Vladimir
-
Posts
2,862 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Vladimir
-
-
[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1306919313' post='2721928']
As a member of the working class, I must say I am pretty happy myself.
[/quote]
False consciousness. -
[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1306507610' post='2719000']
Haha, I was about to say... I don't think I've met many Catholic Marxists.
-Bama
[/quote]
You need to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology"]broaden your horizons[/url], comrade. Though it should be further noted that the happiness bonus brought about by democracy here is transitory and ultimately illusionary.
Looking at the nation as a unitary object and ignoring the fundamental class divisions within it is a transparent attempt to separate the economic base from the political superstructure, and thus to obscure the whole reality of our being. As a result Admin misses the long-term trend towards working class immiseration and instead picks up on the decadent wealth and power of a ruling class brought about by a defunct economic system and its associated so-called 'democratic' superstructure. He then proceeds to present this decadence as a universal 'happiness', when in fact far from providing this what we actually see is the happiness of the exploiting and the woe of the exploited. This can only be interpreted as a hostile attempt by Admin to hide the immeserated from popular consciousness by a process of social cleansing that can only be reminiscent of Germany in the mid-1930s.
I contend therefore that equating the happiness of an exploiting class to the happiness of an entire nation is a ludicrous proposal -- that happiness for the slave owners is no happiness at all. And I conclude that the appropriate response is to remove the happiness bonus from democracy.
And we all know that Kalasin would get a room with me anyway. After all, as well as being a Marxist I am devilishly handsome and charismatic. Kzoppistan can come too. -
The essay really skims over alliances. If I were writing it I would cut down on the number of case studies and give more analysis of each -- the foreign policies pursued by alliances, such as neutrality, are irrelevant to the point being investigated, so GPA, for example, could be removed.
The case studies also seem very descriptive, which doesn't answer the question of why these different forms of government developed. There is no consideration of what role RL ideology played (and whether this advanced or held back development), or how significant historical factors/path dependencies were (hugely in the NPO's case). In the section on Vox, for example, you note why they formed, but not how this affected their supposed structure or how their position changed over time.
One has to consider their sources carefully. The Zhadum logs, for example, came from someone who had left due to personal issues with individuals, so objective analysis wasn't exactly on his mind. -
It is an important lesson for every budding historian to learn to ignore Duffman. The important note in this case is that there were in fact two different Polar Wars. The first, which could properly be referred to as the NAAC-NPO War, had nothing to do with spying. I wrote a brief history of it [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display§ion=blog&blogid=104&showentry=1258]here[/url].
The Second Polar War was actually the NPO, GATO and Legion vs. NAAC, since NAAC was caught spying on all three (well, I say 'caught', their (not very good) leader tried to prove an unrelated point by blurting it out on the open forum).
History in general is best understood as a series of eras and revolutionary wars as we move from one to the other.
[list][*]The first was the Pacifican era, spanning from the NPO-ODN War to GW1 (Feb-August 2006).
[*]The second was the anti-Pacifican era (so-called because the coaLUEtion never formed a bloc and were bound by nothing more than the fact that they held a greater irrational hatred for the NPO than they did an irrational hatred for one another), spanning from GW1 to GW2 (Sept 2006-Jan 2007).
[*]The third was the Initiative era, spanning from GW3 to the Unjust War (March 2007-July 2007).
[*]The fourth was the Continuum era, spanning from its formation to the Karma War (Nov 2007-April 2009).
[*]The fifth and current can probably be defined as the MK era since they are the core alliance within it (much like the NPO was in the first third and fourth eras), spanning from the attack on TPF in January 2010 to present. The current war is just a cleaning up of potential competition so that we can live in an exciting world of stagnation for the next few years.[/list]
Within this framework it is much easier to understand the flow of politics -- why certain events mattered, why alliances took the stances that they did, and why these stances were often in direct contradiction to the stance they took in the following era (something of particular note in the current one). Outwith this context the whole of history is just a morass of self-contradiction and confusion. -
So much for doctor-patient confidentiality.
Janova is just one of many who have shown themselves as insatiable hypocrites over the past month, but he is nevertheless the outstanding example, and perhaps one of the few whom I would have expected to avoid being so obvious about it all. -
This is hardly the place for such a discussion. If you took the time to read the literature on the subject instead of just making blind assumptions to fit your primitive narrative then you might be able to make more educated posts.
-
[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297102828' post='2624244']
NPO claims it didn't lose the Great War because they inevitably won revenge over their enemies.[/quote]
This is incorrect. -
Probably the most politically and historically illiterate announcement we have seen come from an alliance leader in recent memory. Doesn't even know the diplomatic contacts of his own alliance over the past two years.
It's no wonder you were only successful when a Pacifican was running your foreign affairs for you. -
I'm surprised that you are continuing to push this incredibly fallacious line, Delta. Just because someone says that black is white doesn't mean that I am wrong when I say that white is white. Where you got this idea from I'll never know. Aegis pulled their arguments out of thin air; the arguments here are based on MK et al's own words and actions, which they aren't even trying to hide any more. To deny this takes wilful ignorance to a whole new level.
