The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics

[Mr Director]

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.

 

I'm afraid you are quite delusional if you think you are a threat to anyone over 1k NS, but please, continue. You continually use "we" or "us," as if you had other standing behind you. I highly doubt that this is the case, as your "Alliance" currently consists of one person. Even if there are others, I highly doubt they have the stregnth to bring about the changes you desire.

[Saladjoe]

 this as a threat. This is desperate. 

The extent of the "threat" you pose to anyone is restricted to your minimal NS range. That you are calling anyone else desperate as you scream for a tech seller revolution while you join a neutral alliance proves how ignorant you really are.

 

I really hope the Int or UCR member boards aren't filled with drivel like this.. :gag:  

[La Marx]

The extent of the "threat" you pose to anyone is restricted to your minimal NS range. That you are calling anyone else desperate as you scream for a tech seller revolution while you join a neutral alliance proves how ignorant you really are.

 

I really hope the Int or UCR member boards aren't filled with drivel like this.. :gag:  

The threat posed is clearly not myself - I have never claimed to be a threat - only the ideas in my thesis - they are the threat. The fact that you and others continue to localise these ideas in my person is just proof of a fear of engaging with them directly. This is because on their own terms, deprived of the only weapon the OWF knows, the ad hominem, those ideas are terrible for Gerontocrats to behold. They pose the question of their very dissolution.

Once the tech sellers become aware of their exploited condition, they can destroy themselves and hence the entire system of pointless wars, exploitation and oppression built on their submission and alienation.

[Comrade Craig]

My friend La Marx is at best misguided, and at worst is being intentionally disingenuous.  The danger in his rhetoric is that it is selfish individualism (dare I say capitalism) masked in the language of socialism, and this sort of political language appeals to a naive segment of would-be socialists.

 

I'm not good at constructing organized polemics; my thoughts are too scattered and I prefer action to pointless acts of intellectual masturbation.  I'll present my argument as a series of unconnected points, and I'll leave it to the readers to find a common theme, or to pick out the most persuasive.

 

Firstly, La Marx is attacking the problem from the wrong angle.  Collectivization already exists; it takes the form of an alliance.  One must recognize collective self-interest and reject petty selfishness.  When the collective (alliance) is strong, the individual members are stronger.  The generation of technology at faster rates benefits all; the needless inflation of tech prices is a short-term benefit that harms everyone in the long run.  The goal is to find a balance that works for buyer and seller.

 

La Marx also equates technology with labor, which I find to be a bad analogy.  Nations produce their own wealth and do not need to rely on the export of tech to sustain themselves.  Tech is not labor, it is a commodity.  When a seller takes advantage of an artificially-created shortage to inflate prices, we call it gouging or profiteering.  That is the [b]antithesis[/b] of socialism.

 

As for this so-called "gerontocracy" (is that a real thing or was he clever enough to coin the term?  If the latter then he deserves my compliments),  this is probably the most common complaint of new nations (although, kudos for the witty label).  The established members of our community are always the villains who fail to instantly recognize the genius of newcomers.  Our desire not to reinvent the wheel is always portrayed as either authoritarian or cliquish.  Unfortunately, the only cure for this silly idea is experience, and that's the one thing that can't be forced on someone.  Experience comes with time, and time on Planet Bob is (by definition) the one thing a newcomer does not and cannot have.  In this regard, La Marx comes across as a petulant child.

 

Lastly, his whole fixation on his individual condition shows that he does not grasp the concept of leadership in our [game].  As a leader of a small alliance, I am not controlling my nation.  It is one minor appendage in a pool of 50, 100, 200, or more.  The decisions a leader makes are based on the success of the entire collective, not exclusive benefit of his one nation.  Any leader worth anything at all would throw his nation away if it was needed for the success of whole.  The fact that he even thinks this is how leadership operates shows that he doesn't have a clue.

 

Meh.

 

-Craig 

Edited December 27, 2013 by Comrade Craig

[Opaque]

I really hope the Int or UCR member boards aren't filled with drivel like this.. :gag:  

 

Ours definitely aren't.

