StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For a time I played sci-fi space MMO Eve Online and like every other it had guilds or their equivalent, in this case corporations (Corps).

Now, I played in a peculiar corp. But let me describe how we handled things, first.

One way for a corp to raise money is to set taxes, and another to sell materials and items. This corporations tax was at 20% of every bounty one received. Bounties could be earned by killing certain NPCs. Furthermore one was encouraged to put the loot one received via NPCs into the corporation storage everyone had access to. The corporation in turn provided various items, equipment and such either via the storage or replenished said items in basic configuration itself. Furthermore ammunition was provided for free.
Now, bounties aren't the only way to earn money. One could mine for materials, produce items, sell and so on as well. These activities however couldn't be included in the tax.
Most members of the corp left after one, two years playing for turning more to player versus player gameplay, which we didn't provide. It was okay to lose one's ship killing NPCs - everyone does that in the beginning - but attacking another player was frowned upon and by repetition punished by revoking access to storage facilities and finally expulsion. In the event of war, however, all lost ships and items were compensated for.

I have been recently told this system "reeks of communism", however I doubt that. I certainly see certain influxes, but no outright communism.

Now, my question is, what system DID we employ? I'm failing in categorizing it.
Also, could such a system be applied in real life?

Obviously it is a corporate state.

I have been recently told this system "reeks of communism", however I doubt that. I certainly see certain influxes, but no outright communism.

Taxes and services are not communist. This seems more like an insurance pool than anything else.

Off to G&C

Buritot wrote:Now, my question is, what system DID we employ? I'm failing in categorizing it.

Eve corporations are benevolent (to varying degrees) dictatorships. All corporation assets are controlled by permissions granted by officers answerable to the CEO. The corporation you described isn't communistic because it doesn't involve a controlling political party and has rather limited redistribution of resources. It is socialistic to some degree, with the sharing programs you described, but it's ultimately a dictatorship. It might be described as a form of fascism with a corporate state, as Samuel said, though that would be a more appropriate description for 0.0 alliances than a high security corporation.

Buritot wrote:Also, could such a system be applied in real life?

Not exactly, as real life doesn't follow Eve's game mechanics, but dictatorships typically provide social services paid for by taxation. Cyberpunk ideas of corporations run amok may be as close as it would get, but even then, it would probably be a lot harder to leave a corporation you don't like than it is in Eve.

Eve corporations are benevolent (to varying degrees) dictatorships. All corporation assets are controlled by permissions granted by officers answerable to the CEO.

How is the CEO choosen? Does someone just decide to found a corporation and declare themselves CEO?

It is socialistic to some degree, with the sharing programs you described, but it's ultimately a dictatorship.

One is an economic statement, the other is political. Of course given that this is Eve it is completely free market capitalism- voluntary associations are not generally counted as socialist as that would require a government.

It might be described as a form of fascism

It doesn't qualify.

Not exactly, as real life doesn't follow Eve's game mechanics, but dictatorships governments typically provide social services paid for by taxation.

Fixed it for you

As I haven't played Eve I don't know the details, but it sounds as much of a "government" as Stardestroyer.net.

I should point out it sounds like a gang- the boss gives the underlings supplies in return for a cut and boots out people who disrespect his rules.

Ghost Rider wrote:Off to G&C

Thank you, I wasn't sure where it would fit best.

Samuel wrote:How is the CEO choosen? Does someone just decide to found a corporation and declare themselves CEO?

Yes. If I have the prerequisites I can establish a corporation and am in that instant its CEO. I can however leave that position to an employee if I wish to. There is however no controlling organ which could question or veto the CEOs decision. He may decide to disband the corporation without any way to stop him from doing that. There are however often upper echelons in any corporation of invested employees who decide together the way of the corporation.

As a counterpoint, most other corporations I had contact with in EVE had the corporation tax set to the lowest possible value, in turn favouring making as much cash for the single player as possible.

Now, how could one change that dictatorship approach? A board of directors would be appropriate. The CEO is already able to delegate some functions to directors which in turn have limited reign over their domain. Like I said, there are already board equivalents in place. However, these exist out of game and have no real power... so to emulate Real Life the board would need to have certain powers, like vetoing and voting on issues.

Samuel wrote:

It is socialistic to some degree, with the sharing programs you described, but it's ultimately a dictatorship.

One is an economic statement, the other is political. Of course given that this is Eve it is completely free market capitalism- voluntary associations are not generally counted as socialist as that would require a government.

The OP described the economic situation and asked whether it's communistic or not, which concerns how the political leadership runs things. Was my answer inappropriate? Also, since when does socialism require a government? At any rate, corporations do act like governments in Eve. They collect taxes, wage wars, and control territory and resources.

Samuel wrote:

It might be described as a form of fascism

It doesn't qualify.

Why not?

