"The Cybernations Manifesto" or "Cyber-Socialism"

[R3volver Ocelot]

A couple months ago I posted this on the NPO boards, and they didn't want anything to do with it. I didn't want it to go to waste, so here you go:

Applied Socialism in Cybernations

By R3volver Ocelot

1. Introduction

As a student of history, it is impossible to turn a blind eye towards large social and political developments that have occurred within the last 100 years, the most poignant being the advent and development of capitalism and socialism on opposite sides of the world. It is reasonable to believe that capitalism and socialism (or at least its b*stard son, communism) are polar opposites. Take Cybernations into account: is there any feasible way to achieve a productive capitalist society (in this case, alliance)? I doubt it. Capitalism strives on the production and distribution of goods and services and in Cybernations, the only commodities are Natural Resources, Technology, and Money. Resource hunting is something of a toss-up, which can’t be helped sometimes. Technology is distributed between alliances, but in too small of a scale, in my opinion. Money is, for the most part, horded as the lifeblood of individual nations.

Why, you ask, would an alliance wish to develop capitalism? Why even bring this up if it would be inefficient? My purpose in this introduction is to point out the mechanisms in the game that prevent capitalism. Now earlier I did mention that socialism is something of an opposite to capitalism. So logically, if capitalism would produce horrible results, socialism should excellent results. Flawed logic, I know, but keep in mind this is the internet XD.

Now we’re serious again. I hope in this document to provide an argument to large-scale alliances on Planet Bob for the implementation of Cyber-Socialism, something I see to be a major development within the next year, or at best, the next couple of months. I’d like to make clear, however, that I myself am not a Communist, nor have I ever been. I believe in Capitalism and Freedom IRL. Now, onto business, comrade.

2-1. The Revolution

Karl Marx did not like the idea of slow social reform. He saw it necessary for revolutionary ideas to be implemented through, literally, a revolution. While there need not be a war over any of this, I do believe for an alliance to adopt Cyber-Socialism there needs to be an extreme overhaul of the government. Absolutely everybody in a position of power in this alliance must be not only for the changes, but also must be willing to sacrifice a lot for this to work. Let’s say that the imaginary Lotus Garden Alliance* (henceforth abbreviated at LGA) decides to convert to Cyber-Socialism. They have an emperor, a high council, and a body republic where their people discuss and debate important things. What they need to do is have the most dedicated members of the alliance get together on IRC or in RL and draw up a new charter/constitution outlining these new policies to the people. THE PEOPLE MUST AGREE. This isn’t Russia. You can’t force people to do something they don’t want to.

2-2. The Concept

Under Cyber-Socialism an alliance can expect a newfound sense of brotherhood, a largely more efficient structure of government, and an enormous boost in nation strength. An alliance should not exist solely to protect its members from rouge attacks. An alliance should exist for the members to grow, not only in the game, but as a community. As stated earlier, the three commodities in Cybernations are Resources, Tech, and Money. As an alliance, our goal is to provide all three of those things to our members. All for one, and one for all. That said, the cardinal rule of Cyber-Socialism is this: EVERYBODY HAS THEIR ROLE, AND IS EXPECTED TO PERFORM IT. The economic roles within LGA will be The Farmer, The Miner, The Banker, and The Soldier

2-3. The Farmer

Historically, the countries most likely to become socialist states are underdeveloped agrarian societies. The backbone of the state is the farms. This would hold true in the ideal reformed LGA. To produce Tech, Tech Farms would be needed. I know everybody cringes at the sound of that, but the Tech Farms I’m talking about are not slaves, as is usually how that works. To a nation with 0 tech, Microchips, 2 Universities, and Gold, the actual price of 50 tech is near $700,000 (I verified this myself). If this nation were to receive $1 mil from another player, they could get a middleman and make a tech deal. However, if this nation were to receive $3 mil FROM THEIR ALLIANCE, $3 mil divided by $700k is about 4, so:

Crude Diagram #1 (Aid Slots)

1: Miner ----- $3 mil -----> Farmer

2: Farmer ------- 50 tech -----> Soldier

3: Farmer ------- 50 tech ------> Soldier2

4: Farmer ------- 50 tech --------> Banker

5: Farmer --------50 tech --------> Miner2

This one tech farmer just produced and distributed 200 technology in a day. Now, to take it to the next level, you find 5 other Farmers and have them start a trade circle. This is called a Tech Farm Circle. 6 Miners each send $3 mil to each of the 6 Farm nations, who each produce 200 tech every 10 days. One Tech Farm Circle can produce 3,600 technology per month, which means 72 members of the alliance will get 50 tech simply for being loyal. 5 Tech Farm Circles can produce 18,000 tech in a month, which is 360 members. You can do the math.