[La Marx]

The danger in his rhetoric is that it is selfish individualism (dare I say capitalism) masked in the language of socialism

There is no selfish (or self) individualism in my argument or my rhetoric.

I have produced for the community's intelligence two classes which I have separated thusly - Gerontocrats and the exploited, or tech buyers and tech sellers.

It cannot even be said that I ultimately "stand for the exploited", for I ultimately stand for their destruction as a class of exploited people and the blossoming forth of a world without tech deals altogether, where all resources are held in common.

Finally concering the repeated attention drawn to the banal fact that I too am a tech seller and thus personally conscious of the alienation and exploitation of the tech sellers - this is used as evidence against my thesis  - the curious trick of trying to psychologise all my thesis does not disprove it, it only augments the intentions of its author. But this is irrelevant. I could cite it as evidence for my thesis based on my own epistemological proximity to the site of exploitation. At any rate that is not my point. My point is that l'auteur est mort. So much for the sujet. Take my thesis on its own merits, not extraneous and dubious attempts at a genetic fallacy.
 

 

Collectivization already exists; it takes the form of an alliance.  When the collective (alliance) is strong, the individual members are stronger.  The generation of technology at faster rates benefits all; the needless inflation of tech prices is a short-term benefit that harms everyone in the long run. 

While it may be true that collectivisation does exist in a certain form complicit with the Gerontocratic reproduction of itself, I never claimed that there are no collectives. Finally also I never would equate communism with just "collectivisation." That is a psuedo-marxian position. 

As I have shown, the benefits of this system is only to the system itself and its reproduction. This system exploits, oppresses, and depoliticises the entire world. Whether or not alliances are strong enough to win wars is immaterial. From the point of view of my thesis, no one wins wars - the system wins and everyone loses.
 

 

La Marx also equates technology with labor, which I find to be a bad analogy.  Nations produce their own wealth and do not need to rely on the export of tech to sustain themselves.  Tech is not labor, it is a commodity.  When a seller takes advantage of an artificially-created shortage to inflate prices, we call it gouging or profiteering.  That is the antithesis of socialism.

 

Actually my distinction is more subtle. Nations do produce their own wealth from local production/ex nihilo but in a very limited form. Economics proper does not arise at the level of the nation. It is an inter-national phenomenon here, or in other words, a study of the relations of economic forces among nations/agents. Nations should be viewed as economic agents, rather than states proper, with tariffs and so on, as in other worlds because as at the practical level of Gerontocratic domination and exploitation, nationality at a purely conceptual level is very compatible with this economic individuation and proletarianisation.

While tech is a commodity, that does not mean it cannot be understood as a product of  labour.  In this world tech is - in its selling - is always labour becoming capital, or in other words, tech is commodified and turned into capital, labour is converted into capital.

All that is solid melts into air.

The distinction you draw between labour and commodity is here not a marxist one. Under a capitalist system, labour is converted into capital. Thus the tech is sold as labour and becomes capital. Or better yet - the "purchase" (and lies the difficulty, that people think of tech as being purchased and not produced, when it would be impossible to simply purchase it out of thin air, it has to be produced by the nations themselves) of tech is what constitutes labour. That purchase itself is labour. And then that labour is converted into tech - capital.

That capital in turn is used to reproduce the hegemony of the coordinates of the Gerontocratic power system which in turn exploits and oppresses its labourers (tech sellers).

Your subjectivisation of the sellers (labourers) as independent capitalists clearly bears the impress of bourgeois ideology  the antithesis of scientific socialism.
 

 

Unfortunately, the only cure for this silly idea is experience

 

My experience of exploitation has been adequate enough to the task of my analysis. But that experience alone would be no substitute for my own theoretical and historical training and understanding of how ideology functions.
 

 

Leadership etc.

 

There is more than a hyphen between marxism and leninism.

Edited December 27, 2013 by La Marx

[Comrade Craig]

Talk minus action equals zero.  I'm not a Marxist; I tend to follow the Bakunin school of thought.

