The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics

[La Marx]

Below is an essay I have written on the state of our world politics, called 'The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics'.

Comments and discussion welcome.
 

The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics



Beyond politics: Gerontocracy

A glance at the majority of "political" discussion reveals something interesting about our world: there is no political discussion. It appears that the ultimate political forms and models have been decided and it seems no further discussion is deemed necessary . The main form is that of endlessly reproducing Gerontocratic Alliance structures that monopolise and tyrannise world political power for the endless reproduction of their own gerontocratic structures. In this post I would like to investigate this phenomenon. 


The Base of World Gerontocracy:

The first thing about alliance politics, intra and inter, that the new player apprehends (with the exception of certain socialistic and communist alliances where efforts are expended to offset this with mixed results) is that the nature of social and political relations is completely rigid, and that advancement of the new player's material necessities lies in the slavery of selling technology. Alliances are run by cliques of senior nations who monopolise political power and with that determine the material relations of power within the alliance and the whole game. The power of this gerontocratic cadre cannot be questioned because there are no alternative political structures.

The fundamental structure of most alliances appears thus to be that of a political pyramid scheme, or in other words, a Gerontocracy, rule by old nations. 

Base and Superstructure of World Gerontocracy:

In this phenomenon one will note the predominance of the material and economic (technological, and military subsumed thereunder) - the material basic structure of nations, over the political. Therefore there is a close parallel between the oldness of a nation and its economic power. The accumulation of this material power reproduces itself into political power. This is a basic marxian point: the base (the level of the nation) determines the superstructure (politics between nations).

The Daily Murder of the Political Imagination:

There are many reasons one could adduce here. But I believe it is because the political imagination of young nations (and also some mid to old) is daily murdered by the slavery into which they are brought by the gerontocratic structure of world politics. This is a political structure which is based on extracting from younger nations a tribute to the gerontocratic structure of world politics thinly disguised as a free contractual deal: the tech deal.



The Exploitaton of Tech Sellers: Systemic Inequality and its perpetual reproduction through tech deals.

Young nations under this political structure offer their low tech levels to older nations at prices which are determined by their political domination under World Gerontocracy. At 6/200 or 6/100, nations sell their technology and receive a small return - effectively, a wage that allows for growth that can never effectively compete with the gerontocratic elite. In this wage is inscribed the basic political and economic coordinates of domination and inequality at the heart of World Gerontocracy. It is true that majority are not conscious of their exploitation in this transaction or how the market of technology reproduces the gerontocratic political structures. The surplus value extracted from young technology sellers can be enormous. Older nations pay 6million for what can cost them as much as 60million to 120million (and much more), so that the surplus value extracted from younger nations can be as little as 54 million (and on into the hundreds of millions, if not billions). 

From the massive harvesting of surplus value from younger nations the Gerontocracy only increases its hegemony over all political structures. And descendng on these political structures is the rigidity of death.

Conclusion:

The falling number of newer nations can tell us only one thing: that Gerontocracy is not only tyrannical and oppressive, but that it invites the slow suicide of decay and indifference. Thus the inner necessity of gerontocracy is driven forward only by the senile logic of a death that draws ever nearer. Unless the contradictions of the gerontocratic system are violently opposed and young nations revolt with the support of older and mid-tier nations, the system will continue to spiral in narrower and narrower circles, until ultimately there are no nations left, or a small and cultish minority who in turn drive all newcomers away with their sectarian and unhealthy devotion - the botched remnants of gerontocracy.

A call for solutions could be made here and perhaps with rhetorical spin. But other than an adaption of some of the main mechanisms of the reproduction of gerontocratic power structures (alleviating technological exploitation by increasing the cost of technology modestly e.g. to 12/100 or 18/100), I think it is necessary for younger nations to develop a consciousness of themselves and begin to question the gerontocracies within their alliance.

 

 

 

La Marx.

Edited December 17, 2013 by La Marx

[Mogar]

an interesting take on tech dealing.

[Auctor]

Have you considered joining HB?

[La Marx]

HB?

[Helbrecht]

HB?

Yeah, the alliance Tywin Lannister hails from.