-
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1295943614' post='2599576']
I find it amusing to see to see you saying all this Vladimir, it contradicts your other essays about power spheres.
Our "hegemony" allows for far more dissent. People don't fear that we will kick in their door if one of their members criticizes us, like in the past. We don't EZI anyone for opposing us. We don't impose viceroys or forced disbandments.
You attacked people for contrived CBs. Many people have been calling for a more "honest" CB, one that says that "we don't like you". Well, here it is, and everyone is still complaining.
This war will be a lot closer than the curbstomps from when NPO was in power.[/quote]
It is perfectly in line with what I have written previously once you recognise the paradigm shift in play, as Grub rightly pointed out. Your post, however, contradicts itself in a rather unforgivable way. How is it possible that in one paragraph you can say that "people don't fear that we will kick in their door if one of their members criticizes us", and in the very next paragraph you can speak of alliances on the basis of just not liking them?
Herein lies the issue. CBs, for better or worse, have always largely been for the benefit of uninvolved alliances. The CB said to these alliances 'you are not involved here and it doesn't matter if you remain uninvolved'; that is to say, it reassured them that they did not face danger because they were not partaking in the sin that got the alliance into trouble. By doing away with CBs and just attacking people because they looked at you the wrong way once 4 years ago you deny this to uninvolved parties and create a completely apolitical environment. Instead of reassuring them you say 'you could be next', and indeed, a number of your cheerleaders have made this threat explicit to their general audience.
So people have a very good reason to fear that you will kick in their door if one of their members criticises you, or looks at you wrong, or sneezes and catches your attention, or you just get a bit bored one day and decide to attack a random alliance using the 'dart and map' methodology, because this is exactly what you are saying you are going to do. -
[center][img]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9413/wastelandy.jpg[/img][/center]
This article is best read while listening to [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nepiscxfeY"]this monologue by a forgotten hero[/url].
To regular readers of [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display§ion=blog&blogid=104"][i]La Vanguardia Pacifica[/i][/url] the recent attacks on the New Pacific Order will come as no surprise. The modern hegemony has tried for two years to force a pseudo-legitimate reason to attack the Order, and after two years of abject failure they have now given up all pretence and attacked for the explicit reason, as noted in their imaginatively titled "everything must die" declaration, of killing what they see as a potential rival (simultaneously making a mockery of everything they said about us and themselves during that time period). But similarly, neither would a regular reader have been surprised by the manufactured war declared against the New Polar Order a few days ago, as Emperor Random Interrupt brought Polaris out of its slump. What we see here, therefore, is little more than pre-emptive strikes on potential political opposition before it can ever actually become political opposition. And this leaves us with some extremely worrying conclusions to draw.
The first conclusion is in what exactly has happened -- the attacks on potential political opposition. While some have tried to make the divine claim to war being 'interesting' or 'exciting', in doing so they fail to see beyond their own noses -- or, in this case, a couple of weeks. This war, if the aggressors emerge victorious, will paradoxically usher in an era where a single entity commands unchallenged and unchallengeable political domination; a situation which can only lead to widespread stagnation, strangling the political lifeblood that sustains our world.
But it is this tied with the second conclusion -- the way the attacks occurred -- that should create real concern within any free-thinking Bobian denizen. The real power of a political hegemony is to set political precedent. Unfortunately the precedent here is to tear down all rule of law and security for non-hegemonic alliances. Whereas in previous eras an alliance could consider itself relatively safe from attack so long as it did not commit a militarily aggressive act, even if it was in political disagreement with the hegemonic power, the precedent being set today means that anyone saying anything deemed to be slightly out of line, or not even doing that, could be destroyed on a whim. Gone would be the days of delicate political manoeuvre and intrigue, entering would be the tedious grind of apolitical absolutism. No longer could you argue a justification for war, or organise a counter-weight to the powerful, for everything outside of the smallest of political cliques would be deemed sport for the entitled few, and no justification would care enough to go beyond 'because we can'.
So this is not a rejuvenation of Planet Bob, far from it: if the Mushroom Kingdom et al emerge victorious then it is Bob's death rattle. The politics that drew nations here in the tens of thousands would be dead, the frequent challenges to power would cease to be, and what little remained would wither and die. It is no longer an intriguing fight for the power of one alliance over another as we have seen in previous great wars, but rather it is a fight for the survival of us all. In this way the Mushroom Kingdom et al are fighting not only for the death of the New Pacific Order, but for the deaths of themselves and every other alliance regardless of political affiliation.