 

[ooc: You can make all sort of rationalizations, but your understanding of game mechanics is either nil or you're intentionally being dense.  I suspect it's the latter.  I have always and will always oppose the irrational imposition of fake ideologies onto game mechanics.  If you want to play make-believe as a commie, then pick out a red flag, choose a rebellious name, and sign all your posts as "comrade."  Dress up as Che and take selfies of yourself in a beret and post it to Facebook, but you are not the almighty admin, and you don't have the omnipotence to alter the code with wishful thinking.  Keep your RP out of my mechanics.]

 

-Craig

Edited December 27, 2013 by Comrade Craig

[La Marx]

Talk minus action equals zero.  I'm not a Marxist; I tend to follow the Bakunin school of thought.

 

[ooc: You can make all sort of rationalizations, but your understanding of game mechanics is either nil or you're intentionally being dense.  I suspect it's the latter.  I have always and will always oppose the irrational imposition of fake ideologies onto game mechanics.  If you want to play make-believe as a commie, then pick out a red flag, choose a rebellious name, and sign all your posts as "comrade."  Dress up as Che and take selfies of yourself in a beret and post it to Facebook, but you are not the almighty admin, and you don't have the omnipotence to alter the code with wishful thinking.  Keep your RP out of my mechanics.]

 

-Craig

Action minus theory equals nothing as well. I can tell you're not a marxist. You are basically a bourgeois faux-radical.

The claim that there is only one way to adapt oneself to the mechanics of this world is deep in Gerontocratic ideology. Your critique returns to the same hackneyed point every other Gerontocrat has made - "there are no alternatives to this system." Charging more or less or whatever is perfectly consonant with the mechanics of this world. It is simply not consonant with the Gerontocratic ideology. 

My position follows rationally and logically from the hermeneutical tools of marxism. Yours is an ad hoc defence of Gerontocracy everywhere because of an ideological reading of the underlying mechanics.

 

[Krashnaia]

(I copy-paste from some other thread)

 

Regarding La Marx' statement on tech trade, the basic problem of his premise lies in that he confuses exchange value with use value.

 

High-tech nations are extremely inefficient at producing tech. Their costs for producing tech are much higher than the socially necessary labour time to produce tech in Bob. (as 1 unit of tech produced by a 0-tech nation is as good as 1 unit of tech produced by a 10k-tech nation - proven by the fact that the 10k-tech nation can purchase 1 unit of tech from a 0-tech nation, and said tech will be as efficient as 1 tech produced by his own nation - we can conclude that the increase in the cost of tech is not related to the process of manufacturing it becoming more and more complex as your tech level increases. The only cause for such increase seems to be that in Bob, sciencists become lazier the more tech you have).

 

Given their inefficiency at producing tech, high level nations purchase it from low-tech nations, who produce it at a cost way way closer to the socially necessary labour time. As the price of tech is set by the use value of tech, and not his exchange value, low-tech nations get a huge surplus value for their tech.

 

From a marxist point of view, if we are looking for exploitiation, the relevant question here is not how much money high-tech nations pay for the tech. The relevant question here is who keeps the surplus value of the tech: The workers who produced it, or the guy who owns the tech factory. As the cash goes directly to the Nation's treasury, it's up to YOU, the ruler of your nation, to determine if the surplus value will be redistributed among the workers, fetched by the oligarchy, or kept for your own personal amusement. It's, thus, up to you, the ruler, to determine whenever there will be exploitiation or not.

 

Regarding the relationship between nations, low-tech nations are not forced to engage in the trade, are not forced to stay as tech producers, and are paid way more for their tech than the production costs. The high tech nation even provides the initial capital for the operation in advance. There seems, thus, to be no imperialistic oppresion here, and the trade actually helps the low-tech nation to close the gap between it and the high-tech one faster - and there is no systemic pressure either, as without tech-trading, the low-tech nation can still close that gap, albeit slowly.

