Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. The root of capitalism is the ownership which began in hunter societies, what they had was the most primitive form of capitalism, the capitalism was a quite little infant baby then. As I said before, Will Durant in his book describes that this how capitalism began, the ownership is the core of capitalism. I also think he is right. What you are describing in your second paragraph is an early form of government, not related to capitalism. I just wanted to find an alliance who is symbolically fascist. there is no need for the government form of alliance necessary be fascist. As I provided a link in the first post, the game creator believes that fascism can be in the game.
  3. @Francoist Almost every PnW alliance is a dictatorship of one form or another, though many do not style themselves as such. Those that do have "elections" generally have them once the leader needs to step down for some reason. If that is the fascism you are looking for, just browse the alliance page and pick one and you should do OK. If you want an alliance themed after Franco, Mussolini, or Pinochet, I do not think you will find such an alliance. I would be pretty confident that Franco or Pinochet theme would not be against the rules, and I believe that to be the case for Mussolini as well. Contact Alex and ask if you are concerned. Also remember that while those might not be against the rules (check with Alex), you may find it hard to make allies given that the population of the server is generally strongly anti-fascist, as you've seen in the conversations above. As per the rules, https://politicsandwar.com/rules/ , Nazi-esque things are not allowed and you'll likely be reported and banned if you use them.
  4. If we apply the label of "capitalism" very loosely, capitalism began roughly around the same time as the advent of agriculture. If we apply the label of capitalism more accurately, capitalism itself has only been around for the last five centuries or so. The hunter analogy is irrelevant to what capitalism actually is though. A better example would be of a tribal chief ordering the hunters to go out and hunt a bison whereupon the chief would take half the bison for himself and his own family and then provide the rest of the tribe with the other half whilst brainwashing the tribe into believing they should be thankful for their half-filled bellies since he had ordered them to go out and hunt the bison in the first place.
  5. Today
  6. Read Mein Kampf and then come back to me on how Hitler and the Nazis felt about socialism and trade unions. Heck, a significant portion of Hitler's Anti-Semitic beliefs have their origins within how Hitler felt about trade unions and strikes which occurred during WWI. Plus, the nationalist socialist element of the name doesn't actually mean they are socialist in origin. After all, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't exactly all that democratic and I would disagree with it being a republic either for that matter. Facism is a right-wing ideology that was supported by conservative reactionies within central europe and stood in opposition to the socialist movement which is a decidely left-wing ideology. Hitler himself along with the Nazi party themselves were invited into the halls of power upon the requests of the Conservative German right.
  7. Plenty republics, democracies and every other form of government have been guilty of crimes against humanity all the same. Even the so called land of the free wasn't free for significant minorities until just over a half-century ago.
  8. Francoist


    Maybe Dics and Idems want to help a fellow citizen.
  9. Look, as a newbie my intention was not to start a political debate as soon as I arrived here, I just asked an honest question. Instead of answering the question, some people stated a debate, it is not like I am afraid of political discussions as you can see, but my intention for starting this thread was different. Also, some people think that whichever role you chose in a game is exactly the role you have in real life, this is clearly wrong because they don't understand a game and roleplaying, for more information you can refer to the first page and stuff I said about GTA. The situation that pre-historic tribes had are pretty much all things that communists want. While communism claims that it is progressive, it is actually very reactionary, it wants to destroy many of human achievements like government, justice systems, banks and etc. You can say communism is against civilization and wants to return to pre-history societies. It is clear that you unfortunately didn't understand or properly read my previous post, so I am going to repeat it. We have a tribe here, all of them hunters, whenever somebody hunts they split it among all tribe members, this is the beginning situation for all pre-history tribes. Like any society, there are some lazy people in this tribe, they don't hunt (or hunt less) but still other people split their game with them. After a while the guys who hunt ask themselves why we should hunt when others are willing to split their game with us? It is better to let others hunt for me, so the number of active hunters is going to decrease while the number of lazy people are increased. So, there is no enough hunters in the tribe and there going to be a famine. Then all tribe members gather together to find a solution, what is their solution? Everybody hunt for themselves and keep the game for his family, there is no need for sharing. They are still a pre-historic tribe but people own their preys. In this way everybody had to hunt for themselves. This owning stuff is going to spread to