Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Class in Context





Of the Rise and Fall of Class

Francoism's founding conception of the world was that of two mutually antagonistic classes fighting for control over limited resources. After years of having little alternative to the ruling class's conception – a view of the world through the spectacles of atomised individuals, great leaders and mighty regions – it proved a revolutionary idea that found widespread support amongst the oppressed sections of the population. Outlining in words what many had felt in practice for years, it became a powerful paradigm through which thoughts and actions could finally be calculated and articulated.

But this conception was for another world, and nearly six years on it has become a tool of confusion rather than clarification; of intellectual enslavement rather than emancipation. We find ourselves combating both the straw man critiques of our enemies and the resultant disorientation of our comrades. Thus through this elucidation we hope that friend and foe alike will be turned right way up, where they can appreciate the theory in its full historical context rather than trying to cram its square form into our circular world.

Of Historical Context

The class analysis of Francoism posited a simple thought: that there was a qualitative social difference between feeder regions – the regions where all nations were created – and user regions – the regions that were created by individuals and recruited to from the feeder regions. Working from these base facts the analysis determined that there was a basic conflict of interests between the two types of region, as the feeder region sought to create and maintain its population and the user regions sought to either pull them away to their own regions or harness their power through other means.

From this Francoism derived two classes: the feederites who held the interests of the feeder regions to be primary, and the userites, who held the interests of the user regions to be primary. In all cases the axiom between equal rights, force decides proved itself concretely. Userites, having by their nature a superior class awareness, were far more active in pursuing their interests, but when the class consciousness of the feederites surfaced, owing to their socialisation as a collective rather than competing short-sighted individuals, it was a thing to behold.

These dialectically opposed interests made themselves known in many important ways, for not only did they lead to the userite exploitation of the feeder regions in terms of recruitment, but they led to user regions seeing in their interests the necessity of controlling the feeder regions themselves – in putting aside their sectional interests to open up their political-military power for personal profit.

It was in this context that Francoism developed. Userites held control over the vast majority of feeder regions, their success in spreading false consciousness among the feederites was unparalleled, and the extent of the exploitation of the feeder regions was almost incomprehensible.

The goliath feeder regions with their membership numbering in the tens of thousands found themselves subservient to the whims of the much smaller userites and their organisations. Those that dared fight back for their own interests found themselves under intense political pressure at best, and under military occupation at worst.

What this analysis meant to the Francoists was nothing short of the necessity of armed revolution. The userites would never leave voluntarily and the regional mechanism of delegates and endorsements made anything but the most superficial and temporary reform impossible. In order to regain control over their lives and their regions, the feederites must overthrow their respective governments and install feederite rule.

Feederite rule meant nothing short of the ejection of all userites and userite influences from regional government, the creation of new feederite institutions, and solidarity with feederites in other regions. Above all it was an unforgiving revolutionary rule and would remain so for as long as the userite threat remained.

When the first feederite revolution took place on the 28th of August 2003 it shook the userite world to its core and provoked an unprecedented response that lasted for years – a response that would be echoed and exceeded in all subsequent feederite revolutions. The userite state was deposed, the userites themselves cleansed from the region, and it was made amply clear that the region would no longer be a userite satellite state.

In this revolutionary theatre developed the first truly feederite institutions. Among them were the Senate, the Praetorian Guard and the Civil Code, but most important for the contemporary student was autocratic democracy. The physics of the feeder region were simple: every UN nation could attach their endorsement to other UN nations and the nation with the most votes became delegate. The delegate was in an all-powerful position, with (among other things) the ability to eject and ban any nation from the region. Due to this it was necessary first of all to place absolute power in a single individual who would then represent the class in all things. It was through this necessity that the class composition of the feederite government combined with the physical laws of the universe and the fire of revolution to bring about this intrinsically feederite institution that survives to this day.

But there were also a great many things that the revolution did not attempt to bring. The first was the question of perfect equality among the class. It is true that the toll booths from feeder region government to userite organisation hierarchy were demolished, and their fares of 40 silver pieces expropriated, thus removing the possibility for one to rise above the region while still commanding it, and in this regard there was a certain equality. But within the region itself a meritocratic ideal was universally adopted, and those with the ability to rise (rather than those who did userites the most favours) were permitted, and indeed, encouraged to.

Likewise, class rule was never a latent or peaceful thing. If one challenged feederite rule then they were doing the work of the userites and promptly removed. In this there was no hesitation or regret, either from the delegate or the masses. The feederites were building something magnificent, but in order to do this they had first to survive against the userite forces of the entire world, and in doing so they had thoroughly militarised themselves. Threats were dealt with swiftly.

Of Contemporary Context

While only the briefest overview, it should be evident by now what class was, what it meant, and above all how important it was to Francoism. The astute reader, then, will begin to wonder why it is still discussed outside of the narrowest parameters at all. Today there are no feeder regions and thus no feederites; no user regions and thus no userites. Indeed, there are no conflicts along these lines and thus no classes at all. One might try (as many epigones have) to ascribe certain attributes from those classes to individuals or collectives today, but without the material basis for them they are less than meaningless.

