Join the new world

Hello, Comrades!

I got to thinking again about the adaptation of real politics into this game. If dialectical materialism holds any water, and I believe it does, then e-socialism can only exist as a response to the flaws e-capitalism. As I described our government as a "pseudo-fascist oligarchy/plutocracy" it seems prudent to expand on that definition somewhat and explore how capitalism is applied in-game.

Namely, I want to put forward that capitalism is present here not in the form of the control of intangible country currency or to a lesser extent gold, but more as a control placed on social capital.

eRepublik is a social game, by any measure. The economic module has been pared down to the slimmest possible format, meaning that the capital to be controlled there is virtually nonexistent-- anyone can amass thousands of country currency or gold. Gold is something that can be created on demand if purchased through real life currency, and therefore it is not part of capitalism's zero-sum personality.

Capitalism is best defined here as the domination of social networks. Here there are many social networks: Military Units, Political Parties, government teams, literally anything created in the metagame. These networks are dominated by a select few social capitalists, people with immense friends lists and immense pull on the two-clickers that see their feeds. They have fingers in many different social networks, thus granting them inordinate political power.

"Wait," you might say, "anyone can add dozens of people to their friends! This social capitalism theory is even less plausible than saying capitalism is based on country currency or gold!"

Is it, though? In reality, capitalism is a zero-sum game. For someone to be rich, so too must someone be poor. If everyone was rich, rich would be the new poor and someone would just have to get richer. It's the nature of the beast.

Here, that does not apply in any circle except for social capital. People controlling forums, MUs, and parties are the new capitalists. We have all seen the revolving-door cast of country presidents and congressmen and women. Many of these people have friends in high places in any organization, giving them a say even with their political "enemies."

How can this social capitalism be described as a zero-sum game? Easily! Those who are part of the social capitalist class, the people who are multiple-term CPs that have governed in four countries and have more Congress Medals than months in a year can't afford to have dozens or hundreds of people reaching their level of social status-- this would diminish their own importance within the game.

This is where you see the beginning of trolling by the higher echelons of society. Up-and-comers can be goaded, attacked, marginalized, and ostracized by the social capitalists to keep them from accruing the same amount of influence. Only those that bend a knee to the social capitalists are left alone, promised that one day they'd get a CP medal thrown their way as long as they worked diligently to keep the machine running.

Thus we arrive at a system of social capitalism wherein the most powerful and well-connected rule by virtue of their connections and their influence, and resort to mudslinging and trolling to defend their position at the apex of the social capitalist system.

The objection always will arise that these social capitalists have earned their position, and to take it away is tantamount to invalidating everything "they've" accomplished and rendering moot any motivation for others to do the same.

Here the argument is much the same as in reality. Capitalists never truly earn their position, instead making it to the top through ruthless exploitation of those beside and beneath them. Always, there are workers in the background propping them up. Have we seen a CP run a country absolutely single-handedly, with no outside input? Is that possible? Has this magical CP fought off every invasion attempt, or single-handedly produced food and weapons and bought those food and weapons at a profit?

Individualism must necessarily be demonized to draw people into becoming social capital, but similarly the individual social capitalist must be worshipped for the system to work. It is a major contradiction that breaks the system.

Are there benefits to social capitalism?

Definitely not. In the decline we are seeing, every active player must count. Putting aside popularity contests and idol-worship in favor of making the game entertaining and to do our part in improving retention should assume tantamount importance. Trolling and mudslinging should be viewed as indefensible crimes in a time like this. The only benefits seen in social capitalism is the perpetuation of the domination of the ruling class, the social capitalists.

Emphasis on the players over fictitious constructs like the government is the basis of opposition to social capitalism, and thus is the basis of e-socialism.

---

"The Soviet bureaucracy is like all ruling classes in that it is ready to shut its eyes to the crudest mistakes of its leaders in the sphere of general politics, provided in return they show an unconditional fidelity in the defense of its privileges."