Rediscovering EuroSoviets
Entry posted by Vladimir
289 views
The recent discussion on Francoism and communism sent my mind back to early 2007, when one EuroSoviets wrote an analysis of Planet Bob from a Marxist perspective. Of course, this was aimed squarely at the then would-be communist alliances, which based themselves on a (often a downright reactionary) utopian idealism that grated on the nerves of a number of leftward-inclined Pacificans. But in going back over his essay today it is striking how similar it is to modern Francoism, despite being written a full 7 months before The Meaning of Freedom.
In flicking back through I realised how much of his insight I had missed in my original reading at the time, and from this there is the interesting implication that two independent individuals could reach effectively the same conclusions on such issues independently of one another.
It is therefore an important essay to read not just on the history of Francoism, but also on political theory as a whole. But I'd be lying if I tried to claim that it was an easy read -- the best things in life are rarely free. Filled with Marxist concepts, and even a quotation from Das Kapital, it's heavy going and often difficult to fully comprehend. I will therefore quote the essay in full before going on to break down the important sections.
Every time I look around, I see new socialist alliances being created left, right and centre, if you'll pardon the pun. This thread is a perfect is example. Throughout this topic thread I intend to prove that the New Pacific Order is in fact the most socialist alliance in the entirety of Cyber Nations and justifiably could claim the red flag (again, no pun intended) as its own.What defines an alliance as socialistic?
Firstly the point has to be made that there is no grand international proletariat. Leaders represent their nations which are indissoluble. Nations are the smallest building blocks of Cyber Nations. There is no possibility for world revolution, to overthrow the national bourgeoisie of those nations which claim the mantle of capitalism, fascism and other right wing ideologies. Posturing on such a revolution to make oneself appear more socialist is simply ridiculous and not socialist in the slightest.
There are numerous ways in which to reduce the barriers between nations however and it is these which I believe makes a given alliance more or less socialistic. Before proceeding to prove that the NPO excels every other supposedly socialist alliance in this regard, I shall explain the premise I just outlined.
If the irreducible economic protagonist (let us call it so) in Cyber Nations is the Nation, just as the irreducible economic protagonist in the real world is the worker, then it stands to reason that just as workers allying to socialize the means of production was socialism in the real world, so nations allying to socialize the means of production is socialism in Cyber Nations. Yet the curious thing is that every worker (i.e. nation) is directly his or her own means of production. This has a direct impact upon the Marxist interpretation of Cyber nations economics.
Every nation becomes representative of what Marx would have called 'the foundation of petty industry' (Cap. Vol 1. Chapter 32). Allow me to quote a small section from this chapter. "petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the development of social production...as it excludes the concentration of these means of production, so also it excludes co-operation, division of labor within each separate process of production, the control over, and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of the social productive powers."
It is exactly that concentration, unconscionable on the part of Marx for pre-industrial society but perfectly understandable within Cyber Nations, which allows us to determine that on a scale of least to greatest inherent socialism, the greatest socialist alliance will be the one that breaks down to the greatest extent possible barriers between nations and maximizes co-operation in production.
Framing Co-operation in terms of Cyber Nations.
The section I've quoted from Capital may seems surprising in that I have practically reversed Marx' view that co-operation is impossible for the free artisan who owns his own means of production. The place of a 'nation' and the place of a 'worker' diverge at this point, which is significant. Whereas a free artisan exists within a State, which regulates the conduct between himself and others, and favours him because of the benefits he brings, no such over-arching authority exists within Cyber Nations. There exists a perfect anarchy (in terms of international relations). Nations are forced to co-operate for the purposes of mutual security. This is mirrored to some extent in the feudal creation of artisan guilds to protect artisan interests, but this is naturally going to be much more limited than co-operation between Cyber Nations members for the reasons I've mentioned. This is the key to socialism in Cyber Nations.
Breaking down barriers between nations
New Pacific Order banking processes have always been pioneers in this field. They operate as repositories of accumulated capital, at the service of all the workers (i.e. nations), for whatever purposes the workers deem fit. Consider the use of NPO banks to be like leisure time in a socialist utopia. If one wishes to learn, one learns. Because one develops new abilities as a result of this learning, one contributes these abilities to society, in the best form possible, as determined by that society. So, one borrows what one needs, improves oneself and as a result of increased capacity, repays, having benefitted immensely from these socialized repositories. No other socialist alliance has anything to compare to this.
A second indication of the broken barriers within nations regards private property. Private property within the Order is not respected. The nature of the enlightened self-interest which engenders co-operation in the first place means that weaker, poorer nations are often aided gratis by the stronger, richer ones, without the need for repayment. As members of a socialist commune would recognize that the children are a resource to be held in common, aided by all, so the weaker members by the stronger in the NPO. Frequently nations have within their nation description "My aid is reserved for members of my alliance." This is the proof of this particular pudding. Were nations to jealously guard the wealth they have accumulated by no more than an accident of birth (i.e. foundation date), the new generation of NPO nations would grow up stunted, endangering the safety of those older nations. Private property is of necessity, within the NPO, held in common.
Whilst the several would-be socialistic alliances aspire to banking systems and the benevolence and free-spirited co-operation of the Great Communist New Pacific Order, few of them ever reach their target, instead preferring to engage in capitalistic competition with their 'rivals.' As in this thread, the pretend socialists factionalize and attempt to assert their own claim to socialism rather than actually develop better ways of integrating their nations. Surplus production creates leisure time from work and the scale of the NPO drastically increases the number of us who can write academic tracts; the three or four different alliances mentioned in that thread or sigged by people in that thread could not possibly count themselves as efficient as we are and thus at the same liberty as we are.
