The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics

[Mr Director]

Ps. Looking at you aid screen, you have been doing 6/100s with a nation from GLoF. :(

Oh, and you are currently residing in a one man alliance. I'll wait for those raiders to show up.

[La Marx]

Ps. Looking at you aid screen, you have been doing 6/100s with a nation from GLoF. :(

Oh, and you are currently residing in a one man alliance. I'll wait for those raiders to show up.

Yes I have. But I have not implemented any of these ideas yet. 

That's true. But I have applied to join WTF.

La Marx

[Petro]

Just a thought, La Marx. This isn't the real world, this is Planet Bob. The workers aren't oppressed here, as a matter of fact it is just the opposite. The "Gerontocracy" is actually made up of hard working people that have risen to the top through their own dilligence, not through oppressive and systematic corruption. Anyone that is willing to put in the time and effort can easily become a tech seller within 6 months, and be ranked in the upper middle tiers within 18. I shudder to think of how you would have reacted to 3/100 which wasn't that uncommon a few years ago.

[La Marx]

Just a thought, La Marx. This isn't the real world, this is Planet Bob. The workers aren't oppressed here, as a matter of fact it is just the opposite. The "Gerontocracy" is actually made up of hard working people that have risen to the top through their own dilligence, not through oppressive and systematic corruption. Anyone that is willing to put in the time and effort can easily become a tech seller within 6 months, and be ranked in the upper middle tiers within 18. I shudder to think of how you would have reacted to 3/100 which wasn't that uncommon a few years ago.

(And this is an IC forum.)

I disagree with that claim too. I never naively equated the Gerontocracy with tech buyers. I have tried to stress that it is rather a system, which is constituted by a range of classes of tech buyers. Whilst tech sellers constitute a fluid and upwardly mobile class(and there is much complexity here too, because as they move up, the Gerontocracy scales upward too) that doesn't negate their exploitation and oppression. As for whether any of the dates and lengths of time suggested are reasonable and fair, well, I would probably disagree.

Edited December 22, 2013 by La Marx

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

Just further proving what an idiotic ideal communism/collectivism is by trying to push this fallacy.

 

Is this real life indeed

[Teddyyo]

Just a thought, La Marx. This isn't the real world, this is Planet Bob. The workers aren't oppressed here, as a matter of fact it is just the opposite. The "Gerontocracy" is actually made up of hard working people that have risen to the top through their own dilligence, not through oppressive and systematic corruption. Anyone that is willing to put in the time and effort can easily become a tech seller within 6 months, and be ranked in the upper middle tiers within 18. I shudder to think of how you would have reacted to 3/100 which wasn't that uncommon a few years ago.

I remember when I would run 3/50's just a couple years ago due to my laziness (if I saw the last aid was me sending 3m, I'd wait for tech, and vice versa) and was lambasted for it. The sad part was, and I don't know if it is sill true, that for every decent seller I found there were 2-3 flops. It really didn't help the burn out I experienced, and it seems like a lot of my peers from the time (the sort that rose slowly in NS over time, accruing tech and wonders, rather than racing to it with great efficiency) burned out too.

[jerdge]

My answer to this may seem quite radically pacificist to my comrades. I answer them that the International would be better served, in the interest of Communism, to stay out of the inane bourgeois power struggles of the World Gerontocracy and to cultivate an egalitarian society that is, like GPA etc. neutral, or rather, positively disengaged from all the idiocy of the Gerontocratic power struggle. As I have demonstrated above, such power can never be possessed, it will only possess those who strive after it - like Tolkien's magical Ring.

I'd say that the solution should be clear, then.