Mirriam-Webster wrote:fas·cism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Sounds like Eve corporations to me, especially in 0.0.

Samuel wrote:Fixed it for you

Not really. You replaced a specific statement with a general statement, when the question involved specifics.

Samuel wrote:As I haven't played Eve I don't know the details, but it sounds as much of a "government" as Stardestroyer.net.
I should point out it sounds like a gang- the boss gives the underlings supplies in return for a cut and boots out people who disrespect his rules.

That's part of it, and small corporations in Empire space can operate like that. However, larger organizations have to interact diplomatically with other corporations, and moderately complex tasks like operating a starbase and building capital ships typically takes more organization, specialization, logistics, and bureaucratic control. Large territory-holding alliances have to manage their entire economy, global politics, and maintain constant military readiness, including intelligence networks. Note that territory-holding alliances typically shoot on sight anyone in their territory who is not specifically in good diplomatic standing.

I don't get it. It's a middling tax corp with rules against PvP. What's the big deal? Indeed at small sizes such taxes are generally required to pay for jack shit, and lategame players can generally print as much money as they want so it's not important.

Since there are no ludicrous limits on behaviour (aside from 'don't attack people' which is standard carebear stuff) or apparently how the players operate, it's hardly 'authoritarian' at all. Someone else recently posted about a corp where you had to literally play at being military, verballing saluting others etc; that's far more 'authoritarian' than 'don't shoot people' and 'gimme 20%'.

The idea a thread is worthwhile because some 12 year old moron in EVE thinks 'high tax' + 'replacement ships' = 'communism' is ridiculous.

Stark wrote:The idea a thread is worthwhile because some 12 year old moron in EVE thinks 'high tax' + 'replacement ships' = 'communism' is ridiculous.

I'm neither twelve nor do I see myself as a moron, thank you very much. I was just wondering how to describe the system since I remembered accusations of communism being launched and effectively ignored, without any counterarguments whatsoever.
I don't dabble in politics and didn't assume to be qualified to categorize it.

All that is moot if I've taken offence wrongly. In that case, I apologize.

For the record, said corporation later had a running chain of high-sec stations (POSes) which made PvP viable. A few month later it joined an alliance in 0.0. Not soon after I quit Eve due to RL issues as well as the changes in corporation politics and atmospheric drift.

Stark wrote:The idea a thread is worthwhile because some 12 year old moron in EVE thinks 'high tax' + 'replacement ships' = 'communism' is ridiculous.

Of course it is ridiculous. Luckily, this thread is not about that.

The model explained in the OP is really no different from you friendly neighbourhood government. Taxes are collected and used to provide services (free ammunition, or ships in the event of a war). A particular government might decide wich services are available (healthcare, fixing roads, helping when a natural disaster happens), but the general concept is the same.

I think the kid who thought that model was communistic suffered from two well-known issues:

a) He's ignorant as to how taxation works in real life, as has been mentioned many times, because he takes all the services provided by the government for granted, and sees no correlation. He's probably one of those "less taxes-less goverment intervention" cretins.

b) He's biased aganist communism, whose workings he ignores. He probably classifies any political system he doesn't understand and dislike as "communistic". Probably because of many years being indoctrinated into the general anti-commie beliefs so prevalent in the western world.

I personally find irritating how these types find it objectionable that a government uses its funds to help people. Although, who am I kidding, mostly everyone finds it objectionable unless the ones being helped are themselves.

Since there's no description of people being forced to use certain ships, work in certain places or do certain roles, how can it be 'authoritarian' at all? Fascism? LOL It's not about being 'qualified', it's about knowing what communism is before you demand people prove something ISN'T it.

BR7 wrote:Why not?

Mirriam-Webster wrote:fas·cism
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Sounds like Eve corporations to me, especially in 0.0.

Wow, you posted a dictionary definition, the first item of which precludes your argument ("exalts nation and often race above the individual", yeah, that's possible in an MMO) and the second item of which is so general that it also describes communist governments, military juntas, and monarchies. Whee...

The answer to why an Eve corporation doesn't qualify as Fascism is that it isn't remotely like Fascism. Whereas in common usage "fascism" is a vague, generic term, you may be surprised to learn that it actually has specific characteristics. One major criterion is the idea of palingenetic ultranationalism, a myth of phoenix-like rebirth in which the Fascists promise to restore the nation to a prior state of perfection by purging traitors and racial aliens within the nation, and perhaps conquering external enemies. There are words like "authoritarian," "dictatorial," "autocratic," and so on, which describe in more general terms a state that is rigidly controlled by a ruler or ruling party. Fascism means something specific.

The OP described the economic situation and asked whether it's communistic or not, which concerns how the political leadership runs things.

You can have communist governments that aren't dictatorships so saying it is communist doesn't tell you what its political structure is.

Also, since when does socialism require a government?