Somewhere on the alliance forum, there will be 3 lists, one for Miners, one for Bankers, and one for Soldiers. Whoever wants free tech need simply to ask for it by posting in the appropriate thread, and their name will be added to this list. Once they receive their FREE 50 TECH for being a faithful, hardworking member of LGA, their name is placed on the bottom of the list. Who wants to go to war with an alliance where most of its members have level 9 aircraft?

A lot is expected of a Farmer in LGA’s Cyber-Socialist society. Therefore, it is recommended that upon start-up of this operation and every fourth 10-day cycle after that, each tech farm be given $3 mil to keep for themselves for personal growth.

2-4. The Miner

This is the most demanding role in the Cyber-Socialist alliance. There must be at least a 1:2 ratio of Farmers to Miners to maintain a comfortable balance. The idea is that the Miners are the largest nations in the alliance, and every 10-day cycle they contribute $3 mil to the alliance. Half of them will send aid to a Tech Farm (they can be assigned a specific Farmer), while the other half will send $3 mil to a Banker. Since there will be about as many Miners as Bankers, each Miner contributing to the People’s Treasury will send to one Banker on the first cycle, then another banker the next cycle.

Crude Diagram #2 (Aid Slots for two cycles)

Cycle 1 (first 10 days) Cycle 2 (next 10 days)

Miner ----- $3 mil ----- > Banker Miner ----- $3 mil ----- > Banker 2

It will cost $9 mil a month to be a Miner, so the alliance must provide incentive for their most powerful nations to sacrifice so much. In LGA, the Miners are GIVEN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS. They’re already the top tier members in terms of nation strength, experience, and infrastructure, so as long as they aren’t a complete moron they can earn a position of power.

Another idea is that there can be certain Tech Farm Circles that produce exclusively for the Bankers or Miners

2-5. The Banker

Bankers will be in charge of the People’s Treasury. They have two main duties, the first being collecting $3 mil every 10-day cycle from the Miners and saving it, the other being the mass distribution of money during times of war. The dream is to be able to aid every single nation in the alliance $3 mil in a single day. This is why Bankers have to be no less than 1/5 of the alliance. There should also be as many Miners as there are Bankers, ideally. The more Bankers than Miners, the more $3 mil bundles will have to be sent out each cycle.

Once enough money is collected to provide $3 mil for at least every soldier (if the proportions are correct, I’d say about 3-4 months), Bankers should treat the amount they have as $0 and continue to collect from there, never going below that point. Once that amount is doubled, a celebration is in order. The LGA would declare an alliance-wide holiday, in which the Bankers distribute the massive surplus in the same manner as in a war. Every nation should get $3 mil in celebration of the resounding success of Cyber-Socialism, and the Bankers keep $3 for themselves, as long as they maintain the People’s Warchest.

2-6. The Soldier

Roughly half of the alliance will be comprised of Soldiers. Their names will be constantly on the Tech List, so they will be growing. They will have only one responsibility, and that will be to defend the alliance at any cost. LGA would have battalions, lieutenants and all of that, as well as a special division of Intelligence Agents (something like the KGB). It would be up to the discretion of the alliance leaders as to what these Agents are used for. The only downside to being a soldier is that they will most likely not be able to get Government Positions, as those spots are reserved to Miners.

2-7. War

During war, tech distribution is halted. Bankers, as ordered, will distribute all the money they can. Then the Soldiers, Bankers, and Miners will go to war, while the government leaders provide military analysis. Ideally, the Farmers would go into peace mode, but war can happen anytime, so those caught in a foreign aid web will just have to fight it out. Likely, though, they won’t become prime targets, since they will usually have 0 tech. They can be rebuilt easily as well.

2-8. Overview

Miners generate money and send them to both Farmers and Bankers. Farmers generate tech and send it to Miners, Bankers, and Soldiers. Bankers hold money until war or celebration and give it to Soldiers, Farmers, and back to Miners. In an alliance of 300 members, it would make sense for there to be 30 Farmers, 60 Miners, 60 Bankers, and 150 Soldiers.

