The ideal government

[F15pilotX]

I never argued that efficiency was subjective; rather, that a person's opinion on the best way to achieve that efficiency certainly is, and I was pointing out that it is good to consider the views of others in one's evaluation of said method. A group will often come up with points or ideas that an individual would not have by themself.

Edited October 24, 2009 by F15pilotX

[Francesca]

I never argued that efficiency was subjective; rather, that a person's opinion on the best way to achieve that efficiency certainly is, and I was pointing out that it is good to consider the views of others in one's evaluation of said method. A group will often come up with points or ideas that an individual would not have by themself.

The best method to efficiency is demonstrated by the results, and the efficiency in the rankings. *shrugs*

[Sande]

Having 700 nations in your alliance doesn't always mean that they all approve your government and they wouldn't be somewhere else.

They might have been recruited on the first day and brainwashed from that day on. So they don't really know what other alliances are like.

In CN, about 70% iof the nation rulers are not really active and don't care which alliance they are in as long as they can just grow their nations.

[F15pilotX]

The best method to efficiency is demonstrated by the results, and the efficiency in the rankings. *shrugs*

Indeed; the aftermath of a massive war, especially when it was lost, is a very good time to tell just how efficient an alliance truly is.

Having 700 nations in your alliance doesn't always mean that they all approve your government and they wouldn't be somewhere else.

They might have been recruited on the first day and brainwashed from that day on. So they don't really know what other alliances are like.

The same is true for all alliances.

[Francesca]

Indeed; the aftermath of a massive war, especially when it was lost, is a very good time to tell just how efficient an alliance truly is.

Pacifica simply cannot act like it did when it was in power, because it is now in a very different situation to when it ruled the Continuum. Therefore, it is being forced to adapt. The extent of the change in that alliance is yet to be seen.

[F15pilotX]

Well obviously she cannot; the NPO no longer has many strong allies allied to her. However, I would say that even were the peace terms canceled right now and NPO were free to conduct business as "usual", the changes for the good in the NPO would not stop. A different emperor means, in this case, a different philosophy on how the alliance runs and conducts itself (of course, recent experiences are certainly factors in this change).

Edited October 24, 2009 by F15pilotX

[Vladimir]

The concept of 'adaptive Francoism' is redundant, since Francoism is by definition adaptive to circumstance. This lies at the very heart of Francoism, within its materialist kernel.

As a wise man once said: "[A] genuine revolution born through changing material conditions never ends. In order to survive and hold onto its victory it must constantly develop and reinvent itself so as to adapt to the changing conditions around it."

Or as a wiser man once said: "Because our movement, through our experience with the horrors of the past, has learned this unique skillset, we can apply it to our current situations to change and alter our institutions to better serve our ultimate needs of achieving freedom."

[Francesca]

The concept of 'adaptive Francoism' is redundant, since Francoism is by definition adaptive to circumstance. This lies at the very heart of Francoism, within its materialist kernel.

Really? If the premises which define Francoism are in a constant state of flux, in response to different circumstances, what then defines Francoism at all (save change?) I thought Francoism involved, among other things, absolute obedience to an authoritarian sovereign, to the extent that the self is eradicated and individualism is crushed, hence this famous Pacifican 'hive-mind' mentality. Is this adaptive too?

[WorldConqueror]

Really? If the premises which define Francoism are in a constant state of flux, in response to different circumstances, what then defines Francoism at all (save change?) I thought Francoism involved, among other things, absolute obedience to an authoritarian sovereign, to the extent that the self is eradicated and individualism is crushed, hence this famous Pacifican 'hive-mind' mentality. Is this adaptive too?

From my point of view, the core of Francoism is adaptivity in order to best serve Pacifica. All our structures are designed the way they are for that purpose: to best serve Pacifica. And Pacifica does not 'eradicate self'. Pacifica is an amalgamation of every member's 'self'. There is no Pacifica without the members. And the Emperor takes the wishes of the BR into account when formulating policy. As for the hive-mind thing, well, great minds think alike . But you know all this.

