A Treatise on Society

[Kryskov]

NOTE: The following essay does not necessarily represent the views of Promethia or any other members, or our allies, etc. and etc. In other words, these opinions are mine and mine alone.

 

A Treatise on Society

A Refutation of "The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics" and La Marxism

 

 

Introduction

 

On December 17, 2013, at approximately 2:34 PM EST, La Marx published "The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics." This piece declared two distinct socioeconomic classes: the "buyers" or "Gerontocrats," who La Marx argued exploited smaller nations for tech, and the "sellers" or "newbs," who were being exploited. La Marx reasoned that 6/100 or 6/200 tech deals were too advantageous towards the buyers, and that either:

1. The current social contract should be "modestly" upgraded to 12/100 or 18/100 deals, or

2. The sellers "develop a consciousness of themselves and begin to question the gerontocracies within their alliance."

 

Presented with these ideas, it is within reason to debate and discuss these policies as the ever-changing global politics...change.

 

Section 1: A Refutation of La Marxist Economics

 

Under the policies of La Marx, the Gerontocrats would pay double or triple the original, traditional price of tech. The cost of buying 100 tech at a time is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million. This means that sellers retain around two-thirds of the six million if in a 6/100 deal or one-third if in a 6/200 deal. This means that, should tech deals become 12/100, sellers would keep nearly 83% of the money, and 89% if in an 18/100. This may increase the seller-to-buyer progression rate and throw off the ratio of sellers to buyers, especially considering that less and less nations are declaring independence on Bob. This is an unreasonable approach to economics.

 

For comparison, consider this situation: two frycooks work at the same franchise, with each of their respective restaurants being owned by two very wealthy men. Now, one of the cooks is paid $20,000 a year and the other $70,000 a year. La Marx would have you believe that the richer cook is in a preferable situation, even though he is making the exact same quality of food at the same rate as the other. However, this is not the case. The richer cook's employer can no longer necessarily afford the same level of security, surveillance, and insurance that the other restaurant can. The richer cook's restaurant is broken into, supplies stolen, etc. This leaves the frycook in a position to have to pay for his own supplies, even taking over the restaurant if the owner can no longer afford it. And then, this leaves the cook in an even weaker position than the owner.

 

Section 2: A Discussion on the Benefits of National Inequality

 

With less and less nations appearing on Planet Bob, it has become beneficial, even necessary, for nations to be wealthier than others. Under La Marxist measures, the planet would oversee a lot of transitions to a buyer economy. With no base to support all the high-wealth nations, one alliance war could offset the balance of the world, and could potentially collapse the market, forcing everyone to go crazy for tech.

 

With social inequality, all people get what they require. Buyers get tech and sellers get money.

 

Section 3: On Gerontocracy

 

In a way, it can be reasoned that the "tech deal" is a physical manifestation of the social contract between new nations and more developed nations. That being said, we must look at why government members are chosen. The statement "Alliance leaders are older than many" is true. However, La Marxist assertions that "Alliance leaders are chosen because of their age" is false. Though there is correlation between age and leadership, this is by no means signifying causation. 

 

It is often that the nations with the most experience are often found in leadership positions. Conduct, rules, and general leadership skills need to be developed in the meantime. It is questionable as to what La Marx prefers to see: an alliance led by experienced, committed players, or of new players? Because many nations, old and new, continue to enter into a social contract- both physical and intangible- with alliances nearly seven years old.

 

In conclusion, the notion of a secret Gerontocratic society pulling strings is simply asinine and with little support. La Marx's ideas can only come to fruition should the sellers become disgruntled. I hope that I have proven that there is no reason for the sellers to be disgruntled, being one myself.

[Mr Director]

Was La Marx's theory really relevant enough to warrent a refutation? Good read though.

[Kryskov]

Was La Marx's theory really relevant enough to warrent a refutation? Good read though.

Meh, it got me thinking. And its best to overkill it than let it grow.

[Tehmina]

Oh yes, i believe all theories should be debated.. Not that i agree with LaMarx, but never-the-less.

[Mompson]

You're obviously a puppet of the buyerarchy.

