100 vacation houses, countless cars, yahts and planes (or drinking gems dissolved in vinegar: Caligula)?

Maybe a bit off-topic, but could be relevant regarding all the talk about capitalism.

P.S.: This stuff that not-being a virgin, used as some kind of Internet currency is getting old, srsly Dyret. You won't transform into Superman, also no occult initiation into the secret, upper caste of non-virgins, it's nothing special.

[AutomataKittay]

So who is right? Is there (or should be there) a reasonable limit for one's desires? Can someone strive to infinitely better her/himself? What's the point of having 100 vacation houses, countless cars, yahts and planes (or drinking gems dissolved in vinegar: Caligula)?

Maybe a bit off-topic, but could be relevant regarding all the talk about capitalism.

The point of having meaninglessly expensive and excessive things would be to show off their ability to own and purchase such, prestige and social statue. It's pretty much feeding the ego or covering for insecurity. It's not about utility in practical sense, but rather emotive utility.

The limit for desire is pretty complex, a mixture of avaliable resource, experience and cultural upraising/surrounding. As for infinitely self-bettering, there're always a limit, as in psychological barrier that's difficult to go through, limit of resource, or even limit of physics. Mostly it's the death that does it first, though

People involved aren't always rational, some of them are happy enough to just get what they needs, some of them want everything and some. Though on other hand, one could say that they're rationally acting on their own desires and percieved needs as well as their resource. Even if it's just to holler on internet to make themselves feel bigger.

Also nuts to that friend of yours, I'm pretty happy with a decent computer, working water and electricity and decent enough food. Well, room of my own too, but that goes hand in hand in having power and water avaliable. I might be annoying sometimes but I like myself well enough!

Not all complex concepts can be compacted, economics itself might be simple mechanically but all the interactions and actors involved makes it complicated to work out. There used to be an argument that I think was called the calculation problem, that argued that any society that didn't used captialistic price system are doomed to failure by paralysis of the system being unable to work out how to spend resource efficiently and effectively. I don't believe it personally, and wagers that corruption and ignorance would break the system anyway as so many countries have found out, even captialistic ones.

Of course what capitalists think is generally wrong as ,unlike most pro-capitalists, we aren't all just machines wanting to be 'better' than others. (you note that very few capitalists even mention Charity when talking about how important greed is).

One interesting thing i've noticed is that most people associate Anarcho-Capitalism with post-apocalyptic settings (everyman for himself, and high inequality) while they associate Communism with Utopia (perfect eqaulity, no resource scarcity).

Snipped out quite a bit of pretty good pointers and discussion since I wanted to give my comments here (And because I ran out of thoughts!). One of them is, the machine part depends on perception, since, well, the way I see it, we're all biological machinery. Unless some of y'all managed to get a supercomputer for a brain! Machinery doesn't necessiates perfection of action or singularity of purpose. Though I'll grant it's still good description to what others would understand! Also, don't buy cheap flimsy things, they'll always fail

Myself, I associates anarcho-captialism with Glided Era of USA ( and probably Europe, though I'm not familiar with their industrial age conditions ) and their monopolies. And communism, at least closest to True Communism I see everyone speaking of, to necessiately function more like older commune culture and systems and deal with scarity as needed. Carefully regulated captialism with some foundation for communal support is pretty important balance, in my eye. Good foundation allows for enduring system, after all.