[Francesca]

From my point of view, the core of Francoism is adaptivity in order to best serve Pacifica. All our structures are designed the way they are for that purpose: to best serve Pacifica. And Pacifica does not 'eradicate self'. Pacifica is an amalgamation of every member's 'self'. There is no Pacifica without the members. And the Emperor takes the wishes of the BR into account when formulating policy. As for the hive-mind thing, well, great minds think alike . But you know all this.

If the central tenets of Francoism are essentially change, and nothing stays the same, why doesn't NPO become a democracy?

[Vladimir]

Francoism is, at its core, a historical materialist analysis of the world around us with the goal of national emancipation. This method is the most important thing. As the world changes so does the analysis and thus the answers and thus a Francoist's actions. Where you go wrong is in making the assumption that everything changes, where it does not. There are a number of important constants, which I will try to outline broadly.

First of all we can recognise that the method doesn't change (save for improvement), so the premises of analysis, regardless of circumstance, remain the same -- historicism, materialism, etc.

Second of all we can recognise that history is unchanging -- at times our interpretation of it might, but history leads us to where we are by what it is, regardless of what we think it is.

Third of all we can recognise that the material base of our world is, by and large, unchanging. So if we take the example you brought up (somewhat dramatically), that of the absolute sovereign, and look at the logic explaining it, we can see that it is based on this base.

Of course, we must recognise that the material base can change, as it did when the Order shifted from another universe to this one, and when this happens an entirely new analysis is needed. Thus we see that concepts such as userite and feederite disappeared overnight to be replaced with new concepts. One can read Class in Context to properly understand this. But to quote a couple of the most pertinent paragraphs:

"Genuine confusion on the matter can only arise in the absence of a materialist outlook – the bedrock on which all of Francoism is based. Materialism at its most basic is the idea that base material reality – the physical laws that govern our world – gives rise to superstructure – culture, government, etc.

[...]

It follows therefore that one cannot understand things independently of the material base, and that when the material base changes so does the superstructure and its implications; thus the disappearance of class from the material base dictates the disappearance of class-analysis from the ideological superstructure."

Fourth of all we can recognise that the ultimate goal -- emancipation -- is unchanging. And so while methods for achieving it might change (either because of a change in conditions or simply because better methods have been devised), these methods will be pointed in a certain direction, thus giving similarities in analysis and activity.

What we can recognise as being in your "constant state of flux" is the superstructure that sits atop the material base -- the number, power, direction, etc, of alliances, the world system they operate within, our place within it, and so forth (obviously it's much deeper and more complex than that, but you get the idea). With this being in constant flux so much Francoism be constantly analysing, and thus so must the Francoist be constantly changing, updating, improving -- getting better, stronger, faster than we were before (we have the technology). It is in this context that you can read articles such as The Outwards Spiral.

As an additional note, Francoism does not "eradicate individualism," it embraces it! Only through realising the freedom of potential can one's individuality -- ones pursuit of their interests -- truly come out. It is in surrendering to the state of nature that we lose our individuality and return to our cold, hard, dead shells.

[WorldConqueror]

If the central tenets of Francoism are essentially change, and nothing stays the same, why doesn't NPO become a democracy?

Because democracies are horribly inefficient and ineffective, and thus do not serve Pacifica better than our current system.

[Francesca]

So emancipation is central to Francoism, Vladimir? How, may I ask, does one emancipate oneself from anything when you rule the world? Didn't Francoism then become redundant during the years that Pacifica was in power? In fact, couldn't you call the Vox resistance movement Francoists, by that definition? If there is nothing to emancipate oneself from, what then? What about change? Didn't Pacifica in itself prevent change by the vast, stagnating treaty web which it used to protect itself for so long? Shouldn't true, God-fearing Francoists have then flooded to the side of the enemy? And with regard to your comment on individualism, it was my impression that Francoists had to surrender their own interests for the interests of the alliance. There's no individualism involved when you're ordered to do something you don't want to do.

