Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    16
  • comments
    51
  • views
    6,810

The Post-Revolutionary Libertarian Party of Cybernations

Sign in to follow this  
The Zigur

865 views

iP24EsY.png

Revolution requires Revolutionary Theory and Circumstance

 

"We are in the trenches. A great battle is raging to which we can all, in some capacity, play a part. Our most recent conflicts have been with us spearheading the assault against those that have wronged us or our allies. In this instance, we are the targets. Not since the July Revolution have we been subject to an existential defensive war. And for that, we must take heart." - Edward Graceford, during the First War on Terror

 

PART ONE: BACKGROUND

 

In the early years of this world, while Ivan Moldavi won the leadership contest in the New Pacific Order (NPO), it was Vladimir who carried with him the ideology of the August Revolution. His essay, the Meaning of Freedom, laid out for the first time a comprehensive material analysis of Cybernations. He postulated that all nations have a fundamental self-interest derived from their existence, and that this self-interest, when fulfilled, would move the nation forward in social, cultural, and economic development.

 

Perhaps the greatest threat to forward progress has been from nations that do not act according to self-interest. In 2010 as a member of the NPO, I wrote Return of the Lulz, I pondered the return of Lulzists on the global scale and the decaying effect this had on global politics. Vladimir also briefly addressed the decline of political self-interest in two essays titled The Existential Threat.

 

But wasn't it in the self-interest of Mushroom Kingdom and others to suppress the growth of NPO? It was certainly so for the political leadership, but in the end NPO prevailed because of their focus on material analysis. Pacifica's adversaries simply didn't have the ideological focus to compete long-term, and typically wasted resources on frivolous military expeditions. In essence they became purely reactionary forces, driven by fear of NPO resurgence.

 

Pacifica's status as number one alliance today is something every alliance leader should be studying, not only from the perspective of ambition but also survival. We cannot merely react to the situation, we must align ourselves with the ongoing march of history.

 

1100x728_4110_Tank_2d_sci_fi_tank_soldie

Battle of Junkagrad, Spring 2016

 

PART TWO: THE BROWN TEAM

 

Around the same time as the Great July Producerist Revolution in Supernova X, the Libertarian Party of Cybernations (LPCN) was founded by Methrage aka Sephiroth as a means of protecting a loose band of rogues from sanctions that occurred on other teams. While in principle much of the LPCN was a good idea, as the Non Aggression Principle is usually conducive to forward development; in practice the movement lacked any focus on material analysis. If we accept Vladimir's premise that all nations have an inherent material self-interest, then we must deduce that rogue activity is antithetical to civilized development.

 

The destruction caused by Methrage's errant ideology is almost legend today. The Imperium alone fought three wars in defense against his version of the LPCN, and this is not counting other wars involving GATO, Kashmir, and many other alliances. Some of these wars had to do with sanction wars in defense of rogues like Thorgrum, who Sephiroth protected as part of his grudge against Kashmir. Other wars, such as the First War on Terror, began with insane declarations of sovereignty over the Imperium, when he demanded he replace me as leader.

 

Ironically, in the end, I was chosen to replace Sephiroth as Supreme Triumvir of the LPCN. The Victory of the Imperium against irrationality on the micro-political stage mirrored that of Pacifica in macro-politics, shedding light on the validity of Vladimir's earlier analysis. The Libertarian Party of Cybernations is currently discussing this analysis and reforming in the direction of national self-interest, rejecting roguery and emphasizing deterrence and non-aggression.

 

PART THREE: THE WAY FORWARD

 

Several aspects of the modern LPCN should be appealing to small and mid-sized alliances seeking mutual defense while remaining independent from macro-political wars:

 