other stuffs like spears and etc. The pre-historic tribe reached to the conclusion that not sharing the preys is the solution for the aforementioned problem, I never said tribes are lazy. Owing stuff was their idea. Now capitalism is based on the ownership, when the ownership began the capitalism also began. A hunter who hunts more is going to have a better life than the neighboring lazy hunter. Because the active hunter has more preys, he can exchange them for better equipment, so he has better life, better equipment, therefore the inequality began. Now, when the active hunter dies, his children has a better start then the lazy man's family, therefore the gap between them can be widened after a while, so we are going to have different classes, one poor one rich. It is primitive in nature, but the situation is quite close to what we have in a capitalistic country. The tribe had proto-communism and then proto-capitalism. Marx also got some inspirations from this proto-communist tribes. Now, what is the source for the stuff that I said? Unlike you who apparently get all of the information from the internet, I sometimes read books. The book who described this development of tribes is "The Story of Civilization by Will Durant, the first volume:Our Oriental Heritage, chapter one:The Establishment of Civilization". How capitalism is began and how was the primitive-communism is all described there. This is not some stuff that I invented myself, your lack of information about them just makes you the ignorant one here. A communist who does not believe in Karl Marx, is like a christian who does not believe in Jesus. You can consider these non-Marxist communists as a bunch of anarchists. They also never took power in any country, so they are irrelevant. As I said before, the the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of classes (and also eliminating religious beliefs) are some indications that communism is quite authoritarian and essentially evil. Communism wants total control of every aspect of a human life, it wants to impose its atheistic and materialistic views on everybody, it has even a dress code. If you are a rich people, then communists in the name equality will come to your doors and violently ask for all of your wealth that you and your previous generations made by hard working and then maybe shoot you. Fascism does not care about your religious beliefs or how you dress or your wealth, therefore clearly communism is more totalitarian than fascism. Communism creates equality by making all people poor (of course their leaders have quite a luxury life like Ceausescu). While in a capitalist nation, the middle and rich classes have a good situation. Fascism is based on the observation of human history (and even nature) that if you don't get strong, others will smash you. It is a bitter truth. While communism is just based on the fantasies that never going to work. Communism does not reward efficiency, therefore it is bound to fail. Since in a communist state, people does not get fired for inefficiency, the system is inefficient and it is eventually going to fail. Refer to "The End of the Cold War by David Pietrusza" for more information about how this inefficiency led to the Fall of Communism. You always accusing me of lying, but you are the one that denying obvious facts, the official party of Khmer rouge was "communist party of Kampuchea", it tells you everything about them. Khmer rouge also had support from other communist states like china. They actually got closer to the communist "heaven" than any other communist states, because the eventual goal of communism is to destroy civilization. This is why Khmer rouge is described as the purest form of Marxism (and communism). Communism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the society. As I mentioned before, there is lot more individuality in fascism in comparison to communism. A nation can be created from different ethnic groups, fascism concentrates on the nation, while the basis of Nazism is on race. The lack of anti-Semitic behavior in fascist countries that I mentioned shows that they considered Jews their own countrymen. I give you several examples of fascist states that weren't racist, so it clearly shows that fascism is not essentially racist. So a communist can criticize fascism for being authoritarian and he is not hypocrite but the other way around is not correct? I think you are the one that embarrasses himself more than anybody by stating falsehoods. Your post is full of misinformation, as I said to big brother, in a communist state, you don't have religious freedoms, you cannot accumulate wealth, you even have a dress code, so clearly communism is more extreme. Btw, Fascist states began in 1920's not 1930's, also as I said before economically communist states were all failures, while fascist states have a much better score in economy (for example refer to the Spanish economic miracle during Franco's reign). I gave some examples of non-racist fascist states and I repeat again the fascism bases itself on the nation not the race (unlike nazism). Your notion that fascism comes from socialism is also clearly false, others addressed that well enough.
  10. Welcome to the forums! How are you finding the game so far?
  11. Socialism, Caitalism, Fascism, Anarchy that banned-ism... Throw off your shackles and replace them for shinier ones in Chad Anarcho Monarchy. Voluntary God King leads us all and preserves the NAP.
  12. I have an idea. Roll back all the war changes made since the last war. Then put the shill dev team to making non war related updates.
  13. SAXON


    Dicn, Dicns, Dicnsn, Dicnsnc, Dicnsnck... 🤔 Idem, Idemo, Idemod, Idemodelije..