[Hereno]

For comparison, consider this situation: two frycooks work at the same franchise, with each of their respective restaurants being owned by two very wealthy men. Now, one of the cooks is paid $20,000 a year and the other $70,000 a year. La Marx would have you believe that the richer cook is in a preferable situation, even though he is making the exact same quality of food at the same rate as the other. However, this is not the case. The richer cook's employer can no longer necessarily afford the same level of security, surveillance, and insurance that the other restaurant can. The richer cook's restaurant is broken into, supplies stolen, etc. This leaves the frycook in a position to have to pay for his own supplies, even taking over the restaurant if the owner can no longer afford it. And then, this leaves the cook in an even weaker position than the owner.

 

The workers owning the materials with which they work is a bad thing? You're a bourgeois shill - nothing more.

[La Marx]

 

The workers owning the materials with which they work is a bad thing? You're a bourgeois shill - nothing more.

I hate to agree with this particular former comrade of mine, but this.

A better title for this 'treatise', as you put it, would be 'An Immoral Defence of Gerontocracy.'

I might address your treatise in a bit more detail and round off the salient errors later. But for now I am just amused by your immorality. We are clearly thinking from starkly opposed moral premises. I don't think a world of gross inequalities is 'beneficial' to anyone except Gerontocrats.

I. My thesis is perfectly consistent with social instability, chaos, crisis etc. Better catastrophe than Gerontocracy.

II. In your introduction, "1" is incorrect. My thesis is not all for a rising of tech prices. If you read my commentary on my thesis and the dialogue with those who tried to engage with it (mainly in a very angry polemical and uncharitable spirit) closely, you will note that I suggest a lowering of tech prices for non-Gerontocrats. Maybe that would take place within a specific formation of anti-Gerontocratic guilds, unions, syndicates, or trans-aa formations. I have not yet indulged in strategising and I am not in a position to do so without a rising tide of tech seller consciousness.

III. You have not understood that my thesis as it concerns power is operating at a structural level. I never claimed alliance leadership was chosen based on age. Furthermore, I have problematised and criticised heavily the equation of 'alliance leaders' with politics, and this last point, not yet grasped let alone attacked by my critics, concerns the claim of depoliticisation in my thesis.

 

[berbers]

Supply and demand has already created an optimal cost per unit of tech.  The price will rise upwards when you have more competition for seller slots.

 

Fair has nothing to do with supply and demand :|

[Icewolf]

Time was when there was an attempt to form a buyers union to lower tech prices back to 3 million per 100. 

[berbers]

Time was when there was an attempt to form a buyers union to lower tech prices back to 3 million per 100. 

 

I think the lack of sellers would prevent this from being successful, pre-change, there was just as many 3/50's going on as 3/100's which was reflecting the increased number of buyers over sellers

[Kryskov]

 

 

The workers owning the materials with which they work is a bad thing? You're a bourgeois shill - nothing more.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "workers." However, I will assume it is the sellers. In my given situation, we must analyze the consequences of seller ownership. This example shows that higher paid, and therefore more equal, sellers end up in a WORSE position than they were in, having to exert more money and resources on their own tech, security, etc than if supported by an owner. This transition so early leaves the sellers in a weaker position than previously. Supporters of this seem to think that there should be a faster seller-to-buyer change rate, but that would only increase the instability of the world. I do appreciate the name-calling, though. It really tells a lot about the people who think this stuff'll work.

 

 

Supply and demand has already created an optimal cost per unit of tech.  The price will rise upwards when you have more competition for seller slots.

 

Fair has nothing to do with supply and demand :|

 

Exactly, why force the prices? What's been given is fair for now, but I do suspect it will change overtime. However, radical overthrow will not end up in the utopian society people think it would.

 

 

I hate to agree with this particular former comrade of mine, but this.

A better title for this 'treatise', as you put it, would be 'An Immoral Defence of Gerontocracy.'

I might address your treatise in a bit more detail and round off the salient errors later. But for now I am just amused by your immorality. We are clearly thinking from starkly opposed moral premises. I don't think a world of gross inequalities is 'beneficial' to anyone except Gerontocrats.

