TheLastJacobite
No Commies
Scandinavia has never been dismembered. Even traitors like the Kongo Society failed of their own incompetence, not out of the successful intervention of a foreign power.
Unbroken and unbowed!
I have some
Capto Iugulum Background Thread
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
I have some
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Spoiler :
Ahh, yes, Brazil. Colleague Mannerheim has dismissed those reports.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
Reply to Discussion on Game Thread: On the Ideological Tensions within PADA.
-
Save when actually referring to biographies of the saints (a specialised context), the term hagiography is used, particularly in the world of historians, as a perjorative term to refer to works that are percieved as uncritical and overly reverential of the subject. I used the term to imply you were too uncritical of PADA in your earlier statement.
-
Anyways, in my opinion its quite impossible for PADA to become a forum for discussion between moralists and proletarists/liberals, precisely because there is no common ontological ground. Since both ideologies fundamentally disagree on such foundational understandings as the nature of man and all that implies (moralism seeing man as inherently flawed and inclined as such to evil actions, with society thus requiring an objective moral order above man in order for good to flourish; liberalism and proletarism seeing man as perfectible, with the consequence that both hold that man can create a perfect society, a utopia, on earth) no real accord of substance can possibly be reached, although of course on specific issues both groups may agree. There is simply no common understanding from which a consensus could be reached.
This brings me of course to the point that PADA's fatal flaw is that it bound itself within an ideological conception at its founding. This basically ensured that it could never hope to be a unifying force in the America's since any work on issues would inevitably be subsumed in promoting the organisations ideology, which itself would end up being defined by whoever ended up dominating the institution. The architects of PADA effectively made this departure of powers inevitable since they sowed the seeds of division and ideological discord at the very beginning. A division of course which will only be entrenched so long as protestants and liberals continue to attack moralism in the manner they have (namely attacking moralism because it emerged from Catholicism, protestants could easily accept moralism but they instead attack it for that reason, and liberals obviously feel the need to engage in the hypocrisy I previously mentioned because of the unashamedly religious dimension of moralism, which is what they secretly despise behind all the public words I suppose
[particularly considering no latin american moralist state to date has suppressed opposition political groups, the only time a moralist state has intervened is when the liberals have seen the need to bring violence to the streets])
-
Save when actually referring to biographies of the saints (a specialised context), the term hagiography is used, particularly in the world of historians, as a perjorative term to refer to works that are percieved as uncritical and overly reverential of the subject. I used the term to imply you were too uncritical of PADA in your earlier statement.
-
Anyways, in my opinion its quite impossible for PADA to become a forum for discussion between moralists and proletarists/liberals, precisely because there is no common ontological ground. Since both ideologies fundamentally disagree on such foundational understandings as the nature of man and all that implies (moralism seeing man as inherently flawed and inclined as such to evil actions, with society thus requiring an objective moral order above man in order for good to flourish; liberalism and proletarism seeing man as perfectible, with the consequence that both hold that man can create a perfect society, a utopia, on earth) no real accord of substance can possibly be reached, although of course on specific issues both groups may agree. There is simply no common understanding from which a consensus could be reached.
This brings me of course to the point that PADA's fatal flaw is that it bound itself within an ideological conception at its founding. This basically ensured that it could never hope to be a unifying force in the America's since any work on issues would inevitably be subsumed in promoting the organisations ideology, which itself would end up being defined by whoever ended up dominating the institution. The architects of PADA effectively made this departure of powers inevitable since they sowed the seeds of division and ideological discord at the very beginning. A division of course which will only be entrenched so long as protestants and liberals continue to attack moralism in the manner they have (namely attacking moralism because it emerged from Catholicism, protestants could easily accept moralism but they instead attack it for that reason, and liberals obviously feel the need to engage in the hypocrisy I previously mentioned because of the unashamedly religious dimension of moralism, which is what they secretly despise behind all the public words I suppose
[particularly considering no latin american moralist state to date has suppressed opposition political groups, the only time a moralist state has intervened is when the liberals have seen the need to bring violence to the streets])
I think you too may have a somewhat rosy view- this year there were several cases of violence and suppressive behaviour being conducted by people of ostensibly moralist affiliations.