[Dave Daveson]

You're caving man...18/100? What ever happened to those 6/15 deals?

[Commander shepard]

I approve, I'd love to see a new nation getting 108 million before they have to send out an ounce of tech.

I say 108 million because they can buy a DRA and FAC wonders with the cash before they have send tech or maybe just a DRA and 3 offers of 6 million.

And then they &^%%^ with your cash because they're already made, or maybe they send you the 100 tech as it's not like they have to do another tech deal.

&%$& I might sell my tech if I get that amount of cash each time.

 

The best outcome is receiving 600 tech each month if you're lucky.

 

There is nothing modest about me having to send out 108 million for 600 tech over a 30 or 40 day period.

That, or someone could increase my productivity tenfold and I could send out 18 million comfortably every 20 days.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Commander shepard

[La Marx]

I don't really think, Commander shepard, (or depend on debating it) that negotiating with gerontocrats will work that well for the exploited, as you demonstrate.

Direct action is needed I think.

Edited December 17, 2013 by La Marx

[Commander shepard]

I don't really think, Commander shepard, (or depend on debating it) that negotiating with gerontocrats will work that well for the exploited, as you demonstrate.

Direct action is needed I think.

 

I take it I am right then.

[La Marx]

I don't know how you deduced that?

[YOLO SWAG]

Good read, La Marx. But how does changing tech deal prices change the status-quo of political power and structure.

[Lex Quintus]

I don't know how you deduced that?

 

I'd say this was induction rather than deduction, owing to the a posteriori conclusion of assent derived from (that is, prior to) your reply.  Deduction would have been concluding what he would likely say given that he agreed you were right.

 

Induction gives rise to perhaps bolder conclusions, while deduction plods slowly, building its case step by cautious step.

 

But I quibble.

 

While I think there is merit to your overarching premise that the game overall has reached a somewhat rigid plateau, I would like to offer alternate views on several of your specific positions.

 

Just as "never" is a very long time, "no" and "none" can be very big numbers.  You state that there are no alternate political structures, the existing model entailing smaller/newer nations being enslaved politically to larger/older ones who exert political and economic control by ruling and doing tech deals.  To categorically link game experience with nation size/age is I think a stretch.  The game has gone long enough that many sage veterans are on their third or fourth nations.  Many of those same veterans, who may or may not be in positions of overt political power, are in fact avid tech buyers.

 

So I would first argue that age/experience of the player does not necessarilly track with nation size/power.  Often, perhaps, but not categorically.

 

I would further argue that since experience does not predict material power, neither does that material power necessarily translate into political power.  In Kashmir for example, we have re-rolls in our government who are there by virtue of their player stats (to coin a phrase) vs. their nations', which are in some cases not all that.  We love them nevertheless.  The player's experience/reputation/social currency are determinative of power within alliances and between them.

 

Therefore the players with political power are not necessarily exploiting (your word) smaller nations for economic gain.  Sometimes the newb buys from the geezer.

 

As to exploitation: it is here I find myself most at odds with your thesis.  Tech dealing is not exploitation of one player by another.  It is...making advisable use of in-game mechanics on the part of both parties.  Rather than a pyramid scheme, I think synergistic capitalism might be a better model.  Each party gets what it lacks/desires in exchange for what it has in relative abundance (or at least in readier supply).  Without question the buyer is getting a good deal, but remember that the "small profit" (your term) of sellers radically boosts their ability to acquire the infra, etc. which ultimately (and far more quickly than going it alone) turns them into buyers.  The circle of life between consenting adults.

 

You speak of harvesting surplus value from smaller nations.  What about the surplus value lavished on them by buyers?  $3m (or, now, $6m) for 200 tech?  That is like hitting the lottery.  Each side makes out, which is why the market for this exchange of consideration remains to this day.

 

But leaving aside whether tech dealing is inherently bad, it is not the case that buyers' "exploitation" is what perpetuates game stasis.  Many power players are in what you term the exploited class.

[Petro]

 

So what you are saying is this?

Edited December 17, 2013 by Petro

[La Marx]

 I'd say this was induction rather than deduction, owing to the a posteriori conclusion of assent derived from (that is, prior to) your reply.  Deduction would have been concluding what he would likely say given that he agreed you were right.