[Vladimir]

So emancipation is central to Francoism, Vladimir? How, may I ask, does one emancipate oneself from anything when you rule the world? Didn't Francoism then become redundant during the years that Pacifica was in power? In fact, couldn't you call the Vox resistance movement Francoists, by that definition? If there is nothing to emancipate oneself from, what then? What about change? Didn't Pacifica in itself prevent change by the vast, stagnating treaty web which it used to protect itself for so long? Shouldn't true, God-fearing Francoists have then flooded to the side of the enemy? And with regard to your comment on individualism, it was my impression that Francoists had to surrender their own interests for the interests of the alliance. There's no individualism involved when you're ordered to do something you don't want to do.

You fundamentally misunderstand my original point. Francoism doesn't advocate change for the sake of it. If I'm wearing a red sweater it doesn't demand that I change into a blue sweater, and then five minutes later into a green sweater, and then five minutes later into a yellow sweater. Francoism advocates materialist analysis -- analysis of the world as it is -- and actions on the that basis to achieve a goal (emancipation). So if the colour of my trousers clashes with red, then perhaps Francoism would recommend that I change my sweater. But, all else being equal, once I find the optimum colour match Francoism would be quite content for me to wear those colours for all of eternity.

Ok, so I might be milking the example a little, but hopefully it puts the point across. Francoism advocates changing to meet the needs of the day. If policies suit the needs of the day there is no need to change them.

You bring in a new question on emancipation, but make the same mistake. Emancipation is not the same thing as change, nor is it the same thing as fighting 'the man', whomever said man may be. When I speak of emancipation I speak of it as I did in An Introduction to Francoism:

"Francoism is a scientific explanation of the material world around us and a guide to the emancipation of the individual, overcoming the physical and intellectual enslavement that has claimed so many, and bringing us to a point of total freedom where everyone can pursue their desires and achieve their full potential."

This means removing ourselves from the state of nature and fulfilling our freedom of potential. This is the exact opposite of what Vox sought, which is why I labelled them as counter-revolutionary, and which is where the 'Primitive' part of Despotic Primitivism came from. Vox was antithetical to Francoism in the same way that a userite challenging Comrade Franco's delegacy was. There is more to Francoism than mooning power.

And again you misunderstand on the subject of individualism. You see two separate interests where in fact there is one. This ties back into the ideas of emancipation.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Vladimir

[Francesca]

I never stated that emancipation was the same thing as change; nor did I state it was the same as fighting the man; I simply stated that when you rule everything there is nothing further to free yourself from. Furthermore, in Cyber Nations, there are no classes, and thus there are no class struggles. Feederite and userite thought is therefore irrelevant, as is much of the emancipation claptrap.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Francesca

[Vladimir]

I never stated that emancipation was the same thing as change; nor did I state it was the same as fighting the man; I simply stated that when you rule everything there is nothing further to free yourself from. Furthermore, in Cyber Nations, there are no classes, and thus there are no class struggles. Feederite and userite thought is therefore irrelevant, and much of the emancipation claptrap in Francoism becomes irrelevant.

Oh dear.

The article I linked you to, Class in Context, is precisely about why there are no classes on Planet Bob -- it is critics of Francoism, not Francoists, who keep bringing them up. And the other article I linked you to, The Meaning of Freedom, is precisely about why emancipation is relevant on Planet Bob as we seek to free ourselves of the chains of nature and march onwards to our full potential. This is all quite explicit in the core writings.

On emancipation you make two errors. First, you confuse means with end. The goal is not the act of freeing, but being free. If there is nothing left to free yourself from then great! Second, you confuse domination with emancipation. One can dominate the globe but still be a slave to elements of the state of nature (eg. GATO in January 2006), and likewise you can (theoretically) be far from the top and still be relatively emancipated from it.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Vladimir

[Francesca]

Oh dear.