Regarding the conflict between non-moralist and moralist, I suspect that any downturns in relations have had something to do with a general fear of explicitly religiously-motivated governance, when that religion holds views contrary to your own.
Regarding the conflict between non-moralist and moralist, I suspect that any downturns in relations have had something to do with a general fear of explicitly religiously-motivated governance, when that religion holds views contrary to your own.
ShadowNX
Prince
Just a quick reply on why i decided to withdraw from PADA
Venezuelan withdrawal from PADA
Well to be honest I didn’t know that Venezuela was part of PADA, I only realized our membership during the last update. I actually don’t know anything about PADA and what it stands for. Since I have been in charge of Venezuela for about 2 turns now and don’t see any benefit from the organization and with the resent update showing that the Government/people don’t want to be part of PADA I decided to withdraw.
Also since the people are all riled up over other decisions I made, by doing this I hope to off-set some of the anger and balance things out.
Venezuelan withdrawal from PADA
Well to be honest I didn’t know that Venezuela was part of PADA, I only realized our membership during the last update. I actually don’t know anything about PADA and what it stands for. Since I have been in charge of Venezuela for about 2 turns now and don’t see any benefit from the organization and with the resent update showing that the Government/people don’t want to be part of PADA I decided to withdraw.
Also since the people are all riled up over other decisions I made, by doing this I hope to off-set some of the anger and balance things out.
theDright
King
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 605
I don't see how liberalism's foundation implies that man is perfectible, and thus utopia can be created. Liberalism in my mind removes the threat of government, on a whim, declaring that the conviction and practice of a opinion, religion, or trade is unlawful. It places most moral decisions in the private sphere, where they can exist free of the pressures placed upon them by worldly decisions. I see great cognitive dissonance between moralism's 'foundation' and it's practice. Acknowledging man is immoral, yet trying to create a worldly, moral utopia?
Proletarism, on the other hand, seems to pursue worldly utopia, without mandating any religious doctrine. However, proletarism definitely does not equal liberalism.
Protestants do not hate Moralism because it is a Catholic ideology, they oppose it because a moralist society (as indicated by everything I have read) would not allow freedom of religion and would be biased towards one specific group of the population. Also, Moralism seems to have a predilection for abandoning democratic governance as soon as possible, when it has been so successful in the the New World overall. Moralists, as a group, do not try to engage on practical issues of policy, never abandoning their goal of using extralegal and illegal methods to create their new order.
The Chilean president repressed protests for representative government.
The Nicaraguan president illegally disbanded the Congress and threw political opponents in jail.
Political opposition =/= violence. Disenfranchised, unhappy people =/= violence.
Proletarism, on the other hand, seems to pursue worldly utopia, without mandating any religious doctrine. However, proletarism definitely does not equal liberalism.
Protestants do not hate Moralism because it is a Catholic ideology, they oppose it because a moralist society (as indicated by everything I have read) would not allow freedom of religion and would be biased towards one specific group of the population. Also, Moralism seems to have a predilection for abandoning democratic governance as soon as possible, when it has been so successful in the the New World overall. Moralists, as a group, do not try to engage on practical issues of policy, never abandoning their goal of using extralegal and illegal methods to create their new order.
The Chilean president repressed protests for representative government.
The Nicaraguan president illegally disbanded the Congress and threw political opponents in jail.
Political opposition =/= violence. Disenfranchised, unhappy people =/= violence.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Liberalism/proletarism/etc are all materialist philosophies and thus are fundamentally incompatible with moralist doctrine. Why bother seeking atonement of the spirit when you are concerned with the lot of men in the here and now?