 

 

Induction gives rise to perhaps bolder conclusions, while deduction plods slowly, building its case step by cautious step.

 

But I quibble.

 

 

 

The use of "deduce" there was in its standard ironic form "How'd you deduce that?", rather than any sort of pedantic go at smarmy logic-chopping.

 

Just as "never" is a very long time, "no" and "none" can be very big numbers.  You state that there are no alternate political structures, the existing model entailing smaller/newer nations being enslaved politically to larger/older ones who exert political and economic control by ruling and doing tech deals. 

 

My point was more subtle: implicit in the political discussions on bob there is an assumption that there are no alternative political systems, that the status quo is eternal and natural. 

 

To categorically link game experience with nation size/age is I think a stretch.  The game has gone long enough that many sage veterans are on their third or fourth nations.  Many of those same veterans, who may or may not be in positions of overt political power, are in fact avid tech buyers.

 

So I would first argue that age/experience of the player does not necessarilly track with nation size/power.  Often, perhaps, but not categorically.

 

 

Yes, I agree completely with these, and consider them not a refutation but a supplement of my general thesis that age is the most significant determinant of economic strength, based on the temporal form of tax accumulation and the temporal limits on aid transactions.

 

Tech dealing is not exploitation of one player by another.  It is...making advisable use of in-game mechanics on the part of both parties.  Rather than a pyramid scheme, I think synergistic capitalism might be a better model.  Each party gets what it lacks/desires in exchange for what it has in relative abundance (or at least in readier supply).  Without question the buyer is getting a good deal, but remember that the "small profit" (your term) of sellers radically boosts their ability to acquire the infra, etc. which ultimately (and far more quickly than going it alone) turns them into buyers.  The circle of life between consenting adults.

 

I think because of the clear power differentials between the two in the transaction, that one cannot speak of "consent", especially since there are no actual political alternatives available at the moment, apart from what I am proposing. With a lack of alternatives, if consent to the status quo is not given at the moment, one simply has to give up on the game.

(Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.)

Exploitation is not negated by ideas of "consent." Exploitation is a product of the contextual framework of  that "consent." Under conditions where there were alternatives, consent to those tech deals would not be forthcoming. I amended my terms before I read your post from "profit" to "wage" in order to make my argument more cohesive with the rest of my terminological commitments.

 

You speak of harvesting surplus value from smaller nations.  What about the surplus value lavished on them by buyers?  $3m (or, now, $6m) for 200 tech?  That is like hitting the lottery.  Each side makes out, which is why the market for this exchange of consideration remains to this day.

 

This is basically a misunderstanding of what surplus value is. The exchange value produced by the nation generating 100tech is, as I demonstrate, only 6million (or sometimes 3million), whereas the use-value to the nation buying it is often equivalent of 50 or many hundred million.
 

But leaving aside whether tech dealing is inherently bad, it is not the case that buyers' "exploitation" is what perpetuates game stasis.  

 

 

I'm not saying exploitation is the only contributing factor to game stasis.

Edited December 17, 2013 by La Marx

[La Marx]

Good read, La Marx. But how does changing tech deal prices change the status-quo of political power and structure.

By improving the material conditions of younger nations, it will give them greater chances of developing their nations in order for there to be reconfiguring of world politics. As I have demonstrated in my first post, the World Gerontocracy is sustained by the material basis of the greater development of older nations.

There are other ways of opposing this gerontocratic structure than charging more for tech - such as charging less when selling to younger nations entering the mid-tier. And I am sure there are other material and non-material mechanisms too. Ending tech exploitation is just one obviously effective means.

Edited December 18, 2013 by La Marx

[Mr Director]

La Marx. While I agree with you on the point that politics on CN are stagnated, tech deals really have nothing to do with it. In fact, it is quite the opposite, as tech deals are a smaller nation's way to becoming larger. Tech deals are just that. Deals. You are looking at it numerically(i.e., the amount of money made by buyers vs. sellers), however there is also a proportional way to look at it. A buyer saves much more money then he would by buying the tech otherwise, and the seller earns many times more than he would by just collecting taxes/paying bills.