 

As there is a fixed maximum tech price in Foreign Aid opperations, and fixed maximum number of slots you can use, the high-tech nations can't even use their higher cash production to monopolize the market and deprive mid-tech nations from participating in the deals as buyers.

 

For there to be some kind of imperialistic oppresion here, the low tech nations would have to be forced to become tech-farms, forced to stay as tech-farms, and be paid just the production value of the tech, if any. This can be the result of tech-raiding, or forced reparations of war, which is the reason why those practices are considered aberrant by many of us. But are not the result of tech-trade.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Krashnaia

[Mr Director]

Action minus theory equals nothing as well. I can tell you're not a marxist. You are basically a bourgeois faux-radical.
The claim that there is only one way to adapt oneself to the mechanics of this world is deep in Gerontocratic ideology. Your critique returns to the same hackneyed point every other Gerontocrat has made - "there are no alternatives to this system." Charging more or less or whatever is perfectly consonant with the mechanics of this world. It is simply not consonant with the Gerontocratic ideology. 
My position follows rationally and logically from the hermeneutical tools of marxism. Yours is an ad hoc defence of Gerontocracy everywhere because of an ideological reading of the underlying mechanics.

It is not that there are not alternatives, it's just that the alternatives that you offer suck. Oh, yeah, and there is the fact that nobody likes them either.

[Fox Fire]

What kind of garbage have I stumbled upon? o.O
Dude, are you seriously trying to say that small nations are being screwed over in tech deals?
Hey! By your logic, every alliance should just endlessly aid bomb every new nation Thats made. Because you know, its not like there's any satisfaction from earning your own shit and growing. Nah! I wanna start out at 100k NS. I demand nothing smaller!
I also want a mocha! And my name etched into the front page of the forums because Im just that awesome.
Who cares if Im a noobs who doesn't know how to play. I deserve to be Hime status because Bob revolves around my ignorance!

I mean really. Next I imagine you going on a Tom Riddle "lower tier revolution." You sound exactly like him, only you know a few big boy words.

You sir are what's wrong with Bob. Noobs who come here and demonize the upper nations, the very nations that fuel your growth. You then encourage others to partake in this pointless idiocy and in turn, screw over and drive away new nations.

Here's an idea:
Wanna protest the big boys? Quit selling tech and grow by yourself. Let me know how it goes.

[Fox Fire]

Id also like to add, as a tech seller and small nation, the price for tech is perfectly fair. Nations start out with nothing for a reason. A new nation starting with 100m for example, would be a disaster. They'd pour all that cash into their nation, get raped in a war and quit.
New nations have nothing simply because they deserve nothing. New nations need to learn. They need to understand the importance of long term planning and building. Aid bombing a noob teaches nothing. Early growth must be done at a steady, worthwhile pace that allows new nations to learn before setting them loose with tens of millions.

Further more, the price is as it is because nobody wants to spend 20 days, sending you 12 million for 100 tech. Sellers get cash up front. Buyers have to wait for their return!

Also, the size of your nation is absolutely irrelevant in terms of your global power and influence. Micro nations can (and I've experienced it before) easily pull strings and get their way around Bob. Its simply a matter of connections and skill.

PS: Marxism doesn't work in CN. You can RP as a Marxist all you want, but it fails in RL already. So now you want it to fail on paper pixels too?

Edited December 28, 2013 by Fox Fire

[Malik Shabazz]

I think the OP is demanding fair tech deals, and an end to the exploitation of tech dealers.

[Mr Director]

I think the OP is demanding fair tech deals, and an end to the exploitation of tech dealers.

Was expecting you about four pages back. Now all we need is Tywin to start preaching about global stability, and this thread would truly be complete. As for your actual statement, feel free to read through the thread, I'm sure all of your points have been addressed several times by now.

[Lord Draculea]

From a practical perspective, while it's true that action minus theory equals nothing, it does matter which kind of action or theory is put to work. On the other hand, theory (particularly in the form of pure ideology) minus action also equals zero, or even worse, from a certain point on it becomes counterproductive. 