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

It sounds very much like government is required. The first halves don't explicatly state it... they just need someone to be in charge to carry that out. Which needs to have power and authority... or a government.

Not really. You replaced a specific statement with a general statement, when the question involved specifics.

The general statement is more accurate. One of the defining characteristics of government is wealth redistribution. To make a general statement more specific without increasing resolution is pointless.

I'm neither twelve nor do I see myself as a moron, thank you very much. I was just wondering how to describe the system since I remembered accusations of communism being launched and effectively ignored, without any counterarguments whatsoever.
I don't dabble in politics and didn't assume to be qualified to categorize it.

All that is moot if I've taken offence wrongly. In that case, I apologize.

Stark is talking about the person who thought it was communist.

Stark wrote:Since there's no description of people being forced to use certain ships, work in certain places or do certain roles, how can it be 'authoritarian' at all? Fascism?

The CEO has more or less direct control of all corporation assets and permissions. A CEO could fire everyone who didn't obey his whims, and no one would be able to prevent it. The game mechanics give the CEO (and directors to a slightly lesser extent) authoritarian power over the corporation mechanics, though most CEOs keep a loose handle on things to encourage people to stay. So, per game mechanics, it's quite authoritarian, but in practice, it's anything that works, including authoritarianism. It's serious business, after all.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Wow, you posted a dictionary definition, the first item of which precludes your argument ("exalts nation and often race above the individual", yeah, that's possible in an MMO) and the second item of which is so general that it also describes communist governments, military juntas, and monarchies. Whee...

Dictionary definitions are bad? Anyway, you don't seem to be familiar with politics in Eve. Definition 1 fits a lot of 0.0 rather well. To a lesser extent, Empire politics can qualify by 1. Even if it only meets definition 2 though, is it somehow improper to call it fascism? I seem to recall this definition from gradeschool. Do you find it acceptible? Or do you accept any of this sufficiently to no longer have a problem with my original statement about fascism?

Pablo Sanchez wrote:The answer to why an Eve corporation doesn't qualify as Fascism is that it isn't remotely like Fascism. Whereas in common usage "fascism" is a vague, generic term, you may be surprised to learn that it actually has specific characteristics.

Wikipedia's introductory paragraph and its 14 citations seem to match Eve corporations pretty well. So could you please explain how corporations in Eve are not fascistic?

Pablo Sanchez wrote:One major criterion is the idea of palingenetic ultranationalism, a myth of phoenix-like rebirth in which the Fascists promise to restore the nation to a prior state of perfection by purging traitors and racial aliens within the nation, and perhaps conquering external enemies.

I refer you to KenZoku, formerly Band of Brothers, Red Alliance, and Goonswarm, all of which have done that. Also, should we take Roger Griffin's opinion on the matter over, say, Mussolini's, or anyone else, as that criterion is only Griffin's?

Samuel wrote:You can have communist governments that aren't dictatorships so saying it is communist doesn't tell you what its political structure is.

It does to the extent that it requires a strong leadership that owns and redistributes all goods. Unless you're using another definition of communism.

Samuel wrote:

Also, since when does socialism require a government?

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
It sounds very much like government is required. The first halves don't explicatly state it... they just need someone to be in charge to carry that out. Which needs to have power and authority... or a government.

Note 2a. The game mechanics of Eve aren't geared for it, but it's possible to have a small de facto socialistic corporation. People can share resources without using regular corporation mechanics, meaning the CEO can't stop sharing and cooperation, even by firing members. This requires trust among members, but aspects of this system aren't too uncommon in corporations formed of small groups of friends and families.

Samuel wrote:The general statement is more accurate. One of the defining characteristics of government is wealth redistribution. To make a general statement more specific without increasing resolution is pointless.

Sure, but not all wealth redistribution is social service. Not all governments have social programs comparable to the ones described in the OP, and my point was that having such social programs does not make a government communistic.

ITT we are lectured at by nerds about how 'it's not like that in EVE' without evidence or examples; this is amusing because the very idea that xyz type of corp is abc style is bullshit given the broad variety. Remember, 'can be kicked out' and 'wardec lol' = fascism... somehow.

It's pretty sad this is the level of analysis of pvp groups, honestly; there are interesting social forces in EVE between the wankers, cunts and idiots, but when people start saying EVE is communist because there's no private property, it's time to just point and laugh.

Wikipedia's introductory paragraph and its 14 citations seem to match Eve corporations pretty well. So could you please explain how corporations in Eve are not fascistic?

So your reference is the summary paragraph from a wiki entry? My response is that this is fucking hilarious and I would never have thought of it. I mean, citing a wiki article is one thing, but citing only the summary 'graph? Genius. You're trolling me, right?

BR7 wrote:I refer you to KenZoku, formerly Band of Brothers, Red Alliance, and Goonswarm, all of which have done that.