  • ODOAP confederation: The LPCN serves as an ODoAP confederation, in which member alliances are able to support each other against rogues and other threats. LPCN alliances are not expected to fight on behalf of other signatories if they feel unable to meaningfully contribute towards a strategic victory. There is no risk of being dragged unwillingly into complicated macro-political conflicts.
  • Coordinated Brown Team voting: The LPCN triumvirate coordinates on senate voting with the objective of electing multiple brown team senators. These senators then coordinate to implement positive economic proposals, while protecting against aggressive sanction wars.
  • Political Stability: The triumvirate is currently composed of Immortan Junka, Rukunu, and Sigrun Vapneir. New triumvirs are selected either by a 2/3 vote or via nomination by a resigning triumvir. This creates a stable bloc environment without sudden radical political changes.
  • Diplomatic Strategy: The LPCN seeks to have individual military treaties across the entire spectrum of the treaty web. This frustrates and complicates the aggressive intentions of potential attackers. It also allows members of the LPCN to chain into macro-political conflicts if it is seen as being necessary to the security of LPCN signatories. But our main goal is to establish long term stability for growth and prosperity.

 

The Libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is a fundamental value of the LPCN. Signatories are asked to not engage in aggressive wars against major alliances without a concrete Casus Belli or treaty activation. In the case of a global conflict, we urge signatories to consider the validity of the original Casus Belli that triggered the war. It is suggested that signatories pursue ODoAPs and MnDoAPs to avoid getting chained into bad wars.

 

 

Sign in to follow this  


10 Comments


Recommended Comments

12 hours ago, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

If it was just Part 3 without the other the other stuff, it would have been better. Is that Stalin? Lol.

 

I am the Imperium's Man of Steel.

 

3 minutes ago, Archangel1 said:

Interesting. You taking new members?

 

Possibly... pm me your situation.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Your statement about material analysis fails to include the example of mi6, who successfully produced and grew at a rate far greater than any other alliance, and yet still was struck down repeatedly and later disbanded by the exact forces that you tie to progression. Focusing on material as ideological fails to account for the actual system by which growth is produced, within a capitalistic barter system of tech dealing as well as the system of power within the individual alliances, which is generally a feudalistic system. Feudalism continually prevailed over democratic and socialistic systems within the history of bob, and that is largely due to the regressive system of growth employed by all alliances, and the use of war purely as a way to leverage an economy over another in order to prevent future growth. In totality, I feel like you are not examining your own ideology critically. The ideology of Producerism only persists by virtue of tolerance, whereas an actual Producerist that transcended yours (Mi6) was swiftly destroyed. If you ever reach the same heights, I am certain that Snax and the LPCN will be struck down swiftly.

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tevron said:

Your statement about material analysis fails to include the example of mi6, who successfully produced and grew at a rate far greater than any other alliance, and yet still was struck down repeatedly and later disbanded by the exact forces that you tie to progression. Focusing on material as ideological fails to account for the actual system by which growth is produced, within a capitalistic barter system of tech dealing as well as the system of power within the individual alliances, which is generally a feudalistic system. Feudalism continually prevailed over democratic and socialistic systems within the history of bob, and that is largely due to the regressive system of growth employed by all alliances, and the use of war purely as a way to leverage an economy over another in order to prevent future growth. In totality, I feel like you are not examining your own ideology critically. The ideology of Producerism only persists by virtue of tolerance, whereas an actual Producerist that transcended yours (Mi6) was swiftly destroyed. If you ever reach the same heights, I am certain that Snax and the LPCN will be struck down swiftly.

 

Thanks for the reply. I'll break my response down into several parts since you're covering alot of ground here.

 

*MI6 was a deeply flawed alliance according to Vladimir's own analysis. The single driving force going for it was high activity, but it lacked an absolute sovereign or any kind of dicipline for that matter. The fact that it attracted many of the more toxic former members of Supernova X is noteworthy. I remember making a troll thread in their embassy suggesting a revolution, ironically if they actually had done it they might still exist today.

 

*I don't think you support the assertions you make in your second point. You use terms like feudalism, socialism and capitalism without explaining them, and somewhat ignorant of the fact that OOC societal systems don't apply to CN because the material conditions are much different. I've never claimed to be socialist, capitaist, or feudalist in CN, that's why I invented (IC) Producerism as an ideology specifically developed for Cybernations.

 

*I don't see the advantages of a "capitalistic system of tech barter." If you mean a lassez-faire tech situation where individual alliance members sell tech across Planet Bob, that's not an efficient situation because the tech is not strengthening the position of your own alliance. Tech is a military asset, not simply an item of consumption. 