Say what you will about Catholics but Jehoshua is right on the money. If you care about your second life then materialist philosophies are extravagant. For example:
Why should this matter to anyone who seeks a closer relationship to God? It seems like advocating freedom of religion as an inviolable right is counterintuitive to a demographic group that literally believes people who think differently are fundamentally, irrevocably screwed. And moralists don't believe in a worldly utopia, they simply see this world as a vessel, a midway, a path-inbetween here and the next life. If this is your philosophy, then everything in this world that doesn't have to do with your spiritual well-being amounts to a waste of time. And that includes fussing about taxation and the rights to free assembly, let alone the plight of the workers compared to the capitalists. We are all judged in the end anyway, why bother? etc.
edit: So why does Jehoshua's Pope bother with talking politics and writing lengthy essays on proletarism? Because - nominally, at least - the Pope is in the business of saving people. Now I don't go in for that God stuff myself but I can respect that Jehoshua plays the part well. Maybe he's aided in this by his steadfast Catholicism, but I don't care. He understands exactly what his role is and exactly why traditional institutions of religion are threatened by modern thinkers.
Say what you will about Catholics but Jehoshua is right on the money. If you care about your second life then materialist philosophies are extravagant. For example:
TheDright said:
Why should this matter to anyone who seeks a closer relationship to God? It seems like advocating freedom of religion as an inviolable right is counterintuitive to a demographic group that literally believes people who think differently are fundamentally, irrevocably screwed. And moralists don't believe in a worldly utopia, they simply see this world as a vessel, a midway, a path-inbetween here and the next life. If this is your philosophy, then everything in this world that doesn't have to do with your spiritual well-being amounts to a waste of time. And that includes fussing about taxation and the rights to free assembly, let alone the plight of the workers compared to the capitalists. We are all judged in the end anyway, why bother? etc.
edit: So why does Jehoshua's Pope bother with talking politics and writing lengthy essays on proletarism? Because - nominally, at least - the Pope is in the business of saving people. Now I don't go in for that God stuff myself but I can respect that Jehoshua plays the part well. Maybe he's aided in this by his steadfast Catholicism, but I don't care. He understands exactly what his role is and exactly why traditional institutions of religion are threatened by modern thinkers.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Also, be aware that Brazilian Moralism is a bit different from Papal Moralism. Democracy isn't going anywhere, and neither are the other freedoms (with the exception of alcoholism and drugs). In an ideal world, Moralists would have no threat from democracy, because it is what the people want. So, their rule would be everlasting by the will of the people. What people seem to forget is that some of these dictatorships that are Moralist are elected, not coup'd. And Uruguay has been a major democratic Moralist force.
Moralism does not cater specifically to any group but instead nurtures the whole of civilization. This is a problem that is inherent in the liberalism of the world, where party politics and proletarism aim at specific sectors of society, shunning others. Moralism is an ideology for a much more religious world than our own. Even protestants and Muslims can see the benefits of Moralistic thought and practice in everyday government. It just so happens that Moralism has risen out of a majority Catholic world, but it is by no means exclusionary by nature.
Moralism does not cater specifically to any group but instead nurtures the whole of civilization. This is a problem that is inherent in the liberalism of the world, where party politics and proletarism aim at specific sectors of society, shunning others. Moralism is an ideology for a much more religious world than our own. Even protestants and Muslims can see the benefits of Moralistic thought and practice in everyday government. It just so happens that Moralism has risen out of a majority Catholic world, but it is by no means exclusionary by nature.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,284
It is liberalisms ontology, namely its fundamental view on the nature of man. (proceeds from certain enlightenment philosophers incidentally) It may not explcitly in its political doctrine call for some worldly utopia, but this utopian teleology is implicit nonetheless, xince it proposes that liberalism through the propagation of its principles and the democratic system would ensure peace if it became a universal system (democratic peace theory, you might like to read Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis)
Except that moralism does not propose some kind of moral utopia or perfect society. Rather moralism proposes that a right ordering of society, with reference to God and an objective moral order is necessary to restrain the evil tendencies inherent to human nature and ensure the common good for the society as a whole is more often upheld than it is not both spiritually (As Crezth noted) and also temporally. Moralism understands that perfection in this life is impossible, but they also hold that this does not mean men should not strive to better themselves while also working out their salvation in the next. Moralism is concerned not with economic principles, or the interests of a specific class, but rather with what is in the best interests of society as a whole through the lens of faith. Here I note, to refer to Iggy here where he questions whether I too have a too rosy picture, one must make the distinction between individuals and the philosophical system (or the state), so when I said the state had been relatively restrained, I make no claims on actions of individuals within the CI world