On Democracy
The pretend socialists often claim that formal democracy is in some way integral to the practice of socialism within Cyber Nations. As any Marxist will know, this is simply not true. To paraphrase Marx, speaking on the French Nation Assembly during the revolution, the National Assembly was simply one episode of the French Revolution; the true embodiment of which was armed Paris. The French Revolution was a revolution of the industrial bourgeoisie but it was also a revolution of the proletariat; the second part of the revolution had to be crushed before the first was secure. The point that Marx herein makes is that there are higher expressions of democratic sentiment than mere votes.
As in democratic Athens, politics was dragged to the left by the existence of an armed, economically important group of the landless poor, known as the thetes, so within the NPO, the communal ownership of NPO property and the democratic nature of the alliance itself are assured in similar fashion.
Here too we see a divergence between the applicability of socialism to the real world with the applicability of socialism to Cyber Nations. There can be no de-specialization of labour. The very nature of Cyber Nations requires expertise, to co-ordinate in the interests of safety and the continuation of the commune of the NPO, any military or diplomatic endeavours. Raised above the commune are the perfect expressions of the communal will of the alliance. We have, through the changing needs of the alliance, peacefully switched Emperor twice and switched officers more even than that. Instead of competing for some notional political supremacy, we beaver away for the common good. Votes are a mere shadow of democracy; other alliances can keep their shadows. We prefer the real thing.
I ask you also to consider the analogy I lay out; if the weaker members of the NPO are as children, then the period between their joining and their assumption of high position is simply their growth into adulthood. As communalists, we make available to them all the learning resources of the Order, we make available our trades and our aid to speed them on their way. Yet it would be premature and would risk the delicate balance of our communalism by allowing them to shape issues they do not understand. As I have said before, children will always be listened to by adults and their arguments taken under consideration, but we would be silly to send them to charge them with management of, for example, a nuclear power station without being utterly sure of their competence. This is not autocracy, it is mere common sense on the part of devoted communalists.
The first thing that one notices of course, is the form that it takes in being a full-on and unapologetic Marxist analysis. For our purposes here we have to look through this to the essence of the piece, picking out the important arguments and laying them bare.
EuroSoviets opened his work with what was then a bold assertion to the left alliances: "there is no grand international proletariat." This was important not just in the political implications that it had, but also in that it indicated EuroSoviets' materialist method. Far from taking 'classes' from another reality and assuming their existence in ours, he looked at our reality and saw that they didn't exist; that Planet Bob was classless. Both the method and the conclusion are, of course, central premises of Francoism.
His main point in this first section was summed up at the end: "the greatest socialist alliance will be the one that breaks down to the greatest extent possible barriers between nations and maximizes co-operation in production" Once again we can immediately recognise the Francoist position here. In seeing the barriers inherent between nations EuroSoviets immediately moved that the optimum outcome was to minimise these barriers as far as possible and maximise cooperation. This is, of course, his way of describing the Francoist state of nature and the necessity of removing nations from the chaos of that follows from it, with the greatest alliance being that which most reduces conflict and thus increases cooperation.
This previous point and its link to Francoism is emphasised shortly afterwards when he states "There exists a perfect anarchy (in terms of international relations). Nations are forced to co-operate for the purposes of mutual security." Here we find the state of nature laid out explicitly, along with the self-interest that drives the formation of alliances.
This next quote will be one of length, for it is the first attempt to develop the Paradox of Freedom and the Freedom of Potential: "Consider the use of NPO banks to be like leisure time in a socialist utopia. If one wishes to learn, one learns. Because one develops new abilities as a result of this learning, one contributes these abilities to society, in the best form possible, as determined by that society. So, one borrows what one needs, improves oneself and as a result of increased capacity, repays, having benefited immensely from these socialized repositories." There isn't much that needs to be said to explain this, but we can recognise first of all that having done away with conflict through cooperation, EuroSoviets' has moved on to discuss what a free nation would do. Work and leisure time have merged together and nations begin to pursue their potential in whatever field they desire, thus improving themselves and the alliance. Or in other words: they are free to pursue their potential.
He then enters on a discourse of democracy, a full year and a half before I or anyone else had subjected it to their own full analyses. Moreover, in the course of this discourse he put forward the basic outline of Autocratic Democracy: "the true embodiment of [democracy] was armed Paris. [...] The point that Marx herein makes is that there are higher expressions of democratic sentiment than mere votes. [...] Votes are a mere shadow of democracy; other alliances can keep their shadows. We prefer the real thing." It is such quotations that must make one wonder why this essay has been lost to history for so long! He puts forth the idea that votes aren't democracy, they are merely an inadequate middle-man -- a shadow -- that acts more often to exclude the population than include it: the people themselves are the true democracy.
And so, after cutting through the difficult flesh of the essay and going directly to the bone, we find within it an early conceptualisations that later became central to Francoist analysis: the state of nature, the paradox of freedom, the freedom of potential and autocratic democracy. One can but tip his hat to this great forerunner of modern Francoist thought, whose under-appreciated contribution outlined so much that we now take for granted.
2 Comments
Recommended Comments