3-1 The Government

A Cyber-Socialist alliance cannot necessarily be democratic. The people aren’t attracted to the notion of ruling themselves in this case; they’re attracted to the massive benefits provided. Besides, with alliances today operating practically under dictatorships as they are, it wouldn’t really be that big of a change. The idea is that you give the members so much that they have nothing left to ask for. Keep within your own social sphere, don’t try to pressure anyone else, and for God’s sake don’t go to war if you don’t have to. Keep the people happy, keep their nations growing, don’t piss them off. If they want to leave, or if they don’t like the policies, fine. Other than that it’s up to you how you want your new government to be. I would suggest a large council of representatives from each branch, like a Republic or Oligarchy.

3-2 Trade Circles

In Socialism, resources belong to the community at large, and it is up to the government to handle and distribute the people’s resources. I believe the government should provide every nation with trade partners within the alliance. There would be a special branch of the LGA dedicated to this. Members need only apply with a link to their nation and their natural resources, and the Department of Trade, or something similar, will pair them in such a way that every nation able to get the Fast Food/Beer/Construction combo will have it, and with their comrades to boot.

Farmers, on the other hand, cannot get FF/beer/con. They’ll have to settle for the 8-resource set so they can have microchips and gold. Nations with bad resources will be encouraged to become farmers so that they don’t clog up the resource pool.

3-3 The People’s Treasury

According to my calculations, if there are 300 members of the alliance, there should be 60 Miners, half of which are making $3 mil deposits into the Bankers’ treasury every 10-day cycle. If there are 150 Soldiers, that means to supply every one of them with $3 mil it should cost $450 mil, which could be accomplished in 5 cycles, about 7 weeks. To supply the Soldiers and the Miners, it’ll be $630 mil, 7 cycles or 10 weeks. To have enough for the Bankers to distribute everything and keep $3 mil to themselves, it’ll cost $810 mil, only 9 cycles, a mere 3 months. Every three months after that, the money can be given away part of a celebration of peace and Socialism.

Even if your alliance doesn’t have exactly 300 members, you just need to keep the proportions correct: 1/2 Soldiers, 1/5 Miners, 1/5 Bankers, and 1/10 Farmers, and the results should be the same.

3-4. The People’s Army

Some may argue that the Soldier does nothing and reaps all the rewards. Of course they can be given the duties of hunting AA ghosts and uncovering spies, but more should be done. “To each, according to his needs, from each according to his deeds”. Therefore, I propose that the army have the secondary job of Worker in time of peace, in charge of such aspects of the alliance as diplomacy, training new members, forum maintenance, and other responsibilities. Armies grow restless, and they need something to do.

3-5. Leadership

The leadership of a Cyber-Socialist alliance would be four-fold. There would be four leaders, each with equal power. The Shogun would have absolute authority over the army. The Investor would have absolute authority over the banks. The Overseer would have absolute authority over the farms. The Foreman would have absolute authority over the mines. Each would have a staff of secretaries or assistants or advisors. Any political or social move by the alliance would have to be approved by at least 3 of the 4 leaders. Expulsion of any leader would also need to be approved by the other 3.

3-6. Surplus

When there is enough money in the treasury, the alliance can offer contracts to individual nations in exchange for tasks, good deeds, or jobs, like getting the alliance a private IRC channel, creating flags in Photoshop, or even such things as political moves. Rewards can be offered for catching spies (with proof, of course) or disarming nuclear rogues. Yes, this does border on Capitalism, but since the government employs agents for the good of the people, it should be harmless. Just make sure those in charge know how to manage an alliance.

4-1. Putting things into motion

Who can adopt Cyber-Socialism? A new alliance with less than 300 members could, potentially, as it has yet to establish traditions that would keep people from adapting to it. For it to work for a big alliance, it would have to have total control over it’s color sphere.

Every nation would have to be alerted of the new developments. The most active would be Bankers, Miners, and Farmers, so those jobs go to the dedicated ones. Coordinators will set up the tech lists and make sure everyone knew who they were sending aid to and when. Nations unable to send their money/tech at a certain time must let someone know so they can arrange for a nation-sitter.

There are many lack-luster alliance members, so anyone who doesn’t sign up for anything is automatically considered a Soldier. There would have to be many meetings on IRC, in the forum, and in-game to plan everything.

4-2. Final thoughts

I do believe that the first alliance to successfully adopt Cyber-Socialism will be the dominant one in CN.

If you choose to adapt you alliance to this radical new form of government, except a rough transition, but also expect great rewards. Good luck.

-R3volver Ocelot

* The Lotus Garden Alliance is named after a Chinese Restaurant I like

Edited January 11, 2009 by R3volver Ocelot

[cowman809]

Nice tech deal model.

[Unko Kalaikz]

It's an interesting principle, but I think the rigid classes of soldiers and miners combined with their positions within the government will lead to bureaucratic inefficiency.

[Yankees Empire]

Interesting. I think it would work, but it would take a ton of effort, like you already said.

[D34th]

lol commies :X

[Konung Lindstrom]

Very interesting indeed. I don't think it will work though, there's too much rigid organization involved. I don't think people would go for it. Maybe a very small alliance could do it to quickly improve their nations.

[R3volver Ocelot]

I would love to see this applied before I die. Maybe NpO would consider it as a way to regain NS. I'd be happy to supervise, although I think the guide explains it well enough

It's an interesting principle, but I think the rigid classes of soldiers and miners combined with their positions within the government will lead to bureaucratic inefficiency.

I can see what you mean. When I wrote this I was more concerned with the mechanics of the system and not so much the government aspect of it, since most alliances already have their own forms of government that they would probably preserve most of. Although I don't think the soldier class is so rigid (Miners might be though)

Edited January 11, 2009 by R3volver Ocelot

[Geoffron X]

It's an interesting principle, but I think the rigid classes of soldiers and miners combined with their positions within the government will lead to bureaucratic inefficiency.

[ooc]Ha! Just like in real life![/ooc]

[Tom Litler]

Yet again we see Communism penetrating the deepest facets of our society.

When will it end? Don't the good people of the world see that these collectivists do not wish to achieve equality; they wish to achieve hegemony.

[America]

What do you intend to do when users become angered with farming and soldiering their entire CN careers?

[LeVentNoir]

Yet again we see Communism penetrating the deepest facets of our society.

When will it end? Don't the good people of the world see that these collectivists do not wish to achieve equality; they wish to achieve hegemony.

You sir, have some anti leftist hate, and I would wish you please stop talking.

However, on the subject of the OP, this is a great idea, and I wonder, how hard would it be to get it so that EVERY nation in the alliance can be flooded with $15 mil in a day. Think about it. Go to war. Flood. Watch you alliance strength jump.

[R3volver Ocelot]

What do you intend to do when users become angered with farming and soldiering their entire CN careers?

Any member from one class can be moved to any other class at any time. They only need to alert the administration of their current class, who will have the Department of Trade find them a new trade circle in necessary.

Possible Departments:

The Department of Trade - Headed by Miners and worked by Soldiers. Their job is to make sure every single nation in the alliance (who wants it) can be part of a trade circle, and that as many nations as possible get FF/beer/con. Nations who cannot be put into a FF/beer/con trade circle will be paid a stipend to stay in a lesser circle.

The Department of Transfers - Same as above. Their job is to handle transfers from one class to any of the others. They'd be working together with the department of Trade a lot as well to switch resources around for nations going in and out of the farmer's class.

The Department of Efficiency - One Miner at the head of it, but mostly controlled by soldiers. Their job is to constantly monitor every department, themselves included, to make sure the bureaucratic inefficiency is weeded out and that money is not spent frivolously.

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

This has been tried before.

[R3volver Ocelot]

This has been tried before.

By whom?

[America]

By whom?

A few no name alliances, if I recall.

[The Eye]

Moving to OWF on author's request (and also use of OOC concepts like 'Cybernations' and 'Karl Marx').

[Homura]

I would love to see this applied before I die. Maybe NpO would consider it as a way to regain NS. I'd be happy to supervise, although I think the guide explains it well enough

We have a great system for passing out financial aid and technology, which is in a lot of ways more practical than this.

So, a few points of critique:

First of all, most players tend towards inactivity or less than daily activity. The idea that ongoing heavy tech dealing will work in all alliances is impractical because of this, simply because you will never find the exact numbers to pull it off, nor will it be efficient. Reality is that everything is done on a voluntary basis, and there will always be severe imbalances in the system.

Second, war banking is dead for the most part. My nation's bills are almost 8 million per day with labour camps. Most people need to save up their money if they don't want to run out of it during a war.

Third, passing out government positions to people for buying technology is a ridiculous idea. Some of the greatest alliance leaders I've ever seen are complete noobs at nation management.

Fourth, I've run the calculations before on getting all people a trade circle. The three bonus combo is accessible to roughly a third of people if they only trade with each other. Obviously there's going to be a bit of a problem there if everyone is to get one.

And finally, this neglects the importance of diplomacy more than anything, which is relegated to a small position, despite the fact that it is what essentially makes the game interesting. Alliances are destroyed for poor diplomacy, and the huge wars that the CN community loves are plotted by trying to win over friends first.

The idea of trying to impose a real-world ideology on Cybernations has been tried many times, in fact I've seen many other "manifestos" like this one, but the successful alliance is ultimately one that adapts to the reality of this world, where everyone does not have essential needs, nor do many display abilities.

[Vulkan]

You sir, have some anti leftist hate, and I would wish you please stop talking.

He's role playing, let him have his fun.

Tl:dr - Get over it

[R3volver Ocelot]

As a respectful response to Katsumi's post:

1. Only the active nations will participate in tech deals/banking. The point of the Soldier class is for alliance members who know they aren't going to be active.

2. Not every nation pays $8 mil a day in bills. The war banking is aimed primarily to help nations with less than 10,000 NS. Those are the ones that get destroyed in wars, as they're easy targets for nations twice their size to stomp all over.

3. Theoretically, nobody is actually buying technology. The Miner class nations are just paying for it to be mass produced and distributed. The government positions go to the biggest nations because they're expected to know the game better than anyone else. Not EVERY government position has to go to them.

4. If only a third of nations will have the three resource combo anyways, then there's no real difference whether they're trading within their alliance or not. The point of trading exclusively with your alliance members allows for a sense of unity, I would think. It'd also be helpful to just submit a form to your alliance government and get trades set up for you instead of waiting around for inactives to answer trade requests.

5. I've never held a government position in NPO, so I don't know much about diplomacy. That's why I left it out. I think that's up to the government to figure out. I don't mean to say that everything here has to be followed unquestioningly. Whatever works, add it. Whatever doesn't, toss it out. But someone should try it first.

I just wanted to see the game played in a way that's different from the way it's always been played.

Edited January 12, 2009 by R3volver Ocelot

[US Brians Room]

While I can recognize the merit in the ideas - at least in CN - I think that the cardinal rule here will be impossible to achieve. "The cardinal rule of Cyber-Socialism is this: EVERYBODY HAS THEIR ROLE, AND IS EXPECTED TO PERFORM IT."

That simply won't happen. This is an internet game, and players will put in what they want to put in. In a system like ours, there will inevitably be free riders who take advantage of an major alliance to get what they want to and then leave.

Alliance leadership will always need to be those willing to put in the majority of the time playing the game. Alliances succeed or fail based on the activity and competence of their leadership. To create a system where the success of the alliance is based on the activity and competence of the entire alliance appears, at least at first blush, impossible.

B

[Willaim Kreiger]

None of these concepts are particularly ground-breaking.

[Melchior]

Interesting theory, but it seems like a pipe dream, because of the assumptions you make and the amount of luck it requires.

Resources will be a very hard knot to untie, and for such a large resource networks and demands, it will be impossible. You'll also get slaughtered in war. If an opposing alliance attack you, only half of your alliance is ready to fight. Your banks won't have enough money to fight properly and neither will the miners. I think the highest probability of this working is to find an alliance with a lot of members, such as sanctioned alliances, pick 72 nations that fit into the description. The danger of a nation being attacked, get deleted or is otherwise unable to perform its task on said day will affect the remaining 71 nations, and nobody will be able to cover for him, which ultimately $%&@s up the master plan.

I really like the theory, but it's not very flexible.

[Cobalt]

3m for 200 tech? Apparently you have some serious hate for farmers.

[Nietzschee]

problem with the idea is the same problem with communism, what are the incentives for the miners and farmers that they couldnt do a lot better for themselves in another alliance? this assumes that people will stay with the alliance forever, and that they will sacrifice a lot for it.

[America]

Also, what would stop the farmers from halting production and rebelling? Declaring war on them would break apart the alliance at its core.