  14. You have read the first couple paragraphs for the NSDAP on wikipedia! Congrats, you are now an expert on the political history of Fascism, I have been promptly dabbed on. If you picture socialism as the moderate path of modern authoritarian economics (Which it is, look into any socialist countries and you realize that just because you're socialist does not mean you're a liberal), Fascism lies on the right wing while Communism lies on the left. They are both extreme points, and imo I think Fascism is definitely the more extreme of the two (Fascism in it's post 1930's incarnation has become a concept that is flawed on paper, while you can still make arguments in favor of a communist model), but denying it's ties to socialism instead of addressing them only hurts the socialist argument. I could argue this point for hours, but at this point it's starting to look like I'm defending Francoist, who has just been embarrassing himself these last few points. You can't defend racism by citing other people being racist too. If you want to make an argument supporting Fascism I'd stick with Franco (who was also quite an a-hole but your best bet for an argument supporting any modern Fascist governments) or anyone who didn't take power post WW1. Closing Statement (This forum is no longer funny, I'm out, yeet)- Everyone was an A-hole in the 1930s, other people's governments also having A-holes does not defend yours, and yes, communist memes are just straight up funnier.
  15. Have been quietly playing the game for a little over a month but wanted to start becoming more involved in the community. It's nice to meet you all.
  16. Finally, some people who will hopefully bother to fix bugs in this game. I've been waiting long enough
  17. People don't need to support a suggestion just because it benefits them. Regardless, this change is the right move, current war scores are fricked.
  18. Yesterday
  19. I can think of no alliance that would benefit from the changes proposed in the OP (save arrgh) more than TI. At the moment you have a very small, concentrated top tier which is highly suseptable to being pinned down at present. You should be the cheerleader for this proposal, not an opponent of it.
  20. No true communist would suggest a return to pre-historic society. The fact that there are some aspects of pre-historic society that one could find again in communist does not change the fact that there are also countless other aspects of communist society that didn't exist in prehistoric times and could not be achieved at that level of technology. As for your statement about laziness, you have no proof whatsoever to present and I should dismiss it completely as nonsense unless you do provide some proof. How do you imagine that there was any advancement from prehistoric society to agricultural and then modern society if the hunter-gatherers back then were just lazy and sat around doing nothing? How did agriculture come about in the first place if everyone living in prehistoric times was lazy and unwilling to work or think of new ideas? It doesn't make sense. And are you seriously suggesting that capitalism came into existence during prehistoric times? Are you joking? Why are you saying these things that anyone with an internet connection could invalidate within minutes, if not seconds? If you had bothered to actually learn about the things you're talking about before you talk about them, you'd know that the roots of modern capitalism originate during the renaissance. The core characteristics of capitalism are wage labor, private ownership of the means of production and market dependence. There was no wage labor during pre-historic times and no market to sell labor or goods. Arguably, means of production might have been privately owned but that becomes irrelevant when they consist of rocks and sticks you could find anywhere in nature. It's not the same as private ownership as it exists in modern capitalism. Your claims about the origins of capitalism are categorically false and you are lying to yourself and to others with that description of its origins. The only part of this segment of your post that has a shred of truth to it is what you wrote about communists and anarchists. However, it's only half the truth. You're ignoring the fact that there exists many different varieties of both communism and anarchism. The fact is that there are varieties of communism that reject the dictatorship of the proletariat in its entirety and seek solutions more similar to those typical anarchists seek. It follows from this fact that when you say "communists want the dictatorship of the proletariat" you are erroneously grouping every communist that does not want that in with those who do. It's simply incorrect and inaccurate. Some communists (like Marxist-Leninists) want the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some communists (like anarcho-communists) don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat. You should specify which variant you're referring to instead of wrongly putting them all in the same box, however convenient that might be for you. Your response is incorrect. While fascism and Nazism have characteristics that define them as inherently repressive and authoritarian, the same simply is not true of communism and to claim otherwise is contrary to the facts. Anyone that reads about communism, fascism and Nazism with a clear mind can attest to this. You're full of contradictions. You say you're not defending fascism (though you very clearly have been throughout this thread) and then in the next sentence you go on to claim that fascism works better than communism economically, which is a defense of fascism. Your defense isn't entirely wrong, depending on your perspective. In a purely theoretical and economical sense, fascism acts better for