None of those pages indicate anything of the sort, and I feel compelled to point out that dorks playing internet sci-fi dressup are no more Nazis than I'm a monarchist for being on-staff on a board run according to authoritarian principles by a self-proclaimed emperor.

Also, should we take Roger Griffin's opinion on the matter over, say, Mussolini's, or anyone else, as that criterion is only Griffin's?

Because Mussolini (and Fascists in general) were anti-intellectual self-aggrandizing opportunists, while Roger Griffin is a recognized expert on Fascism whose theories have effectively shaped the paradigm in which the subject is now discussed by academics? I mean, why should we credit any historian's analysis of anything, if it conflicts with the self-promotion of a known liar and opportunist?

The accuser in no way implied EVE being communistic.
Also, in my corp there was distinct private property. Noone was forced to give up loot to the corporation - it was encouraged, but not enforced. Well, given the mechanics of the game they couldn't, so yeah. It was more on the lines of T1 (least worth) to what one could live without being given up. Due to the large amount of certain kinds of loot this was also a venerable minerals/material income which in turn was used for the corp item production.

Like previously being mentioned, corp organization happens mostly outside of the game in (non-official) forums. There most political decisions took place, too. Most was build up on trust in the corp. I suppose this is also the case in non-carebear corporations.

As for the alliances... we had been in a general alliance which housed corporations of various focus. There were industry heavy corps, which needed protection to operate in 0.0 (systems in which anyone can be shot without reprimands), mining corps, general corps (us) and pvp corps. The latter provided security for the corps operating in the alliances inner systems (e.g. via camping entrance systems), as well as opportunities for raids for inclined pilots.
The CEOs of the alliances corps as well as some of the directors of larger / more influential corps made up a board which chose the general direction as well as politics and diplomacy of the alliance.

As for the fascism argument: Corps are by all means national states but in name. There are corps which only employ people of a special morale, in-game race, skill alignment, sexual orientation, you name it.
As far as I'm concerned the in-game mechanics provide only the tools for despotism as a form of government, since influence is granted and directors can be fired on a whim.

It does to the extent that it requires a strong leadership that owns and redistributes all goods. Unless you're using another definition of communism.

That can be achieved by a ruling body as easily as by a dictator.

The game mechanics of Eve aren't geared for it, but it's possible to have a small de facto socialistic corporation. People can share resources without using regular corporation mechanics, meaning the CEO can't stop sharing and cooperation, even by firing members.

So if my boss doesn't have someone incharge of making people return inventory, we are socialists?

This requires trust among members, but aspects of this system aren't too uncommon in corporations formed of small groups of friends and families.

You are thinking of communes. I don't think they count as socialism because they are mostly just extended families.

Not all governments have social programs comparable to the ones described in the OP

Suppling its soldiers with weapons is a common government practice.

Noone was forced to give up loot to the corporation - it was encouraged, but not enforced.

Wow. They didn't even have real taxes.

As for the fascism argument: Corps are by all means national states but in name. There are corps which only employ people of a special morale, in-game race, skill alignment, sexual orientation, you name it.

Rascism=/ fascism. Additionally, requiring a person to be a certain profession to join is generally not considered something bizzare when we are talking about a company.

Samuel wrote:

Buritot wrote:Noone was forced to give up loot to the corporation - it was encouraged, but not enforced.

Wow. They didn't even have real taxes.

Of course we did. Every bounty cashed in was taxed with 20%, so only 80% of said bounty would be left to you.
Unless you want to imply giving stuff (beside money) is taxes. Historically true, but nowadays in the societies we live in? Not so much.
I'd rather describe it as a trust bargain, like pooling resources, in exchange for your items you expect basic items in return.
Please expand on that as much as necessary.

As for the fascism argument: Corps are by all means national states but in name. There are corps which only employ people of a special morale, in-game race, skill alignment, sexual orientation, you name it.

Rascism=/ fascism. Additionally, requiring a person to be a certain profession to join is generally not considered something bizzare when we are talking about a company.[/quote]
Ooh, I wasn't meaning to support the fascism argument. Well, maybe. Like I said, corps are essentially politically autonomous states. What I was implying was more in the line of "Only bankers may apply for Swiss citizenship".
Granted, my fascistic radar may encompass way to much for a dictionary definition. Victim of my upbringing.

Stark wrote:It's pretty sad this is the level of analysis of pvp groups, honestly; there are interesting social forces in EVE between the wankers, cunts and idiots, but when people start saying EVE is communist because there's no private property, it's time to just point and laugh.

Wait, who was saying that? Even the person mentioned in the OP claiming Eve somehow "reeks of communism" apparently didn't claim that.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:So your reference is the summary paragraph from a wiki entry? My response is that this is fucking hilarious and I would never have thought of it. I mean, citing a wiki article is one thing, but citing only the summary 'graph? Genius. You're trolling me, right?