Can one describe freedom, sovereignty and anti-imperialism today as the class-analysis Francoists used to? Those Francoists were for self-determination against userite exploitation, but in all circumstances for interregional solidarity with other feederites and feeder regions. Which of these positions do you adopt, or do you try to adopt both and arbitrarily pin them on different groups? For them freedom was class rule, but where will you find this class today? No matter what option you choose or how you dress it up you are handicapping yourself. Just as you cannot take the gravitational force of the moon and apply it to calculations on Planet Bob, nor can you take class analysis from another world and apply it here.

But this is not to say that nothing can be taken or learned from class-analysis Francoism. As previously noted a number of institutions are still with us today, born out of class conflict but adapted to new conditions. Likewise with precedents in law, philosophy and strategy. There is much to be taken, you must only be careful that you take the right things.

Of Misrepresentation and Materialism

Unfortunately much of the confusion on the matter of class stems from consciously fraudulent misrepresentations of theory; misrepresentations that are likely to continue even if not a single unilluminated corner is left for genuine confusion to hide in. Nevertheless it falls to us to dispel the misrepresentation wherever it arises, for such a fundamental error if left unchecked leads to innumerable mistakes and gradually revises much more over time.

Genuine confusion on the matter can only arise in the absence of a materialist outlook – the bedrock on which all of Francoism is based. Materialism at its most basic is the idea that base material reality – the physical laws that govern our world – gives rise to superstructure – culture, government, etc. This is a result of the first and continuing activity of nations and alliances being to organise around the physical laws of the world and their natural reactions to them. Of course it would be remiss to ignore the mutual relationship between the two, where superstructure acts back upon the material base to an extent, but the relationship remains as explained.

It follows therefore that one cannot understand things independently of the material base, and that when the material base changes so does the superstructure and its implications; thus the disappearance of class from the material base dictates the disappearance of class-analysis from the ideological superstructure.



Recommended Comments

I'm rather lost as to what it was you were attempting to elucidate. I will grant that I have a better understanding of what feederites and userites actually are and why, consequently, they don't apply to the realities of this world, but you ended on a note that leaves me at a complete loss as to what it is you think we can take from Francoist ideology.

You did an admirable job of explaining what is wrong with Francoism when applied to Bob, but the essay fell short of my expectation upon reading the introduction. Further elaboration would have been nice.

Link to comment

I was attempting to elucidate exactly what you came away with a better understanding of -- class-analysis Francoism, why it doesn't apply today and why critics trying to use it to attack us are looking in the wrong direction.

Where I think you got lost was that I didn't expand into a full explanation of what Francoism is today, preferring to leave that for my various other works dedicated to it. In this you are complaining that my writings are too short, for which I will forgive you but many others may not. Regardless, I will attempt to give a quick clarification.

The book I'm reading at the moment starts off with an appropriate joke.

"The story is about a worker suspected of stealing. Every evening as he leaves the factory, his wheelbarrow is carefully inspected, but the guards can find nothing. The wheelbarrow is always empty. Finally, when the penny drops, they realise that what the worker is stealing is the wheelbarrows themselves."

What you are doing is similar. Inside our wheelbarrow we have class-analysis, and you (correct me if I'm wrong) are having difficulty understanding what is left if we dump this out. What we are left with is the wheelbarrow itself. In our case the wheelbarrow is materialist analysis -- method.

Looking at this work you realise that class did not spring out of nowhere; it was not something that we invented, it was something that we recognised. This was a result of looking at the material world around us and taking a scientific approach to what we saw.

Using this method it is clear that when the material world changes the analysis no longer applies, but what is important is not what is in the wheelbarrow, but the wheelbarrow itself. As a result we continue our scientific analysis and using the same method with the same premises inevitably come to a different conclusion -- there is no longer the material basis for classes, thus they do not exist, and this has an effect on everything else.

In this way the most important thing that we can take from Francoism is its method. I did not explain what is wrong with Francoism when applied to Planet Bob, merely what is wrong with ignoring the materialist method for an idealistic approach. It is this that I referred to in the introduction when I said, "appreciate the theory in its full historical context rather than trying to cram its square form into our circular world."

Of course, as I alluded to in the article there is much more that one can take from early Francoism than merely its method ("Likewise with precedents in law, philosophy and strategy"), but that is perhaps for another day and another article.

Link to comment

Some time before, I read an article of yours that challenges us to point out any contradictions within Francoism, in order to disprove the claim that "Francoism is whatever Vladimir claims that it is" which, by the way, is exactly what Dilber says in De Profundis (I can't be bothered finding the link.)

Perhaps this article has entirely flown over my head, but doesn't it actually demonstrate contradictions within Francoism? That is, that Francoism within NS revolves around a world where there are different classes, whereas within Cyber Nations we play in a classless society, and therefore Francoism is an entirely different philosophy here than in NS, and therefore contradictory? What are you arguing?


I just read your response to Delta- it answers my question.

Link to comment
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...