 

[OOC] Watching people arguing over who is more of a true follower of the "Marxist Revelation" or "Scientific Socialism" (in any of their myriad versions of reading or reinterpretation) may be fun, but largely irrelevant in my view, in RL as well as in CN. [OOC]

 

My involvement in this thread was only meant to explore a practical solution to an identified game mechanics issue. I still maintain that an alliance of tech sellers (a "Syndicate" promoting fair tech rates, or similar benefits for the sellers, as a political objective) would be a plausible construction, with the right combination of economic management, motivation, and foreign policy (as I've tried to describe in my previous posts). However, until such conditions can be met, the idea should be put on hold.

[Krashnaia]

PS: Marxism doesn't work in CN. You can RP as a Marxist all you want, but it fails in RL already. So now you want it to fail on paper pixels too?

 

Last time I checked, "communism" is one of the preferred forms of government during wartime on planet bob.

 

And marxism fails so much in RL, that the chinese are now the ones pulling the strings, while the west has gone broke following the advice of charlatans who denied marxist economic analysis. While Marx did not discover it all (would speak poorly of our civilization if we hadn't advanced a bit in more than a century since his death), neglecting the importance of dialectical materialism in social sciences in favour of idealism (like all western economic schools do), is like neglecting newtonian physics in favour of aristotelian ones.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Krashnaia

[gunzzz]

So china is communist? Can all the commies that know it's basic principles stand behind this? I highly doubt it, for they debate about this all the time... Frankly, china's policies, especially in econ, is more influenced by tariff and nationalistic policy that not need be communist at all. Works by F. List or Alexander Hamilton for example. Frankly you guys remind me of free marketeers, ask where in hell have they've seen a free market system around the world, and you'll have people debate for years on such a simple question


Edit:damn you, you editor!!!!

Edited December 28, 2013 by Hamilmania

[Krashnaia]

So china is communist? Can all the commies that know it's basic principles stand behind this? I highly doubt it, for they debate about this all the time... Frankly, china's policies, especially in econ, is more influenced by tariff and nationalistic policy that not need be communist at all. Works by F. List or Alexander Hamilton for example. Frankly you guys remind me of free marketeers, ask where in hell have they've seen a free market system around the world, and you'll have people debate for years on such a simple question


Edit:damn you, you editor!!!!

 

Actually, you have been the one who has debated if something is communist or not, not me. I'm not the kind of guy who dodges the question by saying that "communism has never really been applied".

 

Anyway, my point is that the chinese does take marxism into account in their economic policies, and it works far better than the western economists who have spent the last century writting bullshit to neglect marxism (going so far as to even set up a fake nobel prize to glorify the best charlatans).

[gunzzz]

Not really.:. Being anti globalization( as in not giving into free trade policies) and creating nationalization policies that have been around longer than Marx doesn't mean Marxism or communism. But yes, maybe if the US started to do tariff policies and some nationalization policies thst have been in their history since the country started, maybe the west would be better. But thst is hardly a cry for communism

[Comrade Craig]

...And derailed.  My work is finished here.

 

-Craig

[gunzzz]

No one cared for this thread anyway... Except for Loki but that's not saying much

[Opaque]

...And derailed.  My work is finished here.

 

-Craig

 

Good job, Craig. Well done.

[Lord Draculea]

Anyway, my point is that the chinese does take marxism into account in their economic policies, and it works far better than the western economists who have spent the last century writting !@#$%^&* to neglect marxism (going so far as to even set up a fake nobel prize to glorify the best charlatans).

 

Really? Poor me, I've always thought the Chinese system actually started to work a bit better as soon as some of the basic communist principles were thrown out the window... :D

 

So the Chinese system is the future of the world? I'd be ready to believe that, if you could show me one example of a major breakthrough or innovation that modern China has brought in any sphere (fundamental science, original technology, maybe some social innovations that would be envied by the rest of the world)... Anything! Except copying the technology from the West and the socio-economic model from the Soviets (and taking 50 years to realize it's wrong)... :D

[White Chocolate]

I have found that the best way to make changes to the social/political practices of Planet Bob is to just quietly start implementing the change you want - only telling the people here and there that you come into contact with as a natural result of what you're doing about what your policy is and why in a low key fashion. If it's a good idea, it catches on.

