Join the new world

Hamlet: "There ’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’t is not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all." -- Hamlet, Act v. Sc. 2.




Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
...
Do I dare to eat a peach?
-- T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock



This is a just a probably overly long meditation on the use of the word "socialism" in eRepublik.

I didn't have much of anything else to do tonight. I was contemplating the sometimes silly, sometimes tragic, results of overheated rhetoric, on the one hand, and, on the other, Zizek's "advice" on how sometimes doing nothing at all is the most violent response to a situation.

And I came up with this...



Socialism, Schmocialism


The meaning of socialism resides the eye of the beholder. It's like a Rorschach test.

In the real world, its meaning varies according to cultural contexts, yeah? Nobody can be precise about what socialism is in the real world because it's used to describe so many feelings and thoughts, so many different experiences. Attitudes regarding the word vary accordingly, from the apocalyptic to the mundane, from the canonical to the ironic.

Ask a Czech what he thinks of socialism. You'll likely hear something like, "Never again will Russian tanks be allowed to roll through Prague."

Ask a Spaniard what socialism is. More likely than not you'll soon be embroiled in a lively discussion on how best to form national consensus on the basis of shared anti-fascist and universalist human values.

Ask a Brit. And these days you'll probably get an earful about bureaucrats.

Ask an American about socialism. Depending on their background and perspective, he may go a little bonkers for reasons that are not entirely clear, but could have something to do with "freedom fries". Or maybe he'll start ranting about how exceptionally capitalistic and oppressive the USA is, as if there are no other countries in the world that keep "the system" going. Or you may be surprised to hear a calm historical appraisal comparing typical German government interventions in the market vs. American Keynesian practices.

The Slovenian wit (and neo-communist) Slavoj Zizek tells a funny story about how he visited a "Museum of Communism" somewhere in Eastern Europe. He bought several large devotional candles emblazoned with the image of Great Teacher-Leader Stalin. Zizek relates how he takes great delight in watching Stalin's image melt and ooze as the candles burn down while he contemplates Stalin's "eternal" contributions to the proletariat.



Socialism: What's in a Word? Is it Good? Evil? Neutral? Meaningless? None of the above?



Socialism in eRepublik: For a Bigger, More Personable e-Peen?


Even among its advocates, interpretations of what e-socialism means vary a fair amount. Assuming the labels "leftist" and "far-leftist" can be used as a synonym for something like socialism, eRep's e-socialists are even more of a mixed bag than their counterparts in real life.

And it's not only e-leftists who use the word.

Dioism, for example, is a self-proclaimed socialist e-religion. Devout Dioists give everything they earn to the god-emperor. He, in turn, distributes the goodies in a benevolent manner. Thus capitalistic motivations are short-circuited and all is well. Or so the theory goes.


Is socialism just more fun?

The great Irish wag Oscar Wilde once argued that socialism is the best guarantor of individualism. He surmised that by circumventing both personal greed and liberal obsessions, socialism offers the greatest possibilities for the full development of human personalities.

If you think about it, that's not too far off from what the Dioists are saying. In other words, socialism creates better, more interesting personalities.

That's kind of similar to what some members of the SFP and other "officially" leftist New World groups might say: that it's more fun and interesting to take a communal approach than to simply e-recapitulate the capitalist markets and nationalistic paradigms.

Still others make similar observations, but choose not to use this word.



Socialism in eRepublik: For Bigger-Government e-Peens?


On a purely economic level, socialism -- and e-socialism -- are associated with either state ownership or worker self-management. Or at minimum, with an emphasis on social welfare and government-run institutions.

By that standard, we could say that the eUSA is already a solidly socialist country. The majority of American players work in a commune or co-op of some kind. And those who don't pay some of the highest income tax in the New World. Those taxes support a massive military budget, as well as a number of social welfare programs. All in the name of the "common good". Although sometimes that "common good" gets expressed by paying for elite government officials and their friends to "tank" in wars.



And there's the rub, philosophically speaking. Is it really "socialism" if the commonweal does not fund the commonwealth, but rather an elite who "represent", in some fashion, the common man?

Most would probably say "It depends." And I'd say they'd be right. It depends largely on whether the representation is an accurate expression of common desires.

American business owners, on the other hand, tend to be what you might call "anti-socialist" rebels. Motivated primarily by personal profit-seeking, many of them like to use the money market to avoid paying their income taxes.

So let's do the math. Half the workers aren't paying income tax because they're in worker-run profit shares or communal endeavors. The owners aren't paying income tax because of the money market loophole. So it's the regular non-communal workers who are the financial backbone of a social system that mainly profits the greediest capitalists and (sometimes) the military elite.


