Global Feudalism: An analysis of the decay of global politics from a Francoist perspective

[Broncoskid8]

You'll be waiting for awhile then. Most people with even an ounce of intelligence aren't going to waste their time arguing over an imaginary philosophy. Hell, Francoism isn't even that. It has always simply been whatever Vladimir said it was at a particular to keep the troops in line.

I have to admit Francoism has been the reason why NPO has been on CN and Nationstates for a very long time. Though it is understandable that NPO has declined. Francoism which is a combination of from what I understand Marxist Leninism, with socialist and federalist hints in it's philosophy. I got to admit. This is one of the more interesting stuff on the OWF this year.

[Alex987]

The two main factors in alliance success are having a high membership motivation and skilled leadership. Whatever methods get you there work. The problem with these two separate factors is that they are symbiotic, and the strength of their symbiosis varies from alliance to alliance. Ideology might work, but I question those who follow it as anything more than a roleplay. For an alliance of maximum efficiency you should always have a handful of "brain trust" thinkers that conduct FA while the rest are mostly devout worker bees, with high motivation from top to bottom.

These factors don't necessarily need to exist with Francoism. I haven't paid attention to Francoism so I can't speak to its ability to achieve these ends, but it can be done in other ways.

[The Zigur]

The two main factors in alliance success are having a high membership motivation and skilled leadership. Whatever methods get you there work. The problem with these two separate factors is that they are symbiotic, and the strength of their symbiosis varies from alliance to alliance. Ideology might work, but I question those who follow it as anything more than a roleplay. For an alliance of maximum efficiency you should always have a handful of "brain trust" thinkers that conduct FA while the rest are mostly devout worker bees, with high motivation from top to bottom.

These factors don't necessarily need to exist with Francoism. I haven't paid attention to Francoism so I can't speak to its ability to achieve these ends, but it can be done in other ways.

 

Francoism is not such a unique ideology, or rather perspective, that it is the sole power in the universe. There are many "ideologies," but most are either irrelevant or counterproductive, because they do not objectively analyze and represent the material reality of CN. I was never part of the original Pacifica from worlds away, nor was I a member of NPO during it's perceived reign of CN. It is arguable whether I am even a "true" Francoist!

 

Francoism is best thought of as a philosophy and analytical tool that guides the thoughts and actions of the Francoist in decision and policy making. I am personally a compulsive man, inclined to violence, argument, and trolling; Francoism has benefited me because it makes me stop, think, and consider whether my actions will represent the principles of Francoism well. It has changed my pattern of thinking over time.

 

Following Francoist principles results in stability, a powerful economy, a coherent foreign affairs strategy, and effective military. Bringing order out of chaos is the most noble thing a nation can accomplish, and prosperity follows in the coat-tails of a lawful, just order. Stability brings strength and cooperation. This, and not some gobbly gook, is what really pulls a nation, an alliance, a hegemony together.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Alex987]

Not really, because not only is it logical, but it is proven that the best way to have stability and prosperity is to be a neutral alliance, not a hegemony. In a competitive world nobody has the extra capability to roll a neutral for shits and giggles since they pose no threat, and there is no reward gained for rolling one. It is a great dissonance to think that what the NPO does is the best way to achieve what you listed. Politics here are played for their inherent handicaps, not their strengths. Its an artificial measure designed to make things more interesting. If Francoism is what you said, it doesn't stand up to reality which is why I question those that truly believe such principles. Or maybe I'm just breaking the fourth wall in this discussion and you're not :P

[The Zigur]

Not really, because not only is it logical, but it is proven that the best way to have stability and prosperity is to be a neutral alliance, not a hegemony. In a competitive world nobody has the extra capability to roll a neutral for shits and giggles since they pose no threat, and there is no reward gained for rolling one. It is a great dissonance to think that what the NPO does is the best way to achieve what you listed. Politics here are played for their inherent handicaps, not their strengths. Its an artificial measure designed to make things more interesting. If Francoism is what you said, it doesn't stand up to reality which is why I question those that truly believe such principles. Or maybe I'm just breaking the fourth wall in this discussion and you're not :P

 

Neutral alliances have only thrived because the old Hegemony (with the exception of GPA war) tolerated their peaceful coexistence and set that precedent. Ironically, in a chaotic world, neutrality becomes a more dangerous strategy as demonstrated by the attacks on The Democratic Order. Neutral alliances become an easier, more isolated target in a world with multiple power spheres. This has been demonstrated by tech raids on nonaligned micro alliances.