I. My thesis is perfectly consistent with social instability, chaos, crisis etc. Better catastrophe than Gerontocracy.

II. In your introduction, "1" is incorrect. My thesis is not all for a rising of tech prices. If you read my commentary on my thesis and the dialogue with those who tried to engage with it (mainly in a very angry polemical and uncharitable spirit) closely, you will note that I suggest a lowering of tech prices for non-Gerontocrats. Maybe that would take place within a specific formation of anti-Gerontocratic guilds, unions, syndicates, or trans-aa formations. I have not yet indulged in strategising and I am not in a position to do so without a rising tide of tech seller consciousness.

III. You have not understood that my thesis as it concerns power is operating at a structural level. I never claimed alliance leadership was chosen based on age. Furthermore, I have problematised and criticised heavily the equation of 'alliance leaders' with politics, and this last point, not yet grasped let alone attacked by my critics, concerns the claim of depoliticisation in my thesis.

 

 

That's a really catchy name. However, I am not the one who is being "immoral" and forcing radical, unnecessary economic change or the collapse of fair, well-tested alliance structures. But you also appear to be reckless by your words "Better catastrophe than gerontocracy." If you are supposing that the gradual change of politics and economics is slow enough to necessitate reverting back to pre-industrial, or even pre-societal, structures, than you will simply just start the process over, taking even longer for these "Gerontocracies" to unravel themselves.

 

2. I do await your strategies, for what you have so far requested of the sellers is either impossible or ironically self-refuting. It would be difficult to organize a couple dozen of protesters, nevertheless the countless hundreds of other sellers. Even if you somehow managed to, this organization would, by nature, require some form of leadership. Even if you didn't plan on this, it would manifest a leader some way. And, in time, you would be gerontocrats anyway.

 

3. I do believe that you think that there seems to be a mass conspiracy among supposed "gerontocrats" to exploit the sellers, their main alliance base. There simply has to be a leader. Without a pre-established leader, individual structures would descend into chaos, and people would eventually flock to organization promising aid, tech, and money.

[The Zigur]

OOC content included:

 

Generally I believe that market economics should drive prices, including when it comes to tech. The problem with capitalism as demonstrated by the fry cook thing, is that you have a government structure based around suppressing the lower classes and minorities in order to allow the middle and upper classes to prosper more than they would. It is very difficult to legally rise from a position of wage slavery with so many laws taking so many options off the table. Capital has indeed been concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy, and they have an entire police force to protect them.

 

You tend to see more upward mobility when there the law possesses less of a monopoly on force. Unfortunately, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and it makes it so much riskier to do whatever it takes to rise out of the lower classes.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Kryskov]

Interesting view of the world, Tywin. However, I believe that our given mechanics in this world force our current economic system. Given the theoretically infinite time new nations are given, there is little need to advance their progression, considering that in the current time it takes for a seller to become a buyer allows for a lot of experience to be gained and responsibility to be slowly and stably built.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Anatolian

[The Zigur]

Interesting view of the world, Tywin. However, I believe that our given mechanics in this world force our current economic system. Given the theoretically infinite time new nations are given, there is little need to advance their progression, considering that in the current time it takes for a seller to become a buyer allows for a lot of experience to be gained and responsibility to be slowly and stably built.

 

My personal philosophy is that alliances should work to build their new members into ideologically strong soldiers. This means that the market rate should not prevail within an alliance ideally. Rapid structured development should be a priority with an emphasis on early nuclear development.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Kryskov]

 
My personal philosophy is that alliances should work to build their new members into ideologically strong soldiers. This means that the market rate should not prevail within an alliance ideally. Rapid structured development should be a priority with an emphasis on early nuclear development.

I don't disagree.

[Krashnaia]

La Marx's thesis is flawed, but congratulations for being able to come with a theory even more flawed than his.

[Kryskov]

La Marx's thesis is flawed, but congratulations for being able to come with a theory even more flawed than his.

