The Raiders Commune

Vivarex wrote:

"I also have a question towards all members of the Raider's Commune towards its future: What are we about?"

"On the surface it may seem simple: Communism, Anti-Fascism, Progressivism, Democracy. But are we? I could say I may know half of Marxist theory and if I'm being generous only understand a quarter. Many of our members including our esteemed NKVD head are Capitalist nations. We are not even particularlly progressive, as we don't really push people out for having conservative views. And we're not that Democratic either, by real-life standards we are but by NationStates standards we are more Autocratic. If our entire identity relies on being Anti-Fascist then we're always going to bleed members to other regions, moderates and radicals. Because why would they join us if they can join a region more establihed and aligned to their beliefs? So we need to figure out the kind of members we should attract. For the longest time I've felt as though we are more of a dumping region for ideological rejects of other more radical regions. But fanatics are good, we want fanatics. Because fanatics bring commitment, passion and energy. But fanatics also have no chill. So we need to find something we can all agree on so we can market towards a target audience that also aligns with that consensus, ino order to avoid inviting antagonists into the Commune."

"So, what do you all believe in? Let's have ourselves a discussion..."

I believe that capitalism is a fundamentally broken system where the gold-leash oppress the lower and working class, and that things need to be done to stamp out capitalism's reach over the world, by force if necessary. Those likeminded people that also believe in stamping out capitalism need to band together, to first attempt to reason with the gold-leash, and if the gold-leash refuse to listen, secede from the larger capitalist countries and create new, socialist ones, which will develop relations with other socialist nations and form an alliance, so they will be able to fight back against larger, capitalist nations bent on oppressing the socialists.

"What NationStates lacks to this day is Libertarian Socialism. We have government industries, state-owned enterprises and private businesses. Even the description of Socailism depicts a centrally planned economy. But I find the labels of Socialism or Capitalism redundant, especially since a nation's classification doesn't even take into consideration whether the nation is Socialist or Capitalist. It seems to take economic freedom into consideration, which is completely irrelevant to what Socialism is. A lot of people are economically unfree under Capitalism, and there are many models of Socialism that are decentralized and therefor economically free. I also find the distinction between state owned enterprises and government industries strange, as state owned enterprises are by their name extensions of the government."

"If I were to make an change I would do it this way: The Socialist/Capitalist policies are removed. Whether a country is Socialist or Capitalist is determined by the percentage of the economy that is privately, state or worker-owned. State-owned enterprises are replaced with worked-owned enterprises. And because capitalism is getting double-teamed by the top-down and bottom-up enterprises Capitalism gets a higher weight in nation classification. A nation will still be considered Capitalist if 1/3rd of the economy is privately owned. Any less and it will be classified as Socialist."

"Of-course this will never happen, many situations would have to be edited in order to accomodate this change. And considering how long NationStates has been around for; it's quite clear it is made with a Liberal bias that doesn't concern itself with the nuances of rival ideologies. Fascism is bad, but not because they understand Fascism. Socialist economics suck, but not because they understand Socialist economics. The Market is cruel, but not because they understand the Market. It is what it is, no further explanation as to why it is. That is about the depth of the Liberal left."

New Communist Sambuca wrote:

I'm not liberal left personally.

I lean centre-right.

Socialism is great but there is some problems.

it motivates people to work less and less productive because lazy gary over there doesn't work and gets same money as you.

"I'm not going to try arguing with you. It would just invinite unecessary conflict, when nothing in this 'game' is truly consequential."

Vivarex wrote:

"What NationStates lacks to this day is Libertarian Socialism. We have government industries, state-owned enterprises and private businesses. Even the description of Socailism depicts a centrally planned economy. But I find the labels of Socialism or Capitalism redundant, especially since a nation's classification doesn't even take into consideration whether the nation is Socialist or Capitalist. It seems to take economic freedom into consideration, which is completely irrelevant to what Socialism is. A lot of people are economically unfree under Capitalism, and there are many models of Socialism that are decentralized and therefor economically free. I also find the distinction between state owned enterprises and government industries strange, as state owned enterprises are by their name extensions of the government."

"If I were to make an change I would do it this way: The Socialist/Capitalist policies are removed. Whether a country is Socialist or Capitalist is determined by the percentage of the economy that is privately, state or worker-owned. State-owned enterprises are replaced with worked-owned enterprises. And because capitalism is getting double-teamed by the top-down and bottom-up enterprises Capitalism gets a higher weight in nation classification. A nation will still be considered Capitalist if 1/3rd of the economy is privately owned. Any less and it will be classified as Socialist."

"Of-course this will never happen, many situations would have to be edited in order to accomodate this change. And considering how long NationStates has been around for; it's quite clear it is made with a Liberal bias that doesn't concern itself with the nuances of rival ideologies. Fascism is bad, but not because they understand Fascism. Socialist economics suck, but not because they understand Socialist economics. The Market is cruel, but not because they understand the Market. It is what it is, no further explanation as to why it is. That is about the depth of the Liberal left."

Post this in a technical forum.

Vivarex wrote:

"I have no idea of what a technical forum is."

forum for ideas