 

As to the NPO and Francoism, they are not necessarily one and the same... If they were, I might be in NPO. :p Many alliances and leaders have followed Francoist-style policies, if not in name. It is also misleading to think of politics as merely being role-play. Politics are a necessity in resolving disputes that do not require military action, and in building cooperation between people who otherwise may have nothing in common.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Cortath]

Not really, because not only is it logical, but it is proven that the best way to have stability and prosperity is to be a neutral alliance, not a hegemony. In a competitive world nobody has the extra capability to roll a neutral for shits and giggles since they pose no threat, and there is no reward gained for rolling one. It is a great dissonance to think that what the NPO does is the best way to achieve what you listed. Politics here are played for their inherent handicaps, not their strengths. Its an artificial measure designed to make things more interesting. If Francoism is what you said, it doesn't stand up to reality which is why I question those that truly believe such principles. Or maybe I'm just breaking the fourth wall in this discussion and you're not :P

Of course Francoism stands up to "reality!" Its explicit purpose is to examine the material reality of what we live. No structure, no man, no idea is sacred, but that it serves to bring freedom from chaos, peace, order, and prosperity.

 

What is neutral if naught but unexceptional? If naught but banal, uninteresting, and most importnatly: [i]unsustainable[/i]. Strength begets strengths. Power begets power. Francoism is a strong ideology because it was born in a crucible of conflict where only the strong would survive. And when we came to this world, we had challenges still. It is challenge that makes us, and it is complacency in victory that unmakes us. The Neutrals, who never strive, who never challenge, who never sharpen their claws by their enemies are guided by weak principles. Principles that are overcome by stronger principles.

 

Francoism is strong because it has fought. And because it has fought, it is made stronger, more precise, more useful, for such is what happens to an ideology and a people built on the material conditions of where we live.

[Alex987]

 
Neutral alliances have only thrived because the old Hegemony (with the exception of GPA war) tolerated their peaceful coexistence and set that precedent. Ironically, in a chaotic world, neutrality becomes a more dangerous strategy as demonstrated by the attacks on The Democratic Order. Neutral alliances become an easier, more isolated target in a world with multiple power spheres. This has been demonstrated by tech raids on nonaligned micro alliances.
 
As to the NPO and Francoism, they are not necessarily one and the same... If they were, I might be in NPO. :p Many alliances and leaders have followed Francoist-style policies, if not in name. It is also misleading to think of politics as merely being role-play. Politics are a necessity in resolving disputes that do not require military action, and in building cooperation between people who otherwise may have nothing in common.

Precedent is the weakest force protecting the neutrals. The strongest is the fact that it is entirely unprofitable to attack them. Nothing is gained, only destroyed. You create an enemy that would not otherwise exist, only to waste your energies on them while others spend their money growing.

And politics in its current form is extremely heavily roleplay based. It would not disappear in a purely utilitarian CN, it would just turn into the brand that the neutrals play, mainly solving disputes over rogues and tech deals.

And lol Cortath, that's what I was waiting for.

[Cortath]

And lol Cortath, that's what I was waiting for.

 

That's some impressive engagement engagement with the material there.

[The Zigur]

Precedent is the weakest force protecting the neutrals. The strongest is the fact that it is entirely unprofitable to attack them. Nothing is gained, only destroyed. You create an enemy that would not otherwise exist, only to waste your energies on them while others spend their money growing.

 

I would not say it is unprofitable to attack them, that all depends upon the objective. All there has to be for an attack is capability and motive, and in a chaotic world, both are in ready supply. This already happens with solo nations and nonaligned micro alliances; TDO is simply on a larger scale. Neutral alliances are inevitably safer to attack than an alliance with ties in the treaty web. After all, I don't see anyone stepping up to defend TDO thus far.

[Alex987]

@ Cortath: It wasn't intended as an insult, I was waiting for the propaganda/rhetoric to come along.

Those disciplined enough to stay with the unexceptional are those who become the strongest. War is a short-term fix for long-term absolute loss in strength. But there is no point to being disciplined enough to be neutral, because the journey is boring and there is no destination (or more accurately, no series of small destinations). Politics is an artificial way to give meaning and interest at the expense of "winning".

@Tywin: You are overvaluing the destruction rogues cause compared to global wars. This is probably the largest rogue wave I've ever seen in my nearly 3 years on Planet Bob, it is the exception not the rule. And the reason TDO is targeted is because they are exceptional, there are relatively few neutrals. If most alliances were neutrals there would be a lesser individual probability of getting hit. We'll see how much damage this wave causes, but world wars do significantly more than even all the rogue waves already focused on neutrals

Edit: Added reply to Tywin

Edited September 19, 2013 by Alex987

[Azaghul]

Of course Francoism stands up to "reality!" Its explicit purpose is to examine the material reality of what we live. No structure, no man, no idea is sacred, but that it serves to bring freedom from chaos, peace, order, and prosperity.