Gee Mister, if you say you need it that much, OK, but what about my little dog?

That's not rhetoric, just e-reality.



Socialism in eRepublik: Bigger, Stronger e-Peens?



What do the elites really think of you?

Let's think a bit more about the eUSA military. It's not only far and away the largest socialist institution in the eUSA -- in that purely economic sense -- but also (perhaps) the greatest agglomeration of role-players to be found.

First, it's supported entirely by government funding and communal workers. OMG! That's socialism! But the JCS and other uber-military types essentially claim that their work represents "the will of the people". And indeed, in a very real sense, it does. (At least much more so than that of the hard-core capitalists.)

That's because in the case of Americans playing eRepublik, "the will of the people" mainly means "More wars, please!"


eRep Weather forecast: Moar Woar!

The role-playing bit comes in when we observe all the deadly seriousness, the uber-manliness, the titles, the ranks, the specious references to "Manifest Destiny" and so on.

As if that were any less "role playing" than some kid in Venezuela who likes to pretend he's Che Guevara!

Fact is, this most "mechanistic" of institutions is chock-full of (socialist) role-players.

Also noteworthy is the popularity of alternative, more tight-knit militia structures (not only in the eUSA). These may provide some indication that players do grow weary of being "grunts" and want a more participatory way to organize themselves for war gaming.

The more interesting question about the offical military structure is whether it truly represents the "will of the people". I'd observe that probably most members of the official military do see their role in this way. A large number of players really do want eRep to be all about war. And a large number of military functionaries work to support that goal, both by finding lots of wars to fight in and working on ways to get players armed and trained.

I'd offer the opinion that where it goes wonky is when militarists do not behave like socialists and instead take advantage of their positions mainly just to bump up their own rankings.


Wow, what a big gun you have!



Socialism in eRepublik: More-Super-RRRRRRRevolutionary-Than-You e-Peens?


In my limited experience most of the overtly "socialist" players in eRepublik tend to be pretty laid back and friendly towards each other, and towards most other players as well. Many have been through various ideologically-inspired shit-throwing festivals amongst real-life leftists. So they often come to the New World looking to put that kind of fratricidal politics behind them.

But the urge to use the language of Marxism and so forth as a way to either play out fantasies, or to engage in group one-upsmanship, finds its way into the New World from time to time. For example, the Left and Far-Left parties in the Czech Republic exploded at one point into a frenzy of name-calling and heated rhetoric.

It was a sort of amusing, but hardly productive either in a pragmatic or in an intellectual sense.


What do we want? Bigger e-peens! When do we want them? Now!

We also occasionally encounter a kind of frustrated-super-revolutionary type of e-socialist. He hasn't had much luck overthrowing capitalism in the real world, and so brings a certain level of vitriol into the New World when dealing with virtual capitalism. Same thing happens the other way around. Some folks are restricted, for one reason or another, from bashing socialists as much as they'd like to in real life, so they do it in-game.

Pretty tedious in both cases.



Socialism in eRepublik: It's About Freedom


So why do I bother going around the New World saying I'm a socialist anyway?

Well, partly of course it's to wave my e-peen around!


Bananas R Us!

But mostly it's because I find it's the most sensible way for me to keep enjoying playing the game. I'm too old and jaded to be amused for very long just by racking up points in never-ending "battles", or winning "honors" by getting elected to some silly thing, or by "working" hard, or by "getting rich" by running a business.

Sure, that's all good fun, but it wears off pretty quickly. And it can become just as dull and tedious as real life. So what would be the point? If I feel like I need to "conquer the world", I can always play Civilization.

Being an e-socialist in this New World, for me, mainly means thinking about the game critically, especially its social aspects. Like, treating the whole thing as a fascinating puzzle. Who is really profiting from various actions? Can the mechanics of the game be approached in a different way from the default paradigms? What can I do to add some kind of spice to what is, after all, a fairly bland dish? And can I do that in a way that lifts people up, at least in some small way, and perhaps challenges some pre-conceived notions about "the way things have to be"?


PQ gettin' all philosophical again after a long day

And how has that worked out?

On a pragmatic level, I guess my success in this has been mixed. There've been good outcomes. Sometimes it's a flop. Sometimes it's just a good bit of craic, as my Irish friends would say.

And although I occasionally veer off into anger or foolishness (or pomposity), it usually doesn't take long to get back on a even keel thanks mainly to e-friends who, I think, are good socialists at heart, whether they choose to call themselves that or not.