Bordiga

I can't believe that (IC) scumbag wasn't banned for all his disgusting comments in that thread, honestly.

Do you believe that the 'laws' of nature are concrete? They are being redefined and reanalyzed every day. The 'laws' of CyberNations are concrete at any time- that they can be changed from one day to the next does not mean that it is impossible to make an analysis of them as they stand- not is it outlandish to say that Cybernations does not regularly undergo revolutionary shifts upon the whim of Admin that make such an analysis impossible. Though I think that Francoism does not actually attempt to achieve a materialist view of CyberNations due to the bias of its creator, I think that your argument is even more contrived that Francoism itself.

Nothing you said refuted my argument.

My argument- That the clarity Marxism as a materialist analysis possesses draws from its orientation to a class without a stake in the system- is immediately applicable to any claim you or Vladimir may make to Francoism being materialist. Though classes don't exist, differing levels of power and desires to maintain the system as it stands do exist within CN, as I provided the analogy of with modern RL states. While Marxism as a class analysis is unhelpful in relation to CN, a materialist analysis is possible- but not for those who like yourself have an interest not in seeing how society functions, but rather how best to obscure and skew those functions in a manner which justifies the continued hegemony of Pacifica. The only reason I am turning back to Marxism is that I know Vladimir draws inspiration for his "materialism" from that body of theory, and I'm using the example of how Marxism keeps its clarity to refute the idea that anyone in a position of power can ever create a real materialist analysis.

Well I look forward to you replying to my post since Cortath seems to have fled. Even though as I acknowledged the Cyberverse is classless in a Marxist sense, that does not mean that all nations stand on a level playing field. To continue drawing examples from RL, even though competing capitalist classes all have similar relations to the means of production, it is ludicrous to believe that this means that the most powerful capitals are on an even footing with the weakest. A weaker state has an advantage in making clear the real relations between states, for instance, whereas an imperialist nation will never want to see that.

But the cost of producing the tech is outweighed by the reimbursement they receive from it. Unlike proletarians nations have a choice of whether or not to sell tech/labour power. And the proletariat sells it's labour power- so technology would have to be the equivalent if you wanted to make the comparison. But since the cost of producing the tech, or selling their "labour power" is outweighed by the payment for the tech, it can't be exploitative.

You'd have to make the argument that tech sellers are somehow exploited. I don't know if I can really see it. And if the means of production are dongs than the "proletariat" has control of some of it.

Well no, I answered the OP. Shame on me. Which is exactly as I said. "If you're referring to Francoism as a theory compared to the theories of Marxism, than they do have some similarities- namely the claim by Vladimir that he uses a materialist analysis." The only claim to that effect was your use of bourgeois theoreticians, namely Hobbes, Nietzsche, Rousseau, etc. "As he admits, his "theory" is nothing more than a mixture of bourgeois theoreticians who are incompatible with Marxism." Evidently, nor did I make that claim. There are however alliances with a greater sway of power in the international arena who thus do not have an interest in seeing it change, which is precisely my argument; that members of the NPO are unable to make a truly materialist analysis when their own material conditions force them to justify their own hegemonic position. The clarity of Marxism is drawn from the fact it argues from the position of the working class, a class without any stake in capitalist society- and thence it is able to draw a clarity to which other ideologues cannot, because they are forced to obscure the nature of the system as people who have a stake within it and stand to lose if it is changed. The New Pacific Order has the greatest stake of any alliance in the game to lose. I agree that it is classless- but what fool would argue that Emperor Revenge, the man who's word would launch 2000 nukes, has the same level of "enfranchisement" as an unaligned nation? It is only from a position that does not hold a stake in the system that a truly materialist analysis can be made. EDIT: To be clear, I am not arguing that there exists a working class in CN or capitalists- merely that the reason Marxism is able to create a truly materialist analysis, that can examine all the functions of society in RL, is because it is done from the view of the working class, a group without a stake in capitalism, as a property-less class.

Nukes can be useful as the OP said in delivering a lot of damage to your opponent, but unless you're on the winning side it doesn't really matter- those who use nukes first even in defense can be attacked by their opponents as having broken some ridiculous law and allow for the party which fired first to be given much harsher terms or even to withhold terms altogether.

Damn, here I was hoping you'd answer my post.

The OP is clearly approaching the subject of Communism as if it were the state capitalist nations typical to nationalized economies who typically like to wrap themselves with the ideological cloak of socialism and communism. In a way the dictatorial New Pacific Order is similar to that. However since communism in actuality refers to a classless society, it is frankly impossible it could exist in a society ruled by an emperor, even one that is as inept as the current leader of the NPO. If you're referring to Francoism as a theory compared to the theories of Marxism, than they do have some similarities- namely the claim by Vladimir that he uses a materialist analysis. Similar to other ideologues of dictatorial regimes which have made such claims, as the Marxist Leninists did in Russia, he is completely unable to offer a real objective analysis from the position of power he occupies as a member of the leading alliance. As he admits, his "theory" is nothing more than a mixture of bourgeois theoreticians who are incompatible with Marxism- a reflection that he has indeed taken the position of a partisan state rather than the populace of the Cyberverse as a whole. He either forgets or omits from his analysis the fact that Marxism draws its clarity in being a tool of human liberation, not a tool for the benefit of a minority- only the oppressed have an actual interest in promoting an accurate picture of society, whereas the powerful, a position that the New Pacific Order undoubtedly occupies, have an interest only in fudging the truth and obscuring the reality. It really is up to a far more disenfranchised group to make a real materialist analysis of Cybernations. Vladimir's theory is merely state propaganda for his alliance that in know way provides real insights into the actions of members of the Cyberverse.