So your rebuttal is an appeal to ridicule, rather than actually addressing the content of my argument? I would hope you're aware that a wiki is as good as its citations. I directed you to the introductory paragraph because it conveniently gave a heavily cited explanation of the basic attributes commonly considered to apply to fascism, which happen to apply rather well to corporations in Eve. Because the beginning paragraph had 14 relevant citations, I didn't think it was necessary to ask you to read the entire 120kB article or sort through its 245 citations, or to reference say, a few dozen of them directly. Let's see where this goes though.

My original statement that Stark objected to was, "It is socialistic to some degree, with the sharing programs you described, but it's ultimately a dictatorship. It might be described as a form of fascism with a corporate state, as Samuel said, though that would be a more appropriate description for 0.0 alliances than a high security corporation." You dismissed the dictionary definition I posted in response without giving a reason, then claimed that the real definition of fascism was the one used by a particular historian with the implication that all other definitions are wrong, then dismissed out of hand my argument that there are other valid definitions of fascism in use. What do you have to say now, given that there really are other definitions?

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

BR7 wrote:I refer you to KenZoku, formerly Band of Brothers, Red Alliance, and Goonswarm, all of which have done that.

None of those pages indicate anything of the sort,

Beg pardon, but they actually do. You claimed that, "One major criterion is the idea of palingenetic ultranationalism, a myth of phoenix-like rebirth in which the Fascists promise to restore the nation to a prior state of perfection by purging traitors and racial aliens within the nation, and perhaps conquering external enemies." Leaving aside the practice in virtually all player corps of trying to purge spies and saboteurs and/or prevent them from joining in the first place:

the link about BoB/KenZOku wrote:The BoB name has now been claimed by a rapidly created corporation, which is suspected to be owned by Goonswarm in order to avoid the reclamation of the name by former Band of Brothers members. It is also widely reported that a new organisation is being established to replace the original Band of Brothers, under the name 'Kenzoku'. Kenzoku is believed to comprise many original BoB members and has made some progress in claiming sovereignty in areas of 0.0 space formerly owned by BoB.

In other words, the BoB alliance was destroyed, and the surviving members reunited under a different name and are trying to regain their position of power. It's not stated in that excerpt (check the the history section and links at the bottom), but BoB historically maintained vassal corporations occupying its territory for tribute, and these went with the loss of territory, reducing the alliance to those who would work with each other even in bad times for the sake of the alliance. Additionally, this sudden downfall was largely the result of actions by a single traitor. So yeah.

the link about Red Alliance wrote:The region bordered the Great Wildlands and was constantly under attack by -V- alliance. Consequently the new industrial corporations were forced to constantly defend themselves and learned how to PVP. When the coalition began attacking Scalding Pass, those who did not run to Empire, remained with RA forces in 28y till the end to defend the station and remove the POSs. After the fall of 28y they moved with RA into H-ADOC (Curse). Because most of the corporations lost many of their members, who did not like all the fighting and who wanted to peacefully carebear, many corporations were down to 8-10 active members. Consequently after long discussions between the members of corporations RA Free Space aka Banderlog, Devil’s Brigade, Evil Noobs, and citizens OEG and Blood Dust, the decision was made to unite all active players into a new corporation – Reunion.
The next month was an absolute nightmare for the coalition and especially -V-. An RN (Reunion) Gang of 20-30 people under the command of our FC Studik created a total bloodbath in the regions bordering Curse. Having listened to the propaganda about the death of RA on Eve-O the coalition pilots treated RA pilots appearing in local with absolute indifference. This allowed our gangs to destroy one enemy after another. During the first month of its existence RN gangs destroyed over 500 enemy ships (including around 115 battleships), while maintaining a kill/death ratio (again including battleships) of 9:1. During this time all members gained a huge amount of PVP knowledge and when the next chapter in the history of RA came, the corporation was no longer a collection of ignorant miners-ratters, but a fully formed combat corporation.

Red Alliance's territory was overrun, and many members deserted. The remainder relocated, cut loose the members nominally with them but not actively supporting them, and formed a new organization that carved new territory through conquest. Sounds like palingenetic ultranationalism to me.