the few. In the same regard, communism acts better for the many. The forcible redistribution of wealth is a tenet of some forms of communism, you're right. And while there are some communists that would agree with the "physical elimination" of the bourgeois, there are also many that don't. Your generalizations just aren't accurate. As for the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Rouge were not communists. In fact, they have been described as anti-Marxist.They primarily subscribed to Khmer nationalism and autarky. The fact that you're not aware of this fact is just another display of your lack of knowledge about these matters. The Khmer Rouge were brought to power, with American and Chinese support, as a result of an American bombing campaign in Cambodia (targeting the People's Army of Vietnam) which killed thousands of civilians and enraged the civilian population against the allegedly US-supported government at the time, causing them to join the Khmer Rouge in droves. As it turns out, having your loved ones killed by American bombs tends to make people angry enough to want to take arms. Regardless, while the Khmer Rouge might have employed left-wing rhetoric at times they were in practice and "behind the scenes" xenophobic Khmer nationalists who in no way sought to actually institute socialism or communism. Even ignoring this, it is a joke that you, a fascist, is criticizing anyone for wanting to destroy cities and their inhabitants. Fascism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the state. You have zero credibility in criticizing such actions when you are clearly willing to support them yourself, for the right cause. No, a lack of anti-semitism does not prove that they weren't systematically racist. If Jews were the only people you could be racist against, maybe that would be true. But that's nowhere close to being the case. So, your defense against fascism being racist is "but look at all these other guys, they're racist too!"? That doesn't cut it. You're basically saying that racism does exist within fascism and other nationalist ideologies but because racism has been present in democracies, socialist states, and whatever else, that's okay. Here's the thing, it isn't. I condemn any racism in the Soviet Union, China, the United States, fascist Italy and wherever else. I never claimed that racism is limited to fascism but the fact that it isn't doesn't excuse the disgusting fact that fascists are often racists. It is not an argument against the connection between fascism and racism whatsoever, nor is the claim that looking down on non-Europeans predates fascism. Fascism perpetuates it, which is only further grounds for criticizing fascism. Here's a piece of advice, if you want to criticize anything you better make sure you're not criticizing someone else for something you yourself support. It ruins any credibility you might have and makes you look like a hypocrite.
  21. This!!!! I clicked "trade" and had to enter one, and I wasn't even buying anything, I was just checking prices. Why do I have to find the crosswalk. @Alex please fix
  22. Ah, I think I see at least one source of your confusion. The forums are the game. The rest is just numbers that we can refer to on said forums. Thus, "taking it seriously" as you put it is no more and no less than simply playing the game exactly as it should be played. Which is exactly what you're doing by voicing your opinions... just like they are. Both are valid opinions and if you're having fun defending your valid ideology then go for it; the fact that there's resistance just makes it an actual game as opposed to a circlejerk. So, I hope you now understand that you are, indeed, playing a game.
  23. ....You talkin shit about self-sufficiency and tanks? Missiles I understand, keep the project yet never stockpile without a specific plan for how they'll be used, but tanks? You might be referring to goofballs that produce food at sub 5-6k land now that I think about it, but the simplicity of raws direct to manufacturing is just sweet. Either way.... tanks?
  24. Honestly, @Akuryo @Grave you guys should declare war on each other and get a room. In that order. Both your opinions and insults don't mean shit until you've beaten the truth out of the other guy, thus proving your point in the only way that has any possible validity. After all, it'd give empirical experience, due to which the OP can be better theoretically analyzed.
  25. Thank you very much for your kindness and advice. I just wanted to play in a fascist alliance for roleplaying reasons, since this game is about politics I assumed some fascist alliances might be here as well. But others took things very seriously, they don't understand that they are playing in a game.
  26. This is quite sad tbh. He asks a legit question and everyone gangs up on him calling him a nazi and what not. It's a game, there can be fascist alliances as much as communist alliances. In fact, by definition, many normal PnW alliances are run by a fascist style government. @Francoist To answer your question, no. The majority of the players here prefer to pick something non-political to base their alliance on. We have anime based alliances, game based alliances, historical, among many other themes. When alliances attempt to get too political, they fail pretty quick. I would join an alliance that has good people, strong defenses, and a theme you enjoy. I hope this helped, and I apologize for your sour welcoming.
  27. Man. That was a joke. I am aware that it is a state and that it was the home of the revolution and what not. I was trying to lighten up the mood.
  28. Poor thing. He's like an old dude that constantly repeats the same story but it gets even more unbelievable every time he tells it.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.