Co-opting the Revolution (How the SFP sold out to Conservative Populism)

Day 2,839, 15:24 • Published in USA USA • by Dio Soryu


Disclaimer: The following article is my own opinion and does not represent any Party, Military Unit or any affiliation of mine (except where directly stated); with the exception of people who have functioning brains.

It is an interesting state of affairs, when the Party of American Socialist values advocates for low taxes and weak Government. These are, of course, values we normally associate with TEA Party philosophies.

I have seen quite a lot of philosophic gymnastics being done to justify this as 'a valid interpretation of socialism, within the mechanics of the game'. While I recognize that game mechanics force us to consider how political and economic philosophies can be expressed within the game, I find myself unconvinced by the arguments being made.

This is unfortunate, as I know and have many friends within the Socialist Freedom Party and I suspect many of them will be disappointed by my writing this; perhaps even hurt. Still, this is something which I am passionate about and I cannot remain quiet while they actively work against the greater interest of SOCIETY in order to gain, for THEMSELVES, politically.

In my opinion, this is contrary to the very core of Socialist philosophy and it is a contradiction I will not quietly abide.


Part I: Manufacturing Class Warfare

In the most recent edition of Official Media of the SFP (published in The Tin Hat, by Franklin Stone) in his own section, Over The Black Fence, Franklin writes an article in which he cites a post in Public Congress and goes on to complain about the tone in which the question is responded to, rebutting that "Now I think a fair question has been asked, one that should concern all parties; the SFP has many friends world wide and some wish to come here"

What he fails to mention is that the question is answered immediately, instead choosing to focus on the criticism of dmjohnson that 'the question probably did not require a thread'. It is note worthy that, despite the question and its follow up questions being answered and the thread has subsequently been derailed to an argument about transparency, the thread remains open.

Instead, Franklin focuses on his conspiracy theory that this represents an intentional effort to "stifle SFP's over-seas recruitment efforts". This completely ignores the point of the question in the original post.

"There are no Pending, Approved or Denied cs applications. The entire doc is empty."

If the entire document is empty, it is difficult to see the justification for the theory that this is specifically targeted towards SFP members. Certianly it is an issue that should be resolved, but it is not an issue that specifically hurts SFP as there are any number of people immigrating for any number of reasons. Simply because SFP is effected by a broken section of scripting, he leaps immediately to the conclusion; "OPPRESSION!!!"

This exemplifies the reasoning for Isreal Stevens exasperated reaction, "I'm voting for whichever Speaker promises to lock SFP threads as soon as they open." As this is the tract that is oft-chosen by SFP to make its voice heard; i.e. continuously opening threads of questionable value in search of a cause to rally behind and an excuse to cry "OPRESSION!", though they are not actually being oppressed in any way.

What can justifiably be said is that some members of Congress find SFP's persistent attempts to antagonize their opponents into over-reaction irritating and aren't shy about saying so. Some are even impolite in their response; however I believe it is disingenuous to conflate this with the kind of active, systemic oppression Franklin directly states he believes is happening

It is one thing for a member of Congress to say, "I wish the Speaker would just lock these stupid threads" and quite another for the Speaker to actually do so; the difference being the difference between annoyance and oppression.

Part II: For Sale, One Proletariat; gently used.

Much fuss has been made about SFP's meteoric rise to the brink of breaching the Top 5, with their commentator and member abroad, Tom Cauchon, commenting that "The eUS faces a crossroads with SFP nearing the Top 5. Will the eUS accept a new member of power into its folds? Or will the eUS become Ishmael, retreating to what is comfortable, just as Ishmael would return to the sea whenever he became restless on land." And Franklin Stone adding to that by saying, "Every time a party gets near the Top 5, the guys in the UNITY T Shirt start shouting and trolling and screaming 'Political Takeover! (PTO) Help the Anti Takeover! (ATO)'. I wondered what would happen if an old party, a party that has been around since the first; approached the Majestic Heights of a Top Tier Party."

I can already tell you what will happen in response; nothing. The SFP's presumed entrance into the Top 5 does not require the other parties to rethink their positions to move in line with SFP and, in fact, SFP moving into the Top 5 may actually end up weakening the position of the SFP/BSP voting bloc, since they would then be directly competing for voters, rather than collaborating.

As a member of AMP, I can tell you that AMP is quite worried about its position in the Top 5, which it would like to preserve. However, I am certain none of us will be crying for ATO efforts in response to this. Speculation to the contrary is entirely baseless.

There is another interesting aspect to this, alluded to by Tom Cauchon comment which implies that SFP's spike in membership can be thought of as a referendum on the American People's feelings about the Dictatorship and tax policy changes; a narrative heavily implied by SFP members in various places as well as blaming the decrease in citizenry on same said political directives.

However, that is at least somewhat disingenuous, as well:

Now, this is perhaps a bit of a questionable tactic but I am not one to get all-up-in-arms over questions of in-game 'morality', like this. Though I do think this is strikingly in contrast to one of the main philosophical underpinnings of Socialist theory; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," popularized by Karl Marx, no less.

But what really pisses me off about this is to conflate paying people to be in your party with a ground-well of people supporting your cause.

This is like if a TEA Party rally were to pay migrant workers to bolster their numbers at a political rally.

Whatever the case, I have a feeling Marx would not approve. Stalin might but I bet the Koch Brothers would be on board.

Part III: The Conservative Libertarian Party

While SFP loves to make use of Revolutionary Socialist iconography and sloganism, their positions recently have stood in stark contrast.

They object to higher taxes, citing the rights of the wealthy and advocating for Reagan's trickle-down economic model. Their Socialist justification for this is that 'work taxes hurt workers', however in the economic model of eRepublik, work taxes are inherently progressive and therefore ideal for Socialist purposes.

This may not be immediately apparent, since everyone who works has the same opportunity to work for the same salary (more or less), however this dynamic comes into focus when you consider that the wealthy players are more likely to own companies than poor players and, as such, have a much greater tax liability for their Work as Manager clicks.

The rebuttal to this, from SFP members, has been 'Yes, but the Government isn't using it to help the little guy!', they cry as if their hands were tied and they could not possibly work out legislation that WOULD benefit the little guy with one of their several members of Congress.

Rather, they prefer to complain about the military dynamic we are grandfathered into (opening CO's with no international restrictions).

And this is the crux of the problem.

SFP hinges all it's bets on complaints that resonate with populist sentiment, rather than solutions that capitalize on its self-espoused Socialist foundations. SFP offers no solutions, no ideas and no alternatives. The mantra of the Socialist Freedom Party has become 'I don't know but not that!'

They complain about the Dictatorship based upon principle, alone, while ignoring that in virtually circumstance that has yet come up the Dictatorship has acted in accordance with the wishes of the democratically elected Congress and ignoring the >insane
They complain about the democratically elected Congress and the decisions it makes, which are in every case consistent with democratic principles, as if they are given no voice to speak; citing cronyism, conspiracy and people 'just not being nice enough to them'. When in reality, they are just upset because Democracy doesn't mean 'the minority gets their way'.

All of this when, at their core, a Socialist should be the first one to say 'People do not always know what is best for them and it up to the state to care for them and act in their better interest.'
VOTE FOR LOWER TAXES FOR THE WEALTHY

VOTE FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES AND WEAK GOVERNANCE

VOTE SOCIALIST FREEDOM PARTY

VOTE CAPITALIST LIBERTARIAN PARTY


Love,