I'd like to see some specifics instead of declaring a broad statement. I don't believe my theory is more flawed (all theories are flawed, by the way), considering most of my points have been brought up in the other thread and no one seemed to have a problem with them. Again, this thesis is just to hopefully shed some light on the immediate, radical change of economic standards, which would in general toss the world into a chaotic state, hurting both buyers and sellers.

[Krashnaia]

I'd like to see some specifics instead of declaring a broad statement. I don't believe my theory is more flawed (all theories are flawed, by the way), considering most of my points have been brought up in the other thread and no one seemed to have a problem with them. Again, this thesis is just to hopefully shed some light on the immediate, radical change of economic standards, which would in general toss the world into a chaotic state, hurting both buyers and sellers.

 

Ok, since you asked nicely...

 

1) Your section 1 is false as your only argumentation to support your idea is a weak example about overpaying cooks.

 

The first flaw in that example is that no employer overpays his employees, not because otherwise they would have no money for surveillance, but because it would cut into their profits. Employers do not employ people because they are so nice persons, they employ people to get a return from their investment. They aren't going to pay 70k if they can get the same job done for 20k, and get 50k extra for cars, women, beer and other vices.

 

The second flaw in the example is that very often, paying your employees better gets a better return. Specially if they are qualified personnel. A good cook will expect to be paid more than a bad cook, because a good cook will attract more customers to your restaurant and thus increase profits.

 

But the real, basic flaw in the example is that you have accepted La Marx false premise, in the sense that Tech-Dealing equals an employer-employee relationship and not what it really is, a retailer-customer one.

 

The best shot at La Marx in that regard, would be to point that La Marx argues that the current 6kk/100-200 tech deals are exploitative because high-tech nations purchase for 6kk what would cost them over 50 million bucks. However, his revolutionary proposal is to increase the price from 6kk to 12kk-18kk. Wait, what? So, paying 6kk for what is worth 50kk is exploitiation, but paying 18kk for what is worht 50kk is not? come on.

 

If tech-dealing would really be an exploitation practice, then the answer would be do not sell tech. However, La Marx proposal reveals his true nature: he is not a revolutionary seeking to emancipate the oppressed masses. He is just a shop owner attempting to manipulate the market in order to artificially raise the price.

 

2) Section 2 point is not valid. High-tech nations only need sellers because they need to keep pace with other high-tech nations who are purchasing tech from sellers. Tech-dealing has provoked an "arms race" between the high-tech nations. If there were no tech-sellers, then high tech nations would have no need for them as no one would be exponentially increasing their tech (and thus, war damage) thanks to them. Inequality among nations provides, thus, no benefit.

 

3) Section 3 is fully valid. I'm, and have never been, an alliance leader, yet almost always have way more NS than the leaders and officials of whatever alliance I'm in.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Krashnaia

[Max Power]

 

Ok, since you asked nicely...

 

1) Your section 1 is false as your only argumentation to support your idea is a weak example about overpaying cooks.

 

The first flaw in that example is that no employer overpays his employees, not because otherwise they would have no money for surveillance, but because it would cut into their profits. Employers do not employ people because they are so nice persons, they employ people to get a return from their investment. They aren't going to pay 70k if they can get the same job done for 20k, and get 50k extra for cars, women, beer and other vices.

 

The second flaw in the example is that very often, paying your employees better gets a better return. Specially if they are qualified personnel. A good cook will expect to be paid more than a bad cook, because a good cook will attract more customers to your restaurant and thus increase profits.

 

But the real, basic flaw in the example is that you have accepted La Marx false premise, in the sense that Tech-Dealing equals an employer-employee relationship and not what it really is, a retailer-customer one.

So we're not even e-lawyering anymore, we're actually RPing corporate HR? Just when you think the OWF has jumped the shark to its maximum extent...

[Dochartaigh]

So we're not even e-lawyering anymore, we're actually RPing corporate HR? Just when you think the OWF has jumped the shark to its maximum extent...

 

Actually, if you read it carefully, he is simply refuting what the OP put forth. The last line is the clincher where he states it is not an "employer-employee" relationship but instead it is a "retailer-customer" relationship, which is pretty accurate.