More seriously, in terms of mechanics there's a problem in your theory. Money is essential to nation building and the real mass of money is made at high infra levels, if and when one manages to stay there for long enough. The money one can make off selling tech is negligible compared to that, even if you sell at 90 millions for 100 tech. Simply put, even 54 millions every 10 days (which is the profit ceiling, not attainable, for "tech deals") is too little. Nations need to grow to get enough money to be competitive.
Just infra and money, though, is an unsustainable military weakness, as tech's military importance is decisive. Large nations must thus get a lot of tech to just survive in the violent environment we inhabit. Large quantities of tech must be purchased from low-tech nations, as the cost to get tech directly from the buy tech menu is too high. The good of this situation is that small nations can greatly speed up their growth thanks to the money they get in exchange for their tech.
The material conditions dictate that the price of tech must not be too low, otherwise alliances's low-NS ranges would be too slow at growing, but not too high, otherwise alliance's high-tech nations would be too slow at growing their tech, and the sellers' pool would quickly shrink, leaving everyone (the one that just switched to buyer included) with "no" tech.

I am not saying that your political ideal is impossible to obtain, anyway. You may convince all the small nations to get a lot of money for their tech. At that point they'll quickly grow their infra, then finding themselves in need of tech that can't really be bought anymore, or they'll remain small, never getting access to the "real" money-maker ranges. Anyone capable of uniting nations in a more effective cooperation could then get stronger and better nations, and leave you behind.

I am not saying that your political ideal is impossible to obtain, but I am saying that it leads to underdevelopment and weakness. That's what happen when you ignore the material reality of this world, and you let yourself be confused (as you seem to) by false parallels with other worlds or planes of existence.

There is a theory according to which the "proletariat" is exploited, though. According to this theory the small and especially the new nations are exploited by the old ones (the gerontocrats, if you will) that use them for their political ends. Time and activity are the real material bases of CN... According to this theory the old ones created an environment that "forces" the new rulers to become workers of the already established organization of alliances, that is ruled by a small clique that works in the shadows and that keeps everyone in the dark about what's happening. The fruits of the leg-work of the proletariat, i.e. the "fun" (the power to influence events), is taken from those that work to produce it, and made an exclusive property of the old rulers. "OpSec" and authoritarian forms of government, together with the ability to recruit the best minds of the new generations, are the main tools used to restrict access to power. According to said theory, I mean...

But I digress. I think I forgot to prepare my tea, thus with your pardon I'll get up from my rocking chair and I'll go attend to that. Good luck with whatever revolution you are working for. ;)

[Krashnaia]

Just further proving what an idiotic ideal communism/collectivism is by trying to push this fallacy.

 

Meanwhile, to prove what an idiotic ideal capitalism is, we don't need to look for people fooling in the in-character forums of an obscure game. We just need to turn on TV.

[Sephiroth]

For a small nation a 6m/100t is a very good deal, which allows them to grow much faster than many of the older nation did when starting out. Using that to grow when starting off and  to grow more as a buyer when bigger is just maximizing growth for all parties. So there is no exploitation, everyone is doing what benefits them the most in their current situation.

[Lord Draculea]

More seriously, in terms of mechanics there's a problem in your theory. Money is essential to nation building and the real mass of money is made at high infra levels, if and when one manages to stay there for long enough. The money one can make off selling tech is negligible compared to that, even if you sell at 90 millions for 100 tech. Simply put, even 54 millions every 10 days (which is the profit ceiling, not attainable, for "tech deals") is too little. Nations need to grow to get enough money to be competitive.
Just infra and money, though, is an unsustainable military weakness, as tech's military importance is decisive. Large nations must thus get a lot of tech to just survive in the violent environment we inhabit. Large quantities of tech must be purchased from low-tech nations, as the cost to get tech directly from the buy tech menu is too high. The good of this situation is that small nations can greatly speed up their growth thanks to the money they get in exchange for their tech.
The material conditions dictate that the price of tech must not be too low, otherwise alliances's low-NS ranges would be too slow at growing, but not too high, otherwise alliance's high-tech nations would be too slow at growing their tech, and the sellers' pool would quickly shrink, leaving everyone (the one that just switched to buyer included) with "no" tech.

