«12. . .571572573574575576577. . .635636»
The far left (as in Bolsheviks, for example, or the government of the DPRK) might claim that it looks to improve things for "the poor" as a group, and some of its exponents might even believe that rather than just being in it for the power, but in practice when it gains control of RL nations it is rarely capable of helping most of "the poor" as individuals: They stay poor, it's just that there's no longer anybody better-off around for comparison (apart from the Party bosses & their cronies, in most such situations [I'll accept that the Khmer Rouge leadership, for example, were probably an exception...], who generally suppress any complaints about that discrepancy just as vigorously as any non-Leftist elite would have done earlier on there).
And, in addition to any people who are persecuted & perhaps killed outright by far left as "Enemies of the People" or "Enemies of the State", economic problems due to trying to make large-scale Communism work with real people rather than just in theory kills millions (e.g. the 'Holodomor' in the Soviet Union, or the 'Great Leap Forward' in China..) just as dead as 'far right' oppression could have done.
Meanwhile, the far right generally doesn't claim that it's acting solely "to harm others", it claims that removing those groups will also improve their nations' societies in some way for the groups there that it favours: "Racial purity", "removing parasites", "protecting the economy against wreckers", "pleasing God", or whatever.
Somebody who's oppressed or even killed for being a slightly more prosperous peasant than their neighbours (e.g. elimination of the 'kulaks' in the Soviet Union) or because wearing glasses means that they're a 'middle-class intellectual' (which was often treated as a capital offence, subject to summary execution, under the Khmer Rouge), isn't any less oppressed or killed than somebody who's oppressed or killed for belonging to the "wrong" ethnic group or religion, having non-standard sexuality, or being a "socialist", just because in their case the government claims that they're doing it "to help the poor".
Trive 38, Gonhog, and Sada difrium
After thinking further about the matter, I too am actively voting against that proposal.
Trive 38 and Gardavasque
> be me
> let the free market run its natural course in the form of letting Fubar gain market share against taxes
> crime rate rises 6.1%
Gotta love NS issues sometimes. Jesus.
Re today’s ‘World Survey’ result: This trait, ‘Highest Unexpected Death Rate’, is now one whose coded values I no longer regard as applying to the IC versions of this nation & its associates. The game was re-coded quite recently so that a beautiful environment was no longer recognised as being so good for health as had previously been reckoned, and consequently not only did the Bears’ rating for this trait undergo a sudden rise but their average life expectancy allegedly dropped by around two-thirds overnight! Obviously such a major change in life expectancy wouldn’t happen so rapidly IC (not without some major catastrophe IC as a cause – which we didn’t have, anyway…) so from that viewpoint it’s obvious that at least one of the Survey’s calculations was drastically “wrong” and I prefer to reject the current calculation in favour of a value significantly closer to the older (and, I admit, IC probably itself a bit too good...) one.
One of the Issue Editors has admitted that the default assumption for coding stats is that only “public” funding for healthcare exists, even in nations such as Bears Armed that could (and IC would) afford a LOT of privately-funded healthcare if necessary, so there’s what I consider a reasonable justification for rejecting the current stats in this case.
Now, somebody (perhaps me, perhaps not) “needs” to draft at least one issue that includes a ‘Strengthen privately-funded Healthcare’ option… ;)
Trive 38, Laeral, Legionas, and North Cross
Um, no, fascism exists to benefit the nation and/or (usually and) the race or ethnicity that supports it.
New poll posted. (I checked with the Culture and Cartography departments first, to make sure that this wouldn't get in their way).
If you choose one of the options to have surviving Trilobites in the shallows, please post here to say whether or not you think that at least one species of them should -- like the Horseshoe Crab in RL -- come a little way ashore once a year to lay its eggs in the beaches' sands...
By aggressively oppressing them. I guess that's on you if you think being oppressed is a benefit.
They oppress their opponents, but not automatically any other groups as well, and as already pointed out revolutionary Marxist governments tend [going by evidence from RL] to be oppressive too: In the meanwhile they, and perhaps a significant proportion of their country's population, might think that they're helping the nation just by preventing a Marxist takeover which they think would lead to a worse situation for most people there...
Democracy is still preferable, of course...
Trive 38, Libertas Omnium Maximus, and Gonhog
Marxism is itself democratic. Even the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not meant to be a literal autocracy.
Fascists do, in fact, oppress all groups, including their own followers by depriving them of all the same political rights inherent in a liberal democracy plus those social rights that do not conform to the bastardized coopting of local culture.
Marxism, conversely, doesn't deprive rights per se, but shifts ownership of property. You can absolutely say Marxism will deprive an individual of property, but its hard to say that it deprives one of rights except insofar as you have a right to yourself oppress.
I'm not a leftist, and even I can see this equivalence of socialism and fascism as an utter farce.
