|
NM-08: No NM-09: No B-11: No K-10: Yes JR-13: Yes Research: B, A, C
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2020 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
The last thing we need is more "sovereign" nations which engage in heterodox and revisionist takes on Marxism-Leninism. We are a democratic body but as much as possible the Comintern should be the vanguard of the interplanetary proletariat. In fact, as a representative of the Duma, I recommend that all present and future space habitats be entirely governed as subservient to the Comintern, rather than letting future breakaway states crop up and damaging the larger socialist project.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
To make it official, the Politburo publishes this proposal. The Comintern will appoint from representatives on Ascension Island as well as a representatives from the Lunar colony (in equal portion) a Lunar Planning Committee ("Lunplan") that will act as a steering agency for these initial points and to develop a specific administrative structure. The Lunar colony, rather than recognized as a sovereign entity and member state of the Comintern, will be developed as the first autonomous oblast directly administrated by the Comintern, showing true international solidarity rather than particularist interests. We hope this will be a model for all future interplanetary settlement, including for orbital habitats, and maintain a unified socialist project across the stars.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Luna: CDBA Gladio: BCAD Survey Ships: AB Survey Priorities: BCA S-17: Yes F-18: No F-19: Yes JR-20: No A-21: Yes S-22: Yes Y-23: Yes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 14:31
|
|
|
Serf posted:What reasoning do we have for denying our Lunar comrades the right to self-organization? The arguments thus far seem particularly thin. Suppose we vote down their petition, where does that leave them? Will we send soldiers to Luna to enforce this decision? What if they decide to reject it? Will we have our first interplanetary conflict so early in this new era? We have seen that this Gladio organization, whatever it may be, is present in some form on the moon; this conflict would provide them with plenty of opportunities for further sabotage or even for recruitment. It seems to us that this is a dangerous precedent to set, both morally and strategically. "Self-organization" is different than "sovereignty", and no more are we denying them the right to self-organize than we would deny miners the right to self-organize. Much like the miners, the workers will be represented, but we need strong central planning for a project of this immense scale, might like the great five year plans of old. The proposal is not to quash this, but to make it a joint project. It is not rule from below, but rather joint-rule, and a dissolution of the idea of "nationality" as being any sort of tie. While I hear some say that Lunar autonomy is not nationalistic in any sense, I very much doubt that will remain forever the case, as evidenced by history, and sovereignty is a very different matter entirely. There is also a reason it is an autonomous oblast as a unit of organization, with its own government and organization and a joint planning committee to oversee it. The danger of particularism is exactly because of what you describe. GLADIO is exactly the kind of threat that will take advantage of the fact that Lunagrad is sovereign. Without any joint oversight or involvement, political turmoil and isolation may create new divisions between the terrestrial based Comintern and this would-be Lunar Republic. It seems it is not enough that the world be shattered, but we shall shatter ourselves against the stars and regolith as well. Freudian posted:Until such a time as the nations of Earth are willing to take that step, they should not unilaterally impose it on the peoples of space. We must step forward together, or not at all. You'll find us in the Soviet Union very much in agreement that a unified commonwealth of different nations, republics, and workers is precisely the dream of the Communist International.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Zurai posted:There's really no justification to uproot over a million people for a second time just to make numbers on a spreadsheet line up infinitesimally better. you vastly underestimate the audacity of Soviet central planning, comrade
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
We propose a shift in industrial focus to mining, by taking the industrial capacity we are using for the Socialist Aid Program and orienting it towards conventional neutronium mining until our modernization program is complete. With it being such a resounding success, we can afford to now work on building the future, instead of mending the past.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
We should not mistake charity for socialism. Spending on capacity on something that has driven us into an unsustainable position helps no one but those would see us fail and backslide. We can ill-afford to lose the initiative to chart a new interplanetary era, especially because most of the work has already been done and will continue to be done after we have righted ourselves. If our industry was sabotaged, we would be put in a position where millions more lives could be endangered, as well as the entire Comintern project.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