 

What is neutral if naught but unexceptional? If naught but banal, uninteresting, and most importnatly: unsustainable. Strength begets strengths. Power begets power. Francoism is a strong ideology because it was born in a crucible of conflict where only the strong would survive. And when we came to this world, we had challenges still. It is challenge that makes us, and it is complacency in victory that unmakes us. The Neutrals, who never strive, who never challenge, who never sharpen their claws by their enemies are guided by weak principles. Principles that are overcome by stronger principles.

 

Francoism is strong because it has fought. And because it has fought, it is made stronger, more precise, more useful, for such is what happens to an ideology and a people built on the material conditions of where we live.

This is an OOC forum you don't need to pretend to take Francoism seriously here.

[Cortath]

This is an OOC forum you don't need to pretend to take Francoism seriously here.

My alliance takes its Francoism seriously. It's not a philosophy that recognizes or needs any sort of OOC/IC dividing line.

[jerdge]

I only skimmed through the last posts (no time for Francoism, I don't take it seriously). But the idea that neutrality would be a "weak position" is silly. Being weak is weak. Neutrality with stats is not that bad, considering that the only two cases in which neutrals have been hit happened when the attackers had little to lose - either because they were firmly in power or because they don't care anymore.

 

This is not bout neutrality, though. Carry on.

[Max Power]

Neutral alliances have only thrived because the old Hegemony (with the exception of GPA war) tolerated their peaceful coexistence and set that precedent. Ironically, in a chaotic world, neutrality becomes a more dangerous strategy as demonstrated by the attacks on The Democratic Order. Neutral alliances become an easier, more isolated target in a world with multiple power spheres. This has been demonstrated by tech raids on nonaligned micro alliances.

It took a year after GW3 for Woodstock to happen. It took four years after Karma, or two years after Grudge if we want to go post-SuperGrievances, for this to happen. This is speaking about dedicated neutrals, not poorly protected alliances, mind you.

 

Precedent is the weakest force protecting the neutrals. The strongest is the fact that it is entirely unprofitable to attack them. Nothing is gained, only destroyed. You create an enemy that would not otherwise exist, only to waste your energies on them while others spend their money growing.

And politics in its current form is extremely heavily roleplay based. It would not disappear in a purely utilitarian CN, it would just turn into the brand that the neutrals play, mainly solving disputes over rogues and tech deals.

And lol Cortath, that's what I was waiting for.

Yes, this. In war, whoever fights loses and whoever eggs people on from the sidelines wins. It's a consequence of not being able to conquer much in this game, as well as nukes being as powerful as they are.

 

I would not say it is unprofitable to attack them, that all depends upon the objective. All there has to be for an attack is capability and motive, and in a chaotic world, both are in ready supply. This already happens with solo nations and nonaligned micro alliances; TDO is simply on a larger scale. Neutral alliances are inevitably safer to attack than an alliance with ties in the treaty web. After all, I don't see anyone stepping up to defend TDO thus far.

He means literal profit, like infra/tech/warchest/etc. There's none of that to be gained unless you're fighting inactives.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Max Power

[Chimaera]

Ideology only exists on Bob as far as the rulers of a particular alliance want it to exist.  it is useful as a tool to control public order, to make others complicit in your plans.  It is wholly useless as a guiding philosophy for one's alliance, since a good leader must be prepared to deal with any circumstance that arises through whatever means available. 

 

MK dominated the game because they were a viable alternative.  They were, in essence, 'next'.  Rulers by default after Karma.

 

The next alliance/group of alliances to dominate the game, at least in the current environment of spheres splitting up and seemingly multi-polar worlds, may have to be a bit more proactive (not to say MK didn't maneuver themselves into position to be successful, but they certainly were the beneficiaries of excellent timing and dozens of compounded Pacifican mistakes founded in sheer arrogance).  I suppose we shall see.

[The Zigur]

There's a trick to power. Power resides where people believe it resides. One can argue whether politics outside the game is roleplay or an important supportive mechanism to gameplay, but as long as people believe that politics represents power, it will. People act on beliefs in this game on a daily basis, plan entire foreign policies based upon belief in one philosophy or another. TDO acted on the belief of white flag neutrality, Mushroom Kingdom previously acted on a belief in personal friendships. The question is whether these and many other philosophies and beliefs hold as firm a grounding in reality as Francoism does.

 

MK is trying a different approach, and I do respect what they are trying to do. They are trying to shake the belief in materialist philosophies like Francoism, in favor of a chaotic "Mushlim" philosophy, attempting to convince people there is no power in the old ways. The seemingly random attack on TDO is a strike to the heart of the way this game has been played for years. It is a very clever parallel between the real world struggle of materialist philosophies of the West, and the fundamentalist philosophies of the Islamic world. Both philosophies are powerful because people believe in them, but western materialism is winning because it is better grounded in reality.