The article I linked you to, Class in Context, is precisely about why there are no classes on Planet Bob -- it is critics of Francoism, not Francoists, who keep bringing them up. And the other article I linked you to, The Meaning of Freedom, is precisely about why emancipation is relevant on Planet Bob as we seek to free ourselves of the chains of nature and march onwards to our full potential. This is all quite explicit in the core writings.

On emancipation you make two errors. First, you confuse means with end. The goal is not the act of freeing, but being free. If there is nothing left to free yourself from then great! Second, you confuse domination with emancipation. One can dominate the globe but still be a slave to elements of the state of nature (eg. GATO in January 2006), and likewise you can (theoretically) be far from the top and still be relatively emancipated from it.

If you do not seek to emancipate yourself from a ruling class, what *do* you seek to emancipate yourself from? Define 'the chains of nature?' And how are you free if you surrender your sovereignty to your Emperor? And if there is nothing left to free yourself from, then doesn't Francoism become irrelevant?

[Vladimir]

Those two questions are best explained here: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom

If I were to give you a summary we would no doubt go round in circles, questioning premises and concepts until we'd written and read more than the article itself.

[Doitzel]

A wise man once said: "Ohhh, not this !@#$ again..."

[Azaghul]

I just read through "A Primer on Francoism" and Vladimir's posts above, and they do almost nothing to help anyone decide what the best form of government will be, or anything else substantial, really. It's all really vague and unspecific, the most I can get out of it is that they supposedly are willing to evolve and do everything in order to advance their self interests. It's a whole lot of words to say very little.

Given what I've heard from x-NPO members and officials, and those that have dealt with them, is that they fail at their supposed objectives. The IOs are infamous for believing they are above the membership, making themselves a distinct ruling class. Many of their institutions and ideas are outdated, and haven't changed in years.

Manoism > Francoism

[Acca Dacca]

One leader, advisors who trust and serve well, a cabinet for handing issues passed down by the emperor, and lords to keep the men in line.

[ShinRa]

Those two questions are best explained here: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom

If I were to give you a summary we would no doubt go round in circles, questioning premises and concepts until we'd written and read more than the article itself.

Vladimir, shut up and go advertise your spam elsewhere.

[Vladimir]

I just read through "A Primer on Francoism" and Vladimir's posts above, and they do almost nothing to help anyone decide what the best form of government will be, or anything else substantial, really.

The entire article linked to just above your post was written to detail why an absolute sovereign is the best for of government.

[Azaghul]

The entire article linked to just above your post was written to detail why an absolute sovereign is the best for of government.

I read that one, the substantial argument I got out of it is that you need an absolute sovereign to mediate disputes and prevent internal conflict and politicking from preventing anything from getting done.

Why is it then, that NPO seems to produce the most "traitors" and disgruntled ex-members of any alliance? Vox had numerous x-NPO members. My alliance has numerous x-NPO members and officials, most of whom left on bad terms. Nearly all describe NPO as mired in petty conflicts and power struggles between IOs, IOs domineering and power-tripping over membership, etc.

In many ways NPO is a textbook case of what not to be and of problems to try to avoid.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Azaghul

[Ivan Moldavi]

Considering that this is an OOC venue it makes sense, at least to me, that the answers simply be the out of character description of the governmental form, not an argument on the IC ideologies behind them.

A Francoist government, in the essence of the authority of the ruler and the responsibilities of same, is not much different than any other autocratic alliance set up. Claiming that a government that utilizes the made up philosophy of francoism is somehow superior to another alliance that has the same hierarchal structure doesn't make a lot of sense from an out of character point of view.

To me, as illustrated in the government I created (which is an amalgamation and modification of another government which I also created ) ultimate authority rests in the leader, who has a staff that is appointed but is also held accountable to the membership as a whole. The leader is also held accountable to those in leadership positions. Having an absolute monarch/dictator/king/chairman/whatever with zero ability to check his or her authority works only so long as the leader is active, managerial and IC-wise sane, and only so long as the subordinates understand that their authority derives from above but that it also is upheld from below.