the link about Goonswarm wrote:Two member corporations within Goonswarm, Goonfleet and The Greater Goon (Now no longer part of the alliance), recruit the majority of their members from the somethingawful.co* forums, where they hold regular 'newbie drives' where they encourage non-players to try out EVE Online and join their corporation - members of the Something Awful forums are referred to as "goons" even outside of EVE, and 'Goonsquad' organisations exist in other MMORPGs such as Second Life and World of Warcraft, although for the most part these guilds are made up of different players to those in Goonswarm.
...
After a grueling war, Dusk And Dawn eventually bested GoonSwarm in early August 2006 and GoonSwarm retreated back to Syndicate.
Shortly after this, Band of Brothers and the Mercenary Coalition declared war against GoonSwarm and invaded Syndicate for approximately two and a half weeks, effectively immobilizing GoonSwarm in the JQV constellation. GoonSwarm then shifted tactics, creating an entire fleet of characters with the moniker "VCBee XXX" with XXX being a random number. Using these throwaway VCBee characters that cost next to nothing when killed, GoonSwarm engaged in guerrilla warfare against Band of Brothers, both in 0.0 and empire. GoonSwarm also declared war on IRON, RAZOR and a host of other alliances in an act of defiance.
After Band of Brothers moved out of the region, after realizing that continued warfare against freshly created characters was pointless, GoonSwarm waged a short but successful campaign against Black Reign Syndicate in an attempt to remove them from Lower Syndicate. Shortly after, GoonSwarm moved to the South, abandoning Syndicate and moving in as roommates with Red Alliance. Without slowing, GoonSwarm moved to take Wicked Creek, Scalding Pass, Detorid, Tenerifis and Omist away from the Southern Coalition, consisting of Lotka Volterra, Veritas Immortalis and Knights Of The Southerncross.

Gooswarm had a somewhat less dramatic phoenix moment there, but note the first part of that excerpt. Membership in Goonfleet is mostly reserved for those who are already members of the SA forums. In an online game without physical presence, this is about as close to enforceable racial purity as you can get. Also, members recreate the sense of group identity of the SA community, which might be interpreted as another phoenix-like rebirth, considering that all groups in Eve start with nothing.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:and I feel compelled to point out that dorks playing internet sci-fi dressup are no more Nazis than I'm a monarchist for being on-staff on a board run according to authoritarian principles by a self-proclaimed emperor.

In the context of the real world, in which Eve Online is a game, no, they are not real governments. However, and here's where it's important, within the context of the game, player corps are genuine governments, and can be compared to real-world governments to the extent that game mechanics allow. Similar ideas apply to this board. Mike Wong rules here with an iron fist, but he doesn't have authority over us in other parts of life. Here, though, to the extent that the board is governed, it can be described as a government, and if you support the idea that the owner of a site should have ultimate control over it, you are a "monarchist" (or whatever term applies best) in regards to the operation of websites.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Also, should we take Roger Griffin's opinion on the matter over, say, Mussolini's, or anyone else, as that criterion is only Griffin's?

Because Mussolini (and Fascists in general) were anti-intellectual self-aggrandizing opportunists, while Roger Griffin is a recognized expert on Fascism whose theories have effectively shaped the paradigm in which the subject is now discussed by academics? I mean, why should we credit any historian's analysis of anything, if it conflicts with the self-promotion of a known liar and opportunist?

Because presumably the historian did research and came to valid conclusions. The issue here is not whether we should credit the historian's analysis as good, but whether the historian's definitions of terms as derived from that analysis should be used by others by default. If the self-promotion of a known liar and opportunist results in a term being used widely, especially among those who self-identify with the term and by those who originally theorized about it (as with Mussolini), is that not also a valid use of the word? That being the case, without agreeing ahead of time what definition to use, how could it possibly be wrong to use a word following a valid definition?

Buritot wrote:As far as I'm concerned the in-game mechanics provide only the tools for despotism as a form of government, since influence is granted and directors can be fired on a whim.

I think most people so far agree with that, so it just remains to be determined whether a more descriptive term can be applied.

Samuel wrote:

It does to the extent that it requires a strong leadership that owns and redistributes all goods. Unless you're using another definition of communism.

That can be achieved by a ruling body as easily as by a dictator.

...Yeah? That still means that the government (whatever it may be) must own and distribute all goods. Since the corporation control game mechanics don't allow that, Eve corporations aren't communistic.

Samuel wrote:So if my boss doesn't have someone incharge of making people return inventory, we are socialists?

You are if the corporation does this:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Main Entry: so·cial·ism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

By this, socialism can be a matter of degrees. Social Security, a government program that redistributes money to those deemed in need, is socialistic, but the United States as a whole is not completely socialistic.

Samuel wrote:You are thinking of communes. I don't think they count as socialism because they are mostly just extended families.

Since when does socialism not count if the people involved are related?

Samuel wrote:

Not all governments have social programs comparable to the ones described in the OP

Suppling its soldiers with weapons is a common government practice.

Yes, but supplying all citizens with weapons and supplies in peacetime is not.

then claimed that the real definition of fascism was the one used by a particular historian with the implication that all other definitions are wrong, then dismissed out of hand my argument that there are other valid definitions of fascism in use.

They are too broad. Just because someone is an authoritarian who runs the economy on corporitism does not make them a fascist.

Sounds like palingenetic ultranationalism to me.

Not really. Nationalism requires the concept of a nation. I'm not aware Eve groups have anything roughly approximating that.