 

*Producerism is not about growth. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" (one of our key mottos). Producerism is almost the opposite of what MI6 stood for. It is ultimately about control of growth, control of production, and control of all indigenous military and industrial assets. We pay high rates for tech because we see new nations not as tech slaves, but as a military-industrial investment. 

 

Producerism is actually designed to survive the opposite of tolerance, it is bred from the savagery of the more than half a dozen wars waged against the Imperium since we founded in 2014. We've incorporated many lessons from rogue entities like Monsters Inc into our own doctrine. We are ultimately capable of surviving even if our entire upper tier is hammered down into the 10k NS range. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
Quote

MI6 was a deeply flawed alliance according to Vladimir's own analysis. The single driving force going for it was high activity, but it lacked an absolute sovereign or any kind of dicipline for that matter. 

Then you don't understand the alliance. It was micromanaged by Chim a lot. The Ms acted as the absolute authorities, but Chim had the greatest say over most anything that happened.

 

Quote

*Producerism is not about growth. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" (one of our key mottos). Producerism is almost the opposite of what MI6 stood for. It is ultimately about control of growth, control of production, and control of all indigenous military and industrial assets. We pay high rates for tech because we see new nations not as tech slaves, but as a military-industrial investment. 


You cannot separate control of growth from growth. The opposite of growth would be stagnation, it isn't whatever you decide is the opposite thereof. If Producerism is the opposite of "Growth for the sake of growth" than it would be "nongrowth for the sake of nongrowth" -- which is far from your point. The control of production and control of growth is something that almost every alliance prioritizes. The difference here appears to be through the high tech rate then?

 

Quote

*I don't think you support the assertions you make in your second point. You use terms like feudalism, socialism and capitalism without explaining them, and somewhat ignorant of the fact that OOC societal systems don't apply to CN because the material conditions are much different. I've never claimed to be socialist, capitaist, or feudalist in CN, that's why I invented (IC) Producerism as an ideology specifically developed for Cybernations.


I am certain that ideas about societal structures are not purely OOC, as they are largely the very structures that are used in the design of each fundamental alliance. If you would like me to explain feudalism, socialism, and capitalism in rough terms, I can, but I really don't think I should have to when you have a perfectly functioning brain of your own. 

 

Quote

*I don't see the advantages of a "capitalistic system of tech barter." If you mean a lassez-faire tech situation where individual alliance members sell tech across Planet Bob, that's not an efficient situation because the tech is not strengthening the position of your own alliance. Tech is a military asset, not simply an item of consumption. 


I do not mean what you are asserting I mean. I am saying that tech is the fundamental unit of true growth for nation, and that the system by which tech is generated is built upon a barter system entirely. This is something that is not overcome when considering the material as ideology, because by doing so you would notice that the system itself has an ideology to it. The barter system that your alliance uses still supports the same type of bartering that other alliances do, it's just that yours functions on different rates.

 

Quote

Producerism is actually designed to survive the opposite of tolerance, it is bred from the savagery of the more than half a dozen wars waged against the Imperium since we founded in 2014. We've incorporated many lessons from rogue entities like Monsters Inc into our own doctrine. We are ultimately capable of surviving even if our entire upper tier is hammered down into the 10k NS range. 


It may be designed for this purpose, but it never has been tested. I am of the belief that isx would fail if it were grinded multiple times a la MI6 or even Polaris. In this case, neither of us will see the answer to the question unless you do go to war repeatedly in curbstomps, which I presume is unlikely.

Share this comment


Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Tevron said:

Then you don't understand the alliance. It was micromanaged by Chim a lot. The Ms acted as the absolute authorities, but Chim had the greatest say over most anything that happened.

 


You cannot separate control of growth from growth. The opposite of growth would be stagnation, it isn't whatever you decide is the opposite thereof. If Producerism is the opposite of "Growth for the sake of growth" than it would be "nongrowth for the sake of nongrowth" -- which is far from your point. The control of production and control of growth is something that almost every alliance prioritizes. The difference here appears to be through the high tech rate then?