I am not saying that your political ideal is impossible to obtain, anyway. You may convince all the small nations to get a lot of money for their tech. At that point they'll quickly grow their infra, then finding themselves in need of tech that can't really be bought anymore, or they'll remain small, never getting access to the "real" money-maker ranges. Anyone capable of uniting nations in a more effective cooperation could then get stronger and better nations, and leave you behind.

 

It may seem to you that 54 mil. in 10 days is "too little", considering your NS. You've probably been a large nation for too long to remember what is like to be at ~ 5000 infra with just 3 or 4 income wonders, but I can tell you that 50 mil. is just about the natural income such a nation would do in 10 days, without selling tech. If it's a tech seller, and makes its deals @ 9/100, then we're suddenly talking about roughly a doubling in that nation's income.

 

Let's get back for a little while to my suggestion of a nation building strategy that would focus not on buying infra, but rather on wonders. If that nation does all tech deals @ 6/100 (and after getting the FAC, @ 9/100), buying a new wonder (income or military) every 30 days or so becomes sustainable. Such a nation would have to take its time and not be in a hurry to grow its NS, but rather build a hidden (and deadly) strength, coming from its wonder assets, not its infra. Do you think it could be attacked by new nations, having no wonders, even if loaded with money by their upper tier (of a classical alliance)? Think again...

 

Taking a step forward, suppose there is a critical mass of such hypothetical nations grouped in an alliance (the "Syndicate"). Their political objective: to make all new & small nations (the "working class" if you like) aware of their rights to get fair prices for their tech, and turn them into expert tech sellers (if they join the Syndicate). In time, they would be able to make a significant difference bob-wide and change the face of the planet, IMO. They could even buy their protection (if needed) from some of the traditional alliances who acknowledge their demands, by being ready to make special tech deals (e.g. through 6:6 schemes) with them in times of need (and how does it sound to a big nation to have a reliable source of 500 or 600 tech in a flash?). Moreover, they would not have to ask their alliance members to stay as permanent tech sellers; any nation of the Syndicate would be free to turn into a tech buyer if it chooses so (either by leaving the alliance in good terms, or by staying in and slowly build up a tier of buyers).

Edited December 24, 2013 by ovicos66

[gunzzz]

As a person that likes to raid a lot, thus having a low NS (and probably never going to be a buyer of tech),I support this commie in trying to get me more money!!!

Edited December 25, 2013 by Hamilmania

[La Marx]

 

It may seem to you that 54 mil. in 10 days is "too little", considering your NS. You've probably been a large nation for too long to remember what is like to be at ~ 5000 infra with just 3 or 4 income wonders, but I can tell you that 50 mil. is just about the natural income such a nation would do in 10 days, without selling tech. If it's a tech seller, and makes its deals @ 9/100, then we're suddenly talking about roughly a doubling in that nation's income.

 

Let's get back for a little while to my suggestion of a nation building strategy that would focus not on buying infra, but rather on wonders. If that nation does all tech deals @ 6/100 (and after getting the FAC, @ 9/100), buying a new wonder (income or military) every 30 days or so becomes sustainable. Such a nation would have to take its time and not be in a hurry to grow its NS, but rather build a hidden (and deadly) strength, coming from its wonder assets, not its infra. Do you think it could be attacked by new nations, having no wonders, even if loaded with money by their upper tier (of a classical alliance)? Think again...

 

Taking a step forward, suppose there is a critical mass of such hypothetical nations grouped in an alliance (the "Syndicate"). Their political objective: to make all new & small nations (the "working class" if you like) aware of their rights to get fair prices for their tech, and turn them into expert tech sellers (if they join the Syndicate). In time, they would be able to make a significant difference bob-wide and change the face of the planet, IMO. They could even buy their protection (if needed) from some of the traditional alliances who acknowledge their demands, by being ready to make special tech deals (e.g. through 6:6 schemes) with them in times of need (and how does it sound to a big nation to have a reliable source of 500 or 600 tech in a flash?). Moreover, they would not have to ask their alliance members to stay as permanent tech sellers; any nation of the Syndicate would be free to turn into a tech buyer if it chooses so (either by leaving the alliance in good terms, or by staying in and slowly build up a tier of buyers).