Membership in Goonfleet is mostly reserved for those who are already members of the SA forums. In an online game without physical presence, this is about as close to enforceable racial purity as you can get. Also, members recreate the sense of group identity of the SA community, which might be interpreted as another phoenix-like rebirth, considering that all groups in Eve start with nothing.

That would be considered a social clique.

(or whatever term applies best)

None. Mike controls the board, but the services it provides are optional- he is as much a dictator as a restaurant manager who reserves the right to refuse service.

...Yeah? That still means that the government (whatever it may be) must own and distribute all goods. Since the corporation control game mechanics don't allow that, Eve corporations aren't communistic.

How would that differ from a normal black market? How big is the area they cannot regulate?

Since when does socialism not count if the people involved are related?

Because than all families would count as communist?

Yes, but supplying all citizens with weapons and supplies in peacetime is not.

Unless you have universal conscription or militias. Which would be prevalent in any universe as violent as Eve.

Samuel wrote:They are too broad.

All of them? Too broad for what? By whose judgment?

Samuel wrote:Just because someone is an authoritarian who runs the economy on corporitism does not make them a fascist.

It does according to this definition I linked earlier. And probably according to Mussolini.

Samuel wrote:Not really. Nationalism requires the concept of a nation. I'm not aware Eve groups have anything roughly approximating that.

Groups that conquer territory, rule it with sovereignty, and wage war on similar groups are not nations?

Samuel wrote:That would be considered a social clique.

A social clique existing outside the game that serves as a marker of "group" and "non-group" in-game when actual racial information is not available. A marker that one can't readily change once playing Eve, as counterintellignece sweeps try to catch people joining SA to join Goonfleet.

Samuel wrote:None. Mike controls the board, but the services it provides are optional- he is as much a dictator as a restaurant manager who reserves the right to refuse service.

That's the real-life context. In the context of the board, you don't get to opt out, since doing so leaves the context of the board. And within the board, he is more or less a dictator. An Emperor, if you will. With the restaurant example, the manager can, within the context of the restaurant (and the bounds of the law, which are rather more restrictive than those that govern forum owners), determine what service, if any, a customer will receive. In real life, the customer can leave, but leaving the restaurant leaves the context of the manager's domain.

Samuel wrote:

...Yeah? That still means that the government (whatever it may be) must own and distribute all goods. Since the corporation control game mechanics don't allow that, Eve corporations aren't communistic.

How would that differ from a normal black market?

Where did black markets come in? I thought this line of conversation was about whether communism has both economic and political requirements. Also, I'm not sure what "that" refers to, so I'm not sure how it differs.

Samuel wrote:How big is the area they cannot regulate?

If you mean corporations, The CEO/directors/etc. can't access/otherwise control private property. In order to set up a communist system, they would have to.

Samuel wrote:

BR7 wrote:Since when does socialism not count if the people involved are related?

Because than all families would count as communist?

Note that communism != socialism. Families that pool resources for common use are indeed socialistic according to the definition I posted earlier. That doesn't make them communistic.

Samuel wrote:Unless you have universal conscription or militias. Which would be prevalent in any universe as violent as Eve.

Actually, universal conscription is (so far as I have seen personally) pretty rare in Eve in non-pure-combat corporations. So-called carebears can contribute to the economic strength of a corporation, but would leave if faced with conscription. Anyway, that's beside the point, as I had said:

BR7 wrote:Not all governments have social programs comparable to the ones described in the OP, and my point was that having such social programs does not make a government communistic.

Anyway, in real life, there are nations without universal conscription, and there are nations with universal conscription that aren't communistic, so where are you going with this?

All of them? Too broad for what? By whose judgment?

Too broad to provide a meaningful definition.

It does according to this definition I linked earlier. And probably according to Mussolini.

It also happens to describe every single country in Latin America during the 30s. Which is rather odd considering that Brazil was left wing with a 5 year plan.

Also the link gives

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

Authoritarianism?

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Do you need me to explain why having fascism mean dictator is way to broad to mean anything at all?

Groups that conquer territory, rule it with sovereignty, and wage war on similar groups are not nations?

You are catching on. That defines governments.

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory

A social clique existing outside the game that serves as a marker of "group" and "non-group" in-game when actual racial information is not available. A marker that one can't readily change once playing Eve, as counterintellignece sweeps try to catch people joining SA to join Goonfleet.

So? That doesn't alter the fact it is a social clique at all. It just shows that making rascist states in Eve based on real world ID is impossible.

Where did black markets come in? I thought this line of conversation was about whether communism has both economic and political requirements. Also, I'm not sure what "that" refers to, so I'm not sure how it differs.

I was refering to the sections of the economy the corporation cannot control. Communist states did not control the entire economy either- even without legal small businesses there were black markets.

If you mean corporations, The CEO/directors/etc. can't access/otherwise control private property. In order to set up a communist system, they would have to.

Can they require individuals to give it to the corporation?