I've personally done this twice successfully so far.

I've never made any large announcements or claimed some sort of philosophy around something. The moment that's done, all that happens is people shoot the idea down. When that happens, it doesn't matter if it's the greatest game changer ever - no one will give it a serious chance.

So my advice is that if you think the solution to the gerontocracy of CN is to increase the cost of technology to 12/100 or 18/100, then just start selling at that price. If you can find a few buyers who will pay at that price, then other sellers will naturally follow you to those buyers (because what seller wouldn't want to get that price if they could) and after a little bit everyone else follows until even the loudest complainer/buyers have to pay it if they want technology (which they do.)

Edited December 29, 2013 by White Chocolate

[zoskia]

Below is an essay I have written on the state of our world politics, called 'The Phenomenon of Gerontocracy and the Absence of Politics'.

The fundamental structure of most alliances appears thus to be that of a political pyramid scheme, or in other words, a Gerontocracy, rule by old nations.

La Marx.

 

Your essay is wrong in so many ways...

But this quote shows the main error, the main missunderstanding you have.

 

FALSE BELIEFS BY LA MARX:

 

1-Alliances are ruled by a pyramid scheme that follows a Gerontocracy of Powerful Nations:

 

False:
 

A typical Alliance, I will use the NpO as an example, is ruled by:

 

a) An Emperor: Nobody votes for him, but we have procedures to remove the emperor... and they have been used in the past durng and emergency.

 

b) 4 Ministers (economics, military organization, foreign relations... abd internal organization of the Alliance). Thry are appointed by the Emperor.

 

c) 4 Deputy Ministers, one for each area. They are voted. It is NOT unusual to see new players getting votes and charges there... they have to work had in other areas and show that they have done a good job (i.e, asking ti be the Sargeant of a Branch of the Polar Army... working with the ministers to keep up to date the war threads... helping with organizing tech deals for other nations... helping to rebuild broken trade circles... or writting for the "Polar Press"... of becoming diplomat for another Alliance).

 

d) Workers with jobs as described below.

 

e) Lurkers with no jobs (I'm one of them... and I'm 2,548 days old in Polaris.)

 

You have fantasies which are unrealistic. There is a hierarchy... which has NOTHING to do with money or tech.

 

2) Having lots of money makes you influential

 

False:

a) Being involved with politics makes you influential....

On the other hand, being experienced may make a BIG difference. To be experienced you have to work. If you do it fine, you can be a deputy minister after, say, 2 months.

 

b) The Emperor of the Order never needed a "Big" nation to be the Emperor... The NpO has several good examples:

Ivan Moldavi: founder of not one, but three big Alliances (NPO, NpO, NSO)... his own nation has always been quite small... and I do remember he spent a long time in bill lock some time ago.

 

RandomInterrupt: another former Emperor of the NpO... his nation: 982.03 infraestructure. 8 technology. 0 national wonders. His nation was mostly like that when he was the Emperor.

 

I have 4,474.70 infra, 3,894.67 tech and ALL the possible wonders. This may mean that I am more influential than Random... well, no, that's not the case.

 

3) Having lots of money, infra and tech makes you more powerful

 

False... even from a military point of view. You need a warchest, of course.... but you fight with nations in your range during wars.

 

That's also FALSE for Alliances as a whole... CN works in blocks of Alliances.... so your power or lack of power depends a bit on the size of your Alliance, but it's by far more dependant of who are your Allies and how good you are negotiationg.

 

4) Nobody helps the little and new nations

 

False... nobody receives MORE help than the small nations during wars.

 

And during times of peace, there's always programs to give them FREE money to help them buy wonders (at least it's like that in the NpO, but we are not the exception).

 

Having a big nation myself... I never received "free tech"... but the small nations receive "free money" quite often.