 

MK will ultimately fail, and will either reform under another banner, or utterly perish from the world, because Mushlim ideology holds no concrete basis in reality.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Neo Uruk]

I don't think you get what "reality" means in terms of this game.

[Robster83]

God damn RP'ers.  :awesome:

 

Ideology only exists on Bob as far as the rulers of a particular alliance want it to exist.  it is useful as a tool to control public order, to make others complicit in your plans.  It is wholly useless as a guiding philosophy for one's alliance, since a good leader must be prepared to deal with any circumstance that arises through whatever means available. 

 

MK dominated the game because they were a viable alternative.  They were, in essence, 'next'.  Rulers by default after Karma.

 

The next alliance/group of alliances to dominate the game, at least in the current environment of spheres splitting up and seemingly multi-polar worlds, may have to be a bit more proactive (not to say MK didn't maneuver themselves into position to be successful, but they certainly were the beneficiaries of excellent timing and dozens of compounded Pacifican mistakes founded in sheer arrogance).  I suppose we shall see.

 

Fully agree with that...

 

Although I do feel MK's dominance is somewhat overstated at times. They were a highly influential political force, but they weren't the sole force behind all of the events that took place in recent history, despite the perception of some.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Robster83

[The Zigur]

I don't think you get what "reality" means in terms of this game.

 

Reality is in the pixels and numbers that make up nations, and power lies where each ruler believes it does. Every leader has his or her own personal philosophy that guides his actions, whether he realizes it or not. How well the leader does with the nation(s) he influences depends upon how well his philosophy reflects the material situation of those pixels and dots. If he has a scientific, materialist philosophy, he is more likely to grow in power and influence.

 

It's very similar to real life. Consider modern American law. These laws are written by politicians who's interests are in their own elected careers. As a result, many laws are not based in material reality, but instead are written according to lobbyists skewed viewpoints of reality. As a result, America has the worlds largest prison population by far, and the law is out of touch with reality or reason for millions of people. This exploiter/exploited dynamic is very similar to what Francoism has always argued against in-game.

 

So if you have in-game philosophies dominant that are out of touch with material reality, the results won't be any more positive in a game than they are in real life.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Cortath]

I don't think you get what "reality" means in terms of this game.

 

What do you think " 'reality' means in terms of this game?"

 

Let me preempt any witty retorts by saying I've already answered this question. See the links in my signature.

[Alex987]

 
Reality is in the pixels and numbers that make up nations, and power lies where each ruler believes it does. Every leader has his or her own personal philosophy that guides his actions, whether he realizes it or not. How well the leader does with the nation(s) he influences depends upon how well his philosophy reflects the material situation of those pixels and dots. If he has a scientific, materialist philosophy, he is more likely to grow in power and influence.
 
It's very similar to real life. Consider modern American law. These laws are written by politicians who's interests are in their own elected careers. As a result, many laws are not based in material reality, but instead are written according to lobbyists skewed viewpoints of reality. As a result, America has the worlds largest prison population by far, and the law is out of touch with reality or reason for millions of people. This exploiter/exploited dynamic is very similar to what Francoism has always argued against in-game.
 
So if you have in-game philosophies dominant that are out of touch with material reality, the results won't be any more positive in a game than they are in real life.

You're getting too deep in your thoughts without tethering yourself down. Strength lies in NS and the ability to use it in war. The undisputed best way to get there without any distractions is by not fighting wars (ergo being a neutral), not by being a Francoist or NPO or MK. The alliances that play politics don't play for strength maximization, they play for fun, whose chief form is based in roleplay.

[New Frontier]

"pondered to myself"

[New Frontier]

This is pretty impressively poorly written.

[Mr Vicarious]

"pondered to myself"

 

Is that like throwing a certain interception only to have it batted back into your own arms?

[Neo Uruk]

Reality is in the pixels and numbers that make up nations, and power lies where each ruler believes it does. Every leader has his or her own personal philosophy that guides his actions, whether he realizes it or not. How well the leader does with the nation(s) he influences depends upon how well his philosophy reflects the material situation of those pixels and dots. If he has a scientific, materialist philosophy, he is more likely to grow in power and influence.
 
It's very similar to real life. Consider modern American law. These laws are written by politicians who's interests are in their own elected careers. As a result, many laws are not based in material reality, but instead are written according to lobbyists skewed viewpoints of reality. As a result, America has the worlds largest prison population by far, and the law is out of touch with reality or reason for millions of people. This exploiter/exploited dynamic is very similar to what Francoism has always argued against in-game.
 
So if you have in-game philosophies dominant that are out of touch with material reality, the results won't be any more positive in a game than they are in real life.

 
 

What do you think " 'reality' means in terms of this game?"
 
Let me preempt any witty retorts by saying I've already answered this question. See the links in my signature.

Explain to me why "Roll neutrals" isn't going to work because it holds no "basis in reality"