Samuel wrote:Too broad to provide a meaningful definition.

For any purpose at all?

BR7 also wrote:By whose judgment?

BR7 also wrote:All of them?

"All of them" happens to include Roger Griffin's, which is rather specific, as noted elsewhere.

Samuel wrote:

It does according to this definition I linked earlier. And probably according to Mussolini.

It also happens to describe every single country in Latin America during the 30s. Which is rather odd considering that Brazil was left wing with a 5 year plan.

So? What if they were fascistic according to that definition? Is this a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria?

Samuel wrote:Also the link gives

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

Authoritarianism?

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Yes, that sounds like a handy definition of authoritarianism. Now, how does it relate to the discussion?

Samuel wrote:Do you need me to explain why having fascism mean dictator is way to broad to mean anything at all?

Apparently. Seeing as how fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism made it into that textbook. Anyway, note that I haven't been arguing that that's the only valid definition of fascism, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be the default when not specified. What do you have to say about that, the actual point?

Samuel wrote:

Groups that conquer territory, rule it with sovereignty, and wage war on similar groups are not nations?

You are catching on. That defines governments.

States or sovereign governments, perhaps, but not all governments are sovereign. City governments in the US, for example, do not conquer territory, are not sovereign, and do not wage wars, yet (I assume you would agree) they are governments.

Anyway, it seems that I misconstrued your mention of nations to mean nation-states, and answered in support of statehood. To nationhood!

Samuel wrote:

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory

How many of those do corporations in Eve match?
Body of people: Check.
Share common history: Varies; more significant for older/more tightly knit corporations. Within the game, many characters stay with the same organization for years, plenty of time for history in an MMO. Those in leadership positions have often been with the corporation for most or all its existence. If the corporation is active, a few weeks can contain a decent amount of history.
Share common culture: Check. Those who don't share it are typically kicked out or never admitted in the first place.
Share common language or ethnicity: Check, especially for language as a practical matter. Corporations based on ethnicity are less common, but they do exist.
Inhabit a particular country or territory: Check. Definitely for territory-holding corporations. Even empire-based corporations often set up operations in a particular spot or spots of choice.

So then, it would seem that, according to your definition, corporations in Eve qualify as nations, and are therefore capable of nationalism.

Samuel wrote:So? That doesn't alter the fact it is a social clique at all. It just shows that making rascist states in Eve based on real world ID is impossible.

You seem to be missing my point. I agree that traditional racism (i.e. based on actual race) is impossible/impractically difficult in Eve. However, rather than discarding racism entirely as a criterion (say, if it has something to do with qualifying for fascism), I propose that analogues for racism be investigated to see if they operate in a similar manner to racism in the real world. What do you have to say to that?

Samuel wrote:I was refering to the sections of the economy the corporation cannot control. Communist states did not control the entire economy either- even without legal small businesses there were black markets.

Yes, but those black markets were illegal, and communistic states were, at least in principle, capable of enforcing the relevant laws, seizing the property, etc. Even if a corporation in Eve sets communistic rules, it can't enforce them.

Samuel wrote:Can they require individuals to give it to the corporation?

Only by mutual consent. Unlike the taxation mentioned previously, there is no mechanism that gives a corporation access to the private property of members unless the members themselves place it in corporation storage facilities. A corporation could, as a matter of policy, require members to put all their property in such facilities, but there is no accounting mechanism to be sure that members actually do that, or to check member finances to make sure they gave all their money to the corporation.

For any purpose at all?

Correct.

So? What if they were fascistic according to that definition? Is this a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria?

Yeah, countries with 5 year plans don't really fit into the fascist label. Especially when their are actual fascist parties.

Yes, that sounds like a handy definition of authoritarianism. Now, how does it relate to the discussion?

The link you are citing says that fascism is

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

Seeing as how fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism made it into that textbook. Anyway, note that I haven't been arguing that that's the only valid definition of fascism, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be the default when not specified. What do you have to say about that, the actual point?

Words fail me. What they are saying is fascism includes absolute monarchies, Roman dictators, viceroys, populists...

It is like saying that all fruit are bananas because they are edible plants. I can't think of any other analogy tortured enough.

So then, it would seem that, according to your definition, corporations in Eve qualify as nations, and are therefore capable of nationalism.

Wow. You used such a vague interpretation that my school qualifys as a nation. You want to try something more accurate?

What do you have to say to that?

You said there are no communists in ever because it is impossible to abolish private property. You see the contradiction?

Only by mutual consent. Unlike the taxation mentioned previously, there is no mechanism that gives a corporation access to the private property of members unless the members themselves place it in corporation storage facilities. A corporation could, as a matter of policy, require members to put all their property in such facilities, but there is no accounting mechanism to be sure that members actually do that, or to check member finances to make sure they gave all their money to the corporation.

I'm getting mixed messages. Don't corporations have guns?