This is an interesting practical idea. Although much the same as the one above.

The idea of the union - to ferment tech seller rebellion in every corner of bob - is probably only something that could come on the back of more localised accomplishments, or the establishment of a police force for tech sellers. Such a Syndicate could - perhaps - establishing itself at lower ranges - be an effective way of enforcing those price policies, or protecting sellers.

From that perspective 6/100 could be brought to 9/100 and 12/100 by collective bargaining. Furthermore, if the Syndicate could guarantee the most effective cycling of slots, they could also make it more attractive to buyers. No gaps. If a large aa were established of sellers who would only accept a certain price, that could cause a chain reaction for all sellers.

La Marx

[Mr Director]

This is an interesting practical idea. Although much the same as the one above.
The idea of the union - to ferment tech seller rebellion in every corner of bob - is probably only something that could come on the back of more localised accomplishments, or the establishment of a police force for tech sellers. Such a Syndicate could - perhaps - establishing itself at lower ranges - be an effective way of enforcing those price policies, or protecting sellers.
From that perspective 6/100 could be brought to 9/100 and 12/100 by collective bargaining. Furthermore, if the Syndicate could guarantee the most effective cycling of slots, they could also make it more attractive to buyers. No gaps. If a large aa were established of sellers who would only accept a certain price, that could cause a chain reaction for all sellers.
La Marx

And what, pray tell, would these "police" be enforcing? Would they be attacking sellers who sold at lower prices that you deemed necessary? Would they hit ppeople who refused to join your union? It is interesting how this thread has gone from a scholarly proposal of a new, somewhat misguided idea, to a proposal for a Stalinist regime. Such are the course of most revolutions.

[La Marx]

And what, pray tell, would these "police" be enforcing? Would they be attacking sellers who sold at lower prices that you deemed necessary? Would they hit ppeople who refused to join your union? It is interesting how this thread has gone from a scholarly proposal of a new, somewhat misguided idea, to a proposal for a Stalinist regime. Such are the course of most revolutions.

If you look at all the different moments of this thread, I have never ceased to raise the idea of militant action against the Gerontocracy and those who support it. That is hardly equivalent to Stalinism. It's slaves rising up and throwing off their chains!

It is clear that the revolution will not be fulfilled with peaceful talks at the negotiating table. Tech sellers of the world, declare war.

Edited December 25, 2013 by La Marx

[Mr Director]

If you look at all the different moments of this thread, I have never ceased to raise the idea of militant action against the Gerontocracy and those who support it. That is hardly equivalent to Stalinism. It's slaves rising up and throwing off their chains!
It is clear that the revolution will not be fulfilled with peaceful talks at the negotiating table. Tech sellers of the world, declare war.

You still aren't answering the question. Just what will these "police"be be policing?

[Lord Draculea]

And what, pray tell, would these "police" be enforcing? Would they be attacking sellers who sold at lower prices that you deemed necessary? Would they hit ppeople who refused to join your union? It is interesting how this thread has gone from a scholarly proposal of a new, somewhat misguided idea, to a proposal for a Stalinist regime. Such are the course of most revolutions.

Acting as a police force to enforce fair tech prices bob-wide would be an option of the last resort. But I fail to see why the new & small nations would deliberately choose to act against their own interests, by letting the bourgeoisie of their own alliance exploit them through 6/200 or 9/300 (or even 9/200) deals. 

Hitting people who refuse to join the union would be a dumb and counterproductive thing to do.

