SFP is not a Contradiction
Jaden A.
It seems that some of the eUS does not really “get” SFP. Some think that we are actually tea partiers masquerading as socialists because we sometimes support lowering taxes. Some think that we are independents, without a single ideology at all, because we don’t always vote together. Some think that we are a voting block, that we always vote together, because we sometimes vote together. Some think that we may have used to represent a socialist ideology, but that we are getting watered down by the T5 status. There is obviously some clearing up that needs to be done, especially given Resoula’s article. This article is inspired by his article and our conversation in the comments as well as several other articles that have come out recently calling SFP hypocrites.
First off, I want to clear up the notion that we are without an ideology. We do have an ideology. It was established in our Constitution, first. A couple months ago, as we were quickly approaching T5 status, we decided to set out and write down what already existed, our general ideas that we hold as a party. We made a Committee of Correspondence, who went to work creating a great representation of our ideology for all the eEarth to see, a Party Program. It was approved by the party almost unanimously (with the exception of a single troll vote).
So, yes, we have a party ideology. It is clearly defined and clearly socialist. It is also, however, theoretical, leaving room for different interpretations as to its applications. This is where the confusion seems to come from. There is a difference here between party ideology, as we set in our Constitution and Party Program, and a party line as it is commonly used in game.
A party ideology is a list of goals that we, as a party, want to see achieved. We clearly have this. We as a party agree on the goals set forth in the party program. That does NOT mean, however, that we all vote the same. Though we agree on the goals, we do not always agree on the best means to those goals.
That disagreement is where the difference in our individual beliefs about the best policy come from. Just because you as an individual may think that there is only one way policy that makes sense for us to follow given our goals does not mean that we as individuals will agree with you. Hence, your confusion with individual’s opinions on particular policies does not mean that we have abandoned our ideology. It just means that there is a disagreement on which policy is best to achieve that goal. THIS is where we disagree as a party, when we disagree. We do not disagree on goals, but we do disagree sometimes on the policy to achieve those goals.
This is where the confusion as to whether or not SFP has a party line comes into question. Let’s try to define a party line before we move any further. If we use party line as the most common usage, meaning voting together, then absolutely not. We do not vote together. We do not officially take stances on particular policies. We do not coerce or encourage our Congressmen/women to vote in a particular way as a policy.
What we DO do is debate policies as a party so that we can explain to our fellow members why we plan to vote the way that we do. Sometimes, we convince each other, especially when one of us is on the line. We do not call out SFPers as traitors, however, for disagreeing on how a particular policy aids or harms our goals as a party.
This is why SFP says that we have a party ideology, but we do not have a party line. Get the difference? I’ll happily answer any (relevant) questions in the comments or PM.
Jaden A.
SFP Chairwoman
Comments
SFP is not a Contradiction
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/sfp-is-not-a-contradiction-2563495/1/20
Vote/Comment/Shout/Endorse/Subscribe
I think that it just confuses people when high profile members like Jude write an article asking the people of our nation "Are Your Taxes TOO DAMN HIGH," in seeming outrage with broad support, only to decide taxes aren't high enough. Not to mention, the SFP touted in previous media how it was the party to support for lower taxes, only to say "well we don't really have a defined policy across the board." It also doesn't help that Jude doesn't explain why he's had such a sudden change of heart as well.
After all, no less than two months ago, he was telling people to join SFP if they wanted to see a lower tax. It makes it appear as though it is party policy, especially when he touts 100% of SFP members voting for lower tax. If the SFP has no party line on taxes, then past PP's have made mistakes by not been truthful in their messaging to the public.
It s made the party and its message come off as disingenuous, hence the visceral reaction from the BSP, who has seen SFP as a low-tax ally.
* by not been truthful
3tired5me
Two months ago, we had a strange situation, it's true. We had complete agreement of all Congressmen and women for lower taxes. Because of that, we could make statements that SFP supported lower taxes. That did not mean, however, that we had always or would continue to support lower taxes. Personally, I support higher taxes when it is coupled with higher spending on DoCA, COs, and other programs that I think fit with socialist principles.
It is important, though, to know that we as individuals often write articles and comments in support of policies, but that does not mean that what we write has been taken on as an official party stance.
The desire for lower taxes in the past from SFP members stemmed from a larger problem, the reserve. SFP members are typically not in support of a large reserve that we sit on only for the advancement of whales and high level officials. Decreasing the tax was the policy which many SFP members picked to change the stagnation of a building reserve with no promise of spending.
AS I clearly stated in the USAForum, one month as Chief of Staff for Gnilraps made me see how much we spend and I had to take this new information and do what was right for the eUSA.
Either way, I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't to both sides of the issue here. And really, I don't give a damn.
good article, as always...
muahahahaha
I have been elected in the congress before for SFP. Only members of SFP that are loyal to our goals can come high on the list (together with individuals from non T5 parties SFP supports to get in the congress). We have mass mail messages discussing how to vote on issues, but the individual freedom for a member of SFP in the congress is held high. This is a real Socialist Freedom Party.
I was going to propose a tax on Dioists, sort of a reverse jizz-ya if you know what I mean, to make up for a reduction in the work tax. But that seems to be a moot point now.
Well said Jaden!
We have been trying to make that reserve since I started playing. I'll support a lower tax, because the higher taxes are matched with even higher spending. We are guaranteed to never make the reserve number.
I'm right there with you o/
More taxes means more spending. It's how it is. We'll never have enough unless we say we have enough.
Since when do parties have an ideology. That's naive. This game is about hanging with mates in some party with a fancy name and supporting each other in whatever you do and bashing your enemies. Always has been and always will.
Role-playing may not be something you take advantage of in game, but it is one that SFPers do frequently.
That's all good babe, but people who role-play around are not good at winning because they're compromised by their drive to adhere to useless morals and ideology.
I guess I have more fun with the ideology role-play than I do being a political power. If I cared about was doing well politically, I certainly wouldn't be in SFP. But I have fun in SFP!
It is inconsistent rolepalying when a prominent member of a party states that you are not and have never been socialists, then about a month later or so the new PP states "We have always been socialists."
Who said we aren't socialists?
I'm an anarchist.
You accused me, now you accuse the general population of thinking you are "tea partiers". This is a term that I have never used or seen anyone else use against your party. Just an observation.
Also you say "we" as if SFP is a united party. SFP is a very split party. There's the group that has embracaed USWP's ideologies, like you. And those who have remained true to SFP's policies of the past (as in everything before one month from now) like GOTJ. There is no "we" left in SFP. Just the newly born and the still living.
There is most certainly a "we", being in the sense that the newly born and living can unite behind certain ideals for a better eUSA.
Like Miss Jaden A. stated, we have different means of obtaining the same ideals. Our diversity is our strength. We are not a party that promotes the hive-mind and control of our members. We embrace our differences, and use that to harness the right solutions for the right times.
I do not believe that I accused you of calling us tea partiers. I only said that, after all, we are socialists, not tea partiers, if I remember correctly. I have heard us called tea partiers on multiple occasions, mostly by USWP members. That was when we unanimously supported lowering taxes, however.
There is most certainly a "we" in SFP. There is a "we" established in our Constitution and in the party program. Again, we can have a shared ideology that unites us without agreeing on best practices to get there, policy.
good ideology good article .that's why i belong here in SFP hahaha
Freedom is an ideology of it's own merit.
+1 for role playing commitment.