...what? They’re being deprived their right to property.
Saying fascists deprive their own supporters the right of a liberal democracy is like saying the sky is blue- no sh*t Sherlock. That’s the literal ideology.
Which is my point. Fascism deprives everybody.
Marxism doesn't obviate the right to property. It gives the worker the full value of his or her labor. Marxism takes an extremely Lockeian approach to property rights.
The theoretical Marxist utopia, once perfection has been attained and the organs of the state have consequently withered away might be democratic... but in practice no Marxist-run nation in RL has ever come anywhere near that stage, and what they generally have doesn't even qualify as a dictatorship "of the proletariat" instead of a "dictatorship of The Party" in which supposedly-democratic [although still not freely 'multi-party') assemblies are just used as a mask through which the leadership its orders: That's depriving their supporters of "the right to a liberal democracy", too.
Again, that's the theory rather than automatically [or even often] the practice. "Full value" less what's lost due to ideologically-motivated policies that weaken the economy (You might or might not have noticed, but Communist-run nations' economies tend to do worse than 'free market' economies even from similar starting positions: Consider the two Koreas -- where it was actually the North that "inherited" most of the pre-partition industrial base -- or the two Germanies...), wasted on vanity projects by democratically-unaccountable high-ups, spent on border guards & walls to keep people from fleeing the country, used to provide perks for the leadership & their cronies (whose "work" those very same people decide should be valued so much more highly than that of theactual proletariat) or even skimmed off into their offshore bank acounts...
Trive 38, Libertas Omnium Maximus, and Gonhog
Well good job bro, I didn’t think you of all people needed to argue that water was wet, the Earth rotates around the Sun and that rocks are hard, but here we are.
Good job :)
Which is not to the benefit of adherents. Which is why fascism does, in fact, exist to oppress and not benefit adherents. Which is counter to your argument that it benefits adherents. Keep up, now.
HAHAHAHAHA. I keep up? Mate, I literally agreed with you that fascists deprive their citizens a liberal democracy, if you can call that a right (I think you can but there are many others that would argue otherwise, most notably supporters of fascism themselves). I then said that what you’re saying was obvious as f*ck, then you turn around and reiterate your point and act like I’m to stupid too follow. Grow the hell up. Now I remember why doing anything with you was a pain in the ass.
Bears Armed has also had some great points you’ve yet to respond to.
BA is not making a distinction between theory and practice, so there isn't much to respond to, seeing as we're discussing theory. We can go in circles between theory and practice all day long, and frankly, I've little desire to do so.
That my argument was obvious was itself the point. Clearly my assessment of you was correct.
Terribly sorry I've not otherwise responded to your satisfaction, I've had professional obligations that outweigh facile arguments on an RMB I rarely view.
Yes, one you rarely view, but randomly decided to come back to for a few days to start an argument. Guess something bad happen at work or home, so you gotta come back here and pad up your ego again?
I never asked you to respond in a way that “satisfied” me. I couldn’t care less about you to be quite frank, and in fact I would rather prefer you never show up again if this is all you’ll do- start political arguments online and then think you are too smart for them anyways.
No, work and home is all rather lovely. Got a raise after being admitted into another state bar and beginning the process of buying a house. Thank you for your concern, though.
Which is why you criticized my response, yes.
Which is why you took the time to try to be condescending, yes.
So, what actually happens when a nation is condemned or commended?
As the name suggests, when a nation is condemned by the World Assembly it means that the majority of voting World Assembly members condemn the actions of the nominee nation (the nation's specific transgressions are listed in the condemnation). Likewise, when a nation is commended it means that the majority of voting World Assembly members believe that the actions of the nominee nation are commendable. Nations that get commended have, in almost all cases, made tremendous contributions to NationStates while condemned nations have usually made NationStates a less welcoming and friendly place through their actions, often raiding.
To answer your question, very little happens when your nation is condemned or commended. An icon will appear in your nation's main screen that is visible to everyone but, aside from that very small addition, nothing else really happens in terms of "gameplay". For nations that have been commended, the icon is a badge of honor, rewarding them for all of their hard work and effort. For condemned nations, the icon is a mark of shame, reminding them of their errors and ill-conceived actions for eternity... but is also a badge of honor. The truth is that most condemned nations actually want to be condemned. They view it as proof that they are "the best at being bad". This is especially the case for raiders as it essentially acknowledges that they are very good at what they do.
I don't really involve myself too much in the whole condemn versus commend aspect of the WA but I hope I was able to answer your question.
Nothing. It's just a simbolic badge on the nation's page.
I've been extremely busy recently and have been struggling to check this, sorry all. I'll be more active in approximately a week's time.
Trive 38, Libertas Omnium Maximus, and Gonhog
«12. . .571572573574575576577. . .635636»
Advertisement