 

P.S. Nobody is going to buy tech 12m/100

 

 

 

You speak of harvesting surplus value from smaller nations.  What about the surplus value lavished on them by buyers?  $3m (or, now, $6m) for 200 tech?  That is like hitting the lottery.  Each side makes out, which is why the market for this exchange of consideration remains to this day.

 

$6m/200 is a horrible deal for a seller.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Mr Director

[Alex987]

Have you considered joining HB?

I'd like to bump this up because I enjoyed a good laugh from it. Always a clever one, Auctor

[jerdge]

Too late. If Sellers were to get a lot of money for their tech they'd then exit Sellers range at rocket speed, and there would basically be no tech market anymore. Which isn't going to help newcomers to "catch up".

 

Newcomers can just stick to the plan and be as efficient as possible, and be patient for all the time it takes to get a big nation. That's what us old timers had to do as well, anyway.

As others already pointed out, anyway, big nations aren't the only relevant ones (and not even the ones that provide the most fun).

[La Marx]

Many of the replies so far, and many more I imagine, will focus on the utilitarian point that even with the current exploitative regime of technology selling, some benefit exists to both parties.

However, such a "benefit" and exploitation are not incommensurable: they are a product of the same. Keeping a woman or a man in a state where s/he is forced to sell her labour for a crust of bread - yes, that is exploitative, and yes, the crust is a benefit - but the overall scheme is what I am saying is not beneficial, just, right, fair, or good. And my point is this ethical or moralistic one.

As for the dynamics of development that have led to the current situation of inequality and exploitation, well, yes, you may explain them as well, in great technocratic detail, but it is a naturalistic fallacy to argue that because the system is, that it ought to be.

So, despite the fact that I claim my analysis of the factual situation to be correct, my critics should bear in mind that this is not so much an argument of facts as an argument of values, and they are gravely misled if they think that arguing, for instance, that buyers would never pay 12/100 (which is a gross exaggeration and a presumption) is a refutation. Were tech sellers to unite into a single organic whole across all political divisions and to refuse anything less than 12/100, then of course buyers would capitulate, even if some would not pay that, because for the majority even at 12/100 the use-value still would far exceed the exchange-value of 12/100.

[Mr Director]

"So,despite the fact that I claim my analysis of the factual situation to be correct,my critics should bear in mind that this is not so much an argument of facts as an argument of values,and they are gravely misled if they think that arguing,for instance,that buyers would never pay 12/100 (which is a gross exaggeration and a presumption) is a refutation. Were tech sellers to unite into a single organic whole across all political divisions and to refuse anything less than 12/100,then of course buyers would capitulate, even if some would not pay that,because for the majority even at 12/100 the use-value still would far exceed the exchange-value of 12/100."


No one would buy at such rates. Even if you could somehow get all of the sellers to unit (not possible, due to alliance politics and the constatnt addition of new nations to the game), such a union couuld easily be broken apart. No alliance wants to see its upper tier suffer. As a seller, I wouldn't mind a wage increase, but I won't scare of potential buyers by joining a movement that is likely to fall apart. As someone who is VERY close to switch over to buying, I would never give up an extra six mil of profit just so they a new nation could switch from selling to buying faster and mess up the tech market. I would fight to squeeze sellers as much as possible for that extra profit. The tech must flow!

Edited December 19, 2013 by Mr Director

[Master Holton]

$6 million is worth a lot more to smaller nations than 100 tech is. Just as 100 tech is worth a lot more to larger nations than $6 million is.

 

Looking from a buying-range nation's perspective: Yes, 6/200 or even 6/100 is a great deal when you look at the cost of buying the tech yourself. However, a brand new nation can buy almost 1000 infra with $6 million. Whereas a larger nation might be lucky to get 10 infra for $6 million. Are you seeing my point? You're trying to compare numbers that hold different values for different people and trying to conform the value of both tech and money to your own definition (which is likely a larger nation's definition).

 

What's actually happening in the tech deals that we've established here on Bob, is that two goods of equal value (as agreed upon by both nations) are being exchanged.