Consequently this war cannot be seen as being one alliance against another, but rather it must be seen as a war between those who want to survive, and those who do not: those who want Planet Bob to go on for years to come, and those who want it to end. If you think that you can avoid this war or its consequences, you are wrong. If you aren't ready to stand up and fight for survival then you are already dead. -
[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' timestamp='1295929662' post='2598221']Everyone wanted this game to be exciting again and they cry when we make it so. Keep crying: You're next.[/quote]
This isn't about making the game exciting. It is explicitly stated in the declaration that this is about pre-emptively crushing all potential political competition so that we can all sit and collectively stagnate, whimpering about the good old days as mould slowly envelops our entire world. Paradoxically they have declared war in order to ensure that the future is as boring, predictable, repetitive and just downright unplayable as possible, through the medium of their unchallenged and unchallengeable domination. You may argue that it is a political move or a military move, but please, spare us the cringe-worthy attempts at claiming it as anything grander than that. -
[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1295385126' post='2581993']Indeed, an honourable alliance like the NPO would never declare a war over spying. Give it a rest, Vlad ... I know you'd like to find something terribly wrong with PB's behaviour but declaring war over someone spying on you is one of the oldest and best CBs there is.[/quote]
As has been pointed out quite a lot already, the Order's declaration over accepting screen-shots was what led to the Karma war (and ours was a lot more solid than this sad excuse), which included a declaration and much propaganda by VE and yourself! I don't need to find anything wrong with PB's behaviour, you have already spent years condemning it yourselves.
And that's before we even get to the issue of the prolonged negotiations that we entered into with OV, the fact that we actually reached an agreement with them that avoided war (which OV accepted and VE rejected), or the issue of this so obviously being a set-up that even you are effectively forced to concede it.
I used to think that you were one of the genuine moralists around here, but you've really let the mask slip on this one. -
Rarely have the defenders of a war looked so ridiculous. I don't even know why you're bothering with this farce, to be honest. Those who want the war for political reasons will support it regardless, and the CB chosen is so bad that it won't bring in any additional support (which is really the only reason for a public CB). The only thing that this accomplishes is that you lose your dignity in the process.
-
[quote name='ArneS' timestamp='1294098018' post='2562397']
So you list the members of the major blocs, a couple of their allies, and write "Hegemony" next to it? Thanks for the insightful analysis!
[/quote]
Isn't that all any hegemony is? -
Weakest log/screenshot dump we've seen here in a while. If anything such things paint a positive picture of the alliance you are targeting, since they're clearly up to nothing worse than some minor foreign affairs banter.
-
Being a Pacifican.
-
[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1292343269' post='2539502']
Yeah, that could have been interesting. The politics would be different, with a lot more emphasis on color unity. It would also be a lot harder for multi-colored alliances to get anywhere. Personally, I would have enjoyed a system like that.
So, I'm curious, why do people think that didn't happen. I wasn't around until 2008, and things were fairly set at that point.
[/quote]
At first people toyed with geographic areas on the ingame map (GATO was CATO (Cross-Atlantic) and NAAC was obviously Arctic). Colours came in with the NPO when we concentrated our membership on red to secure the senate, and for a while each colour only had one alliance. But as the world grew there was really just no basis for colour unity to take priority -- if two people on a colour dislike each other or have different goals what incentive was there for them to cooperate? Thus the issues pushing people apart on colours -- relationships, cultures, objectives, proliferation of 'leaders' -- were far greater than anything pulling them back together, which was really just the vague feeling that colours were meant to mean something. [Senators had no power until later on, and they're still a weak pull.]
If memory serves I posted quite a few suggestions back then, including giving Senators power (though the fact that I was all 3 of red's Senators may have tainted that suggestion a bit in some minds), to try and make colour spheres a more significant factor. -
So do I. But fortunately I think the Planet Bob Equal Opportunities Act of 2010 requires that Skap Q buy us both US copies so we can compete.
-
Credible sounding leak. This is almost definitely going to happen.
-
This reminds me of happier times, when a proud leader would suddenly jump onto the world stage and reveal to thousands of shocked Bobians a great Pacifican conspiracy against their alliance. We had been out to get them since day one the world would be told, so consumed by hatred and evil we were. As he continued his diatribe Pacifican officials would momentarily sneak out from the thread and head straight to government channels to ask if anyone had ever heard of this individual or his alliance, only to find that his fellow officials had all returned to do exactly the same thing, finding only the same heads shaking side to side in bemusement.
Happier times. -
[quote name='TheNeverender' timestamp='1290910080' post='2525011']
My favorite part about this most hilarious of posts is that it's in an OOC area. When you read it, keeping that in mind, it actually kind of makes me worry about you a little bit
[/quote]
You weren't the centre of our OOC universes either. Sorry. :'( -
I hope I haven't hurt MK's feelings by suggesting that a peripheral alliance like LUE wasn't the centre of everyone's universe over four years ago. If so, I offer my sincerest apologies to Comrade Archon.
-
I think LUE succeeded in weakening the game to an extent by replying to everything with 'serious business' pictures, but I don't think the NPO itself ever changed as a result (we were never RPers in the sense of the Open National RP forum). Obviously nothing was ever going to top the fire with which the Order and the ODN went at each other in early 2006 which may have given you that impression, but the reasons were far more profound than your arrival I'm afraid.
Explain Cybernations
in Open World RP
Posted
Change doesn't have to come from players leaving the game. The game developed and the politics became more complex -- power became more diffuse and diplomacy became ever more important. We went from individual alliances who could act on their own, to simple treaties, to two blocs, to multiple blocs all tangled together in a treaty web. People used moral arguments that would previously have been pointless to create alliances and to coalesce around enemies.
This needn't necessarily have led to any one specific policy, nor does it rule out a reversion in future, but political changes here have had a lot more structural and strategic reasons than individual.