Finally, I'm very curious to hear why would you compare such an idea of a democratic alliance, mostly composed of very active, clear-minded, highly motivated, hard-working, and expert tech sellers with a "Stalinist regime"? It's quite the opposite of it, in my view. This should be clear to any well-intended player, big or small, unless of course s/he chooses to act as the voice of the most reactionary part of the bourgeoisie itself, aiming at keeping the small & developing nations in the darkness of ignorance, in order to preserve the current status-quo of "gerontocratic privileges", as La Marx would put it. :)

Edited December 25, 2013 by ovicos66

[RevolutionaryRebel]

You can't just swan in and expect instant change. You can't act like a fool and expect people to flock to you. Leaving the repellent actions of La Marx aside, changes in the consideration of smaller nations will rely entirely upon their behaviour. Decorum, patience and a willingness to engage with the world rather than ignore how it operates will do more to change things than this thread.

 

If you look at all the different moments of this thread, I have never ceased to raise the idea of militant action against the Gerontocracy and those who support it. That is hardly equivalent to Stalinism. It's slaves rising up and throwing off their chains!

It is clear that the revolution will not be fulfilled with peaceful talks at the negotiating table. Tech sellers of the world, declare war.

If this is how you respond to questions about the implementation of your ideals, then you may as well throw in the towel.

[Teddyyo]

This is funny.

That people think anything but supply and demand dictates tech prices is also lol-worthy.

[Mr Director]

Acting as a police force to enforce fair tech prices bob-wide would be an option of the last resort. But I fail to see why the new & small nations would deliberately choose to act against their own interests, by letting the bourgeoisie of their own alliance exploit them through 6/200 or 9/300 (or even 9/200) deals. 
Hitting people who refuse to join the union would be a dumb and counterproductive thing to do.
Finally, I'm very curious to hear why would you compare such an idea of a democratic alliance, mostly composed of very active, clear-minded, highly motivated, hard-working, and expert tech sellers with a "Stalinist regime"? It's quite the opposite of it, in my view. This should be clear to any well-intended player, big or small, unless of course s/he chooses to act as the voice of the most reactionary part of the bourgeoisie itself, aiming at keeping the small & developing nations in the darkness of ignorance, in order to preserve the current status-quo of "gerontocratic privileges", as La Marx would put it. :)

And how else besides attacking nations who refuse to comply would you enforce these tech prices? You call it a police force, I would assume it plans to arrest someone.

[AndrewHG]

Free market baby. Be nice to your children. They get to choose your nursing homes.

[La Marx]

You can't just swan in and expect instant change.
 

You can't expect it, but you can demand it.
 

You can't act like a fool and expect people to flock to you.

 

I am not asking anyone to flock to the flag of La Marx and the Indignados in this thread. I am arguing a political thesis. As for the idea of a tech elling Syndicate, that is not my idea either. 

As for whether or not folly attracts a flock, you only have to read a few hagiographies of Saints and revolutionaries to see that - yes, in many cases, it does, contrary to the analism (to use Freud's terminology) and dogmatic common sense of sensible and rational persons.
 

Leaving the repellent actions of La Marx aside, changes in the consideration of smaller nations will rely entirely upon their behaviour.

 

Not entirely. This position rules out the intersubjective nature between older and younger/smaller nations.

 

Decorum, patience and a willingness to engage with the world rather than ignore how it operates will do more to change things than this thread.

 

 

The repeated falsity that my thesis ignores the operations of the world! All my thesis does is interrogate how that very operation is predicated upon an ideological conception of this world - Gerontocracy. As for whether such platitudinous inanities as decorum etc will change anything, I point you to the histories of all other worlds, where it has been precisely the opposite virtues that triumphed over those noble sounding words that mask the decadence and stagnation of this world.
 

If this is how you respond to questions about the implementation of your ideals, then you may as well throw in the towel.

 

On the contrary, anyone who doesn't respond in this fashion to such responses in regard to such ideas by raising their banners, is a fallen hypocrite. This thesis, though theoretical, affects the material interests of all young and smaller nations. They cannot respond in pure abstractions, in generalities, in inanities, in decorously worded apologetics and descending rainbows of patience. They must respond with struggle. It may not be a declaration of war as has hitherto been seen on this world, it may not be a war where a single soldier is deployed, but it is a war all the same: a war of two classes that has always raged in the ellipses and interstices of power for the hegemony of this world.