Ship Names: DEACBGF Research: CADB Socialist Aid Program: BCA I-24, Repeal the No First Strike Doctrine: Yes A-25, Service Medals: Yes K-26, Adoption of a Revolutionary Rank Structure: Yes F-27, Drunken Industrial Bear: Yes F-28, Research Optimization Cleanup: Yes F-29, A Ten-Year Service Medal: Yes L-30, Low-Gravity Infrastructure: No I-31, Five-Year Plans: Yes H-32, The Mars Program: Yes N-33, the TNE Reuse, Reduce, and Recycling Act: No N-34, the Public Broadcasting Service: Yes S-35, FESTER: Yes A-36, Space Autonomy Model: Yes A-37, A Common Language for Space: Yes
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
There are also those that suggest a lander. We second the urgings to play it cautious. A low orbit passover before completing the original survey mission seems within parameters, however, but only if there are no significant risks involved. Otherwise we should leave any extraterrestrial findings for a second survey team equipped and prepared for the task, after the next legislative session.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
Our caucus in the Kremlin has two recommendations of our own. [1] Lunplan Expansion: with the TNE deposits on Luna, a major expansion of infrastructure to accommodate a larger population there. We should prioritize the resources we have the most access to until we have reached a critical mass of resource extraction, while building up as a secondary venture our Martian expansion. Since our focus is already on construction and mining, this should not greatly hamper our larger five year plan. For this reason, we'd oppose any other settlement efforts at this time, though that's not an actual proposal in itself. [2] Ribbon Medals: We propose the following three ribbons for "firsts" within the Comintern. These should be retroactively awarded to all who qualify.  The Pathfinder Medal, also known as the Cobb Ribbon, will be awarded to all members of a first landed expedition on another planet.  The Architect of the Socialist Future Medal, also known as the Order of Lysenko, will be granted for those who spend 5 years on an extraplanetary outpost in an administrative position for the Comintern, as a reward for their service away from home building interplanetary socialism. This will only be granted to those who left their home planet, which down the line might include others other than Earth. The First Contact Medal will be granted to all those in an expedition wherein first contact is made with an extant extraterrestrial polity.In response and approval of the proposal for a new Comintern structure, we have two additional recommendations. [3] The designation of the Comintern be changed to the Communist Interplanetary, though the abbreviation remains the same. [4] We request a commitment by all member polities of the Comintern, especially if other proposals to invite India, Japan, and others who have had space-facing ambitions, to not create an alternative to MOSA, and that all space travel within the Communist Interplanetary be under MOSA's remit. (I don't know the mechanics of Aurora, but the idea is to have no true "civilian" space services and have it all be central/state-owned, or at least subject to our directives if that would be extremely bad to do mechanically in the game.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 00:37
|
|
|
On the subject of this Indigenous Nations Reparations Act, many of us in the Soviet Union is somewhat alarmed that we again are moving towards particularist interests rather than a unified socialist future. What defines an "indigenous nation" by this metric? What happens to the people who may have lived centuries on the land that is now to be returned? We understand that the United States has its own circumstances that should and could be addressed, but this would add fire to every nationalist breakaway movement across Eurasia, not to mention the major ethnic and tribal conflicts in many African nations. We can wax poetic about the maps being drawn by colonial powers, but our goal should be to build one commonwealth across the planets.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
We should make it clear that we have no opposition to the idea of reparations, or most of the planks of the proposal. It is specifically the two planks of returning land and sovereignty that we find a troublesome political prospect, because the support of national and ethnic divisions and interests has historically been a major threat to our shared future. Our vision should be that of the late comrade Tito, of a multinational and multiethnic shared unity. I appreciate the intent seems primarily aimed at relatively modern colonial states like Australia and the United States (and we would imagine many in Latin America would apply as well) but we think the language as given is too broad, and it doesn't clarify under which circumstances that these divisions be made. An argument could be made for nearly every inch of your United States to be returned to these newly sovereign indigenous nations, including some of our fellow members states, such as yourself or the Delmarva Commonality. Consider also the Black Belt: Do these other victims of imperialism lose their own right to self-determination due to the vagaries of history, the land they occupy given to another after in many cases they have claimed it themselves? At a certain point, we will have to become the arbiters of these claims, and at the point where we decide which tribes are and aren't legitimate I feel we lose the thread of what we are building towards.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