[SpacingOutMan]

And how would we classify intra-alliance tech sellers? Neither employer-employee nor retailer-customer relationships accurately describe this modality. More specifically, preferential tech deals that promote nation size growth without stymieing adequate tech growth in the upper tiers. If we are going to be minimally honest, we have to rectify the fundamental differences between open market and alliance/bloc*-exclusive tech markets.

 

*Bloc as in an agreement made between multiple alliances to generate tech deals, such as economic treaties or even informal agreements giving "A" preferential treatment in tech deals (i.e., the relationship between DBDC and Doomsquad).  

[Max Power]

 

Actually, if you read it carefully, he is simply refuting what the OP put forth. The last line is the clincher where he states it is not an "employer-employee" relationship but instead it is a "retailer-customer" relationship, which is pretty accurate.

So we're in complete agreement then.

[Kryskov]

 

Ok, since you asked nicely...

 

1) Your section 1 is false as your only argumentation to support your idea is a weak example about overpaying cooks.

 

The first flaw in that example is that no employer overpays his employees, not because otherwise they would have no money for surveillance, but because it would cut into their profits. Employers do not employ people because they are so nice persons, they employ people to get a return from their investment. They aren't going to pay 70k if they can get the same job done for 20k, and get 50k extra for cars, women, beer and other vices.

 

The second flaw in the example is that very often, paying your employees better gets a better return. Specially if they are qualified personnel. A good cook will expect to be paid more than a bad cook, because a good cook will attract more customers to your restaurant and thus increase profits.

 

But the real, basic flaw in the example is that you have accepted La Marx false premise, in the sense that Tech-Dealing equals an employer-employee relationship and not what it really is, a retailer-customer one.

 

The best shot at La Marx in that regard, would be to point that La Marx argues that the current 6kk/100-200 tech deals are exploitative because high-tech nations purchase for 6kk what would cost them over 50 million bucks. However, his revolutionary proposal is to increase the price from 6kk to 12kk-18kk. Wait, what? So, paying 6kk for what is worth 50kk is exploitiation, but paying 18kk for what is worht 50kk is not? come on.

 

If tech-dealing would really be an exploitation practice, then the answer would be do not sell tech. However, La Marx proposal reveals his true nature: he is not a revolutionary seeking to emancipate the oppressed masses. He is just a shop owner attempting to manipulate the market in order to artificially raise the price.

 

2) Section 2 point is not valid. High-tech nations only need sellers because they need to keep pace with other high-tech nations who are purchasing tech from sellers. Tech-dealing has provoked an "arms race" between the high-tech nations. If there were no tech-sellers, then high tech nations would have no need for them as no one would be exponentially increasing their tech (and thus, war damage) thanks to them. Inequality among nations provides, thus, no benefit.

 

3) Section 3 is fully valid. I'm, and have never been, an alliance leader, yet almost always have way more NS than the leaders and officials of whatever alliance I'm in.

1. I agree. But I do not see how that should exactly change anything, it is an addition, not an amendment, to my exampled point.

 

second flaw- This doesn't exactly apply to our world's parameters, since there is no variation in quality of tech. People either get paid and sent the tech or don't send the tech and don't get paid.

 

Main flaw- The usage of this relationship was exactly to show the flaws in La Marx's theory. I humored this relationship, though I agree with yours more.

 

2. Perhaps. I suppose no one can predict the future. I concede this point.

[Dochartaigh]

So we're in complete agreement then.

 

Well, Krashnaia was not RPing anything that I could tell.

[Krashnaia]

And how would we classify intra-alliance tech sellers?

 

Mmmmh... alliance goverments regulate and promote tech deals, imposing limitations and restrictions to foreign trade.

 

My classification would, thus, be:

 

Planned Economy + Protectionism.

 

So we're not even e-lawyering anymore, we're actually RPing corporate HR? Just when you think the OWF has jumped the shark to its maximum extent...

 

 

Ok, if you want me to roleplay corporate human resources, I'll rolepay corporate human resources:

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Mr Powers

 

I've summoned you to my office in order to discuss some sensitive issues regarding your employment contract...

 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

That's all.

 

Have a nice day.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

PS:

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

Edited January 2, 2014 by Krashnaia