 

 

Also, need I even dismiss your notion of nation age/size relating to political power? The only leg you have to stand on here is how newer rulers, for the most part, need time to adjust to politics, systems, and dealing with people on CN before they can be trusted with power over other nations.

[Master Hakai]

$6m/200 is a horrible deal for a seller.

"Horrible?" well, I don't know about all that...

[BrJLa]

"So,despite the fact that I claim my analysis of the factual situation to be correct,my critics should bear in mind that this is not so much an argument of facts as an argument of values,and they are gravely misled if they think that arguing,for instance,that buyers would never pay 12/100 (which is a gross exaggeration and a presumption) is a refutation. Were tech sellers to unite into a single organic whole across all political divisions and to refuse anything less than 12/100,then of course buyers would capitulate, even if some would not pay that,because for the majority even at 12/100 the use-value still would far exceed the exchange-value of 12/100."


No one would buy at such rates. Even if you could somehow get all of the sellers to unit (not possible, due to alliance politics and the constatnt addition of new nations to the game), such a union couuld easily be broken apart. No alliance wants to see its upper tier suffer. As a seller, I wouldn't mind a wage increase, but I won't scare of potential buyers by joining a movement that is likely to fall apart. As someone who is VERY close to switch over to buying, I would never give up an extra six mil of profit just so they a new nation could switch from selling to buying faster and mess up the tech market. I would fight to squeeze sellers as much as possible for that extra profit. The tech must flow!

 

Negotiating is primarily about leverage.  If I have the leverage, I can determine which direction the price moves.  If you have the leverage, you can determine which direction the price moves.  I think you're absolutely wrong when you say "no one would buy at such rates".  No one will ever pay that rate, but it's not because 100 tech isn't worth 12 million to a larger nation.  For the most part, 12 million is an inconsequential amount.   If sellers could pool their leverage, people would absolutely pay 12/100.  No one will ever pay 12/100 because the sellers don't have the leverage to demand it. There will always be a ready pool of younger nations willing to sell it for less.  But nations would absolutely pay more if market forces moved the price in that direction.

[Freddy]

Cash and the infra to create it is so much more important than tech. Cash and infra is capital. Tech is labor, but the capitalists don't need the labor to produce $$$. So...there is no correlation to RL capitalist exploitation.

As for political power...it's far more a matter of effort (activity) and aptitude. Money is real god damn important to political power, but only if the person with the money or someone directing shit is making good use of that resource. Any sized nation can facilitate the effective use of OPM (other peoples' money).

[La Marx]

 

Negotiating is primarily about leverage.  If I have the leverage, I can determine which direction the price moves.  If you have the leverage, you can determine which direction the price moves.  I think you're absolutely wrong when you say "no one would buy at such rates".  No one will ever pay that rate, but it's not because 100 tech isn't worth 12 million to a larger nation.  For the most part, 12 million is an inconsequential amount.   If sellers could pool their leverage, people would absolutely pay 12/100.  No one will ever pay 12/100 because the sellers don't have the leverage to demand it. There will always be a ready pool of younger nations willing to sell it for less.  But nations would absolutely pay more if market forces moved the price in that direction.

This is a pretty good analysis. My only criticism is that it doesn't realise how far this insight about leverage goes. "Market forces" are not moved by some invisible hand or collective unconscious. Leverage can be gained through conscious action that brings about a movement toward a new price consensus -  e.g. 12/100. Unionising sellers, an organisational feat, is basically a voluntary effort whose results one can't determine. But there are more ways to change the price consensus than unions. Basically - politics - something rarely invoked here, could bring about a consensus. Invoking tech exploitation in the realm of military casus belli, making it a point of intra and inter-alliance politics, and so on. The limits of that strategy is that the holders of such power are tech buying gerontocrats, as my analysis shows. So I think tech sellers must rely on the tactic of raising consciousness, unionising, striking/boycotting, and/or attacking nations which sell at "scab" rates like 6/100 or 6/200, at which I currently sell. 

Although these things would need to be decided. I think that for the moment it would be worthwhile for those who agree that tech prices need to move toward 12/100 to start up a petition.