zanni posted:Secondly, the assertion 'give the land back' means mass resettlement of anyone that isn't part of a native nation. I thought this should be obvious, but the INRA's question is about ownership, not inhabitation. The native nations would get the ability to choose what to do on their own land again, choose how to use natural resources, choose what is allowable. Gone would be the days of settlers showing up with unconsented 'official' plans and an army of police at their back, ignoring the lack of consent from native nations to use their lands. I gave a specific example for a reason, so let me go even more specific: Consider Jackson, Mississippi. A center of struggle for Black radicals for the dream of a African-American polity. It is also traditionally the land of the Choctaw Nation, which was resettled in what is now the Five Nations Confederation. Do we as the Comintern demand that the land and resources that was acquired in struggle by these radicals be returned in stewardship to the Choctaw Nation? I understand that in your view that does not necessarily mean displacement, but it does mean a denial of self-determination and self-governance, as it will replace their structures with another's. This is what we see as the inherent contradiction of particularist fights such as this. At a certain point, history will provide contradictory claims, and we feel that this ignores the promise of a future without such national barriers. Just as we resisted the idea of a fully sovereign Lunagrad, so too do we in principle oppose the formation of more sovereign states within the Comintern, or providing statutory justification. You may think my viewpoint is Eurocentric, but you stated this applies to every continent, so forgive me if I consider it from the context of my own and how the law as given would affect us politically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:"Returning lands to the native nations" certainly suggests that connotation, particularly in regard to the Americas. Let's not pretend this conclusion is somehow unreasonable given the rather sweeping proposals being set forth. The new proposal does not include that original language (necessarily, it's more conditional, as we understand it). At least for myself, it's to my satisfaction, and I hope at least this discussion was productive, it's good to be reminded that democracy is more than just voting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
One thing I'd caution against, as someone who spoke against the proposal as it was originally written, is thinking that a classless future will completely flatten all such divisions and history. PurpleXVI astutely observes that there is still a danger of disenfranchisement. Instead of a housing block, a more pressing example I can imagine is a power plant or heavy industry. We can point to "democracy" as being the answer but we must avoid majoritarian tyranny. This gets to a deeper question of what we envision that future to look like. In the Soviet Union, a conscious decision was made to make it a union of many nations and ethnicities. We want to mirror that in the Comintern; our objections have been on political, not principled, grounds. We have to have more than good intentions, but sharpened policy. Do not be mistaken: There have been great moral failures in our history, and even present. The Russian Empire was a colonial project, and the transition to socialism has had its missteps. We would engage in this commission and process as outlined earnestly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 08:22
|
|
|
SK-38, Expand Interkosmos Academy - YES SK-39, Repeal Five-Year Plans - NO HC-40, Integrate North America - YES S-41, Research and Deploy Spying Technology - YES A-42, Surveil the Mars Ruins - YES JR-43, The Extraplanetary Focus Discovery Act - YES I-44, Administrative Overhaul - YES I-45, Diplomatic Overtures - NO P-46, Venera Initiative 2.0 - NO NM-47, the Trans-Newtonian Global Network Project - YES F-48, Organizational Capacity - YES F-49, Long-Term Research Efficiency - YES P-50, X-COM - NO Z-51, IRPA - YES I-52, Armed Spacecraft Development - YES W-53, Lunplan Expansion - YES W-54, Medals - YES W-55, Rename the Comintern - YES H-56, More Medals - YES
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Silly Soviet roleplay aside, really my only preference for focusing on Mars after Luna right now was purely because, I mean, come on. It's the red planet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 02:40
|
|