[Lord Draculea]

This is funny.

That people think anything but supply and demand dictates tech prices is also lol-worthy.

Thanks for the news. I would suggest that we first try our best to correctly inform all the market participants of their options and interests (a basic condition of a free market, isn't it), and then I couldn't agree more with you to let the supply and demand do their thing. :)

 

 

And how else besides attacking nations who refuse to comply would you enforce these tech prices? You call it a police force, I would assume it plans to arrest someone.

We can call this force whatever we like (I proposed the term of a Syndicate). There are many (and more intelligent) options before using the force, which would anyway be a political decision to make.

I don't believe for a second that you're really seeing such actions taking place in the form of random attacks or "arrests" (?!) on small nations, but I admit that irony and sarcasm, as methods of trying to discredit someone's ideas or actions, are valid and expected propaganda tools, so please, go ahead, don't stop. A full-scale ideological confrontation with the reactionary part of an ankylosed system is in fact just what the said Syndicate of the working class (whatever form it may take) would need in order to make them aware of their cause, and eventually determine them to unite in order to protect their rights and interests.

[La Marx]

This is funny.

That people think anything but supply and demand dictates tech prices is also lol-worthy.

Supply and demand of tech do not transcend politics. Supply and demand are determined by their relations with all other elements in a complex political economy.

[Mr Director]

Thanks for the news. I would suggest that we first try our best to correctly inform all the market participants of their options and interests (a basic condition of a free market, isn't it), and then I couldn't agree more with you to let the supply and demand do their thing. :)
 
 

We can call this force whatever we like (I proposed the term of a Syndicate). There are many (and more intelligent) options before using the force, which would anyway be a political decision to make.
I don't believe for a second that you're really seeing such actions taking place in the form of random attacks or "arrests" (?!) on small nations, but I admit that irony and sarcasm, as methods of trying to discredit someone's ideas or actions, are valid and expected propaganda tools, so please, go ahead, don't stop. A full-scale ideological confrontation with the reactionary part of an ankylosed system is in fact just what the said Syndicate of the working class (whatever form it may take) would need in order to make them aware of their cause, and eventually determine them to unite in order to protect their rights and interests.

And who, pray tell, would make these political desicions, and how would he enforce said desicions? And how would you deal with nations who refuse to sell at your rates? If such a syndicate is to be formed, its power would be based on control of the sellers. If even a small handful of sellers decide, for whatever reason, to sell at lowr rates, it could threaten the whole system. And these groups will form, either through coercion or of their own choice. You would need some way to keep the sellers in line, would you not?

On another note, what do you plan to do when major alliances decide they do not want their military stregnth corroded and decide to act?

[La Marx]

And who, pray tell, would make these political desicions, and how would he enforce said desicions? And how would you deal with nations who refuse to sell at your rates? If such a syndicate is to be formed, its power would be based on control of the sellers. If even a small handful of sellers decide, for whatever reason, to sell at lowr rates, it could threaten the whole system. And these groups will form, either through coercion or of their own choice. You would need some way to keep the sellers in line, would you not?

On another note, what do you plan to do when major alliances decide they do not want their military stregnth corroded and decide to act?

The fact that you have passed from bemused dismissal to these interrogations undermines your posture of cool analysis: it shows that you can view and conceive this as a threat. This is desperate. That is proof enough for the Syndicalist.

So we threaten you. And that proves that our freedom can be made concrete. We do not go forward, though, by answering possible question with every single eventuality planned in some formulaic praxis. We will proceed step by step with attention to the concrete material moments as they arise.

Tying tech sellers down in a scholastic battle of how and where and when is a desperate diversionary tactic. No one can tell what the future holds. Odds are heavily stacked against tech sellers  - but they don't need you to tell them that. My thesis makes that very clear. Persistently reminding them of that fact is not an act of elucidation, it is an act of cowardly intimidation.