 


I am certain that ideas about societal structures are not purely OOC, as they are largely the very structures that are used in the design of each fundamental alliance. If you would like me to explain feudalism, socialism, and capitalism in rough terms, I can, but I really don't think I should have to when you have a perfectly functioning brain of your own. 

 


I do not mean what you are asserting I mean. I am saying that tech is the fundamental unit of true growth for nation, and that the system by which tech is generated is built upon a barter system entirely. This is something that is not overcome when considering the material as ideology, because by doing so you would notice that the system itself has an ideology to it. The barter system that your alliance uses still supports the same type of bartering that other alliances do, it's just that yours functions on different rates.

 


It may be designed for this purpose, but it never has been tested. I am of the belief that isx would fail if it were grinded multiple times a la MI6 or even Polaris. In this case, neither of us will see the answer to the question unless you do go to war repeatedly in curbstomps, which I presume is unlikely.

 

*That just means there were inherent contradictions within MI6 govt. The charter stating one thing, and Chim doing another is not a stable arrangement. It creates inevitable power struggles. This is aside from Chim's personal qualities which I am well aware of having served under him in the IAA.

 

That's a much different situation than an autocratic democracy in which the sovereign explicitly has absolute ruling power assuming he represents the collective will of the masses.

 

*"Growth for the sake of growth" represents the situation in many alliances where members mindlessly push upward in NS buying infrastructure without a clear objective. On the other hand, we have tech producers in the Imperium with multi-billion dollar warchests. Sure, they could grow, but that's not part of our doctrine.

 

The opposite of cancerous growth is not stagnation, it's a strong, healthy organism. A lean, mean fighting machine.

 

*I accepted the Marxist definition of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism, and such stages do not exist in CN. I suppose I could describe parallel stages of development in CN, but being that Producerism is possibly the most scientifically advanced and evolved system, describing inferior systems doesn't seem a priority except so far as to identify their weaknesses as potential adversaries.

 

*Tech bartering is a primitive form of economy and one which the Imperium has long since advanced beyond. Our system is centralized and operates according to the motto "from each according to his ability, to each according to his deed." Imperators are expected to contribute to the alliance, not just during wartime, but during peacetime as well, because war and peace are the same thing.

 

*Anyone who thinks the Imperium hasn't been tested is a fool. Now, being that we are a soft-neutral, we try to avoid macro wars when possible as there is usually nothing to gain from them. So there is no reason for any rational alliance to put their membership through hell trying to destroy us.

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this comment


Link to comment

Sounds like you're just re-describing meritocratic, Francoism. I challenge you Junka to highlight the differences between your charter and Francoist philosophy as I see few besides well, the absolute power of the Emperor. 

Share this comment


Link to comment

I've never denied adhering to Vladimir's original tenets. However Francoism as a whole is an ideology tailored to the history and material situation of Pacifica, the Imperium needs it's own analysis. Producerism firmly re-establishes the idea of the alliance producer being the primary unit of value, not raw Nation Strength, because in CN the producer also represents the means of production (they are not separate as in RL). We consider casualties and nation-strength to be more or less irrelevant. We prefer a disciplined, ideologically unified alliance over a larger one. This is why we consider ourselves to be more powerful today than when the alliance founded with 10,000,000 NS.

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this comment


Link to comment

I haven't read the previous comments. While appreciating analytical intellectual tradition and much of your unrelated statement, I no less firmly hold that roguery is legitimate form of a nation's self-determination, and senators are not responsible. A policy of sanctioning belies subservience to foreign wishes as a curried form of legitimacy, and instates alliances - even the unelected - foothold into control of the senate.

 

Regarding sanctions, serial naught-but-grievers should be aggrieved. It would be better sanctioning Methrage himself for wonder dropping than any of the theoretical rogues you work up about [were the war truly illegitimate]. As such I'm not convinced of your agenda masquerading under victory, regardless of the greater desire to consolidate.

 

In a degenerate political clime, the noble rogue is a figure to sculpt.

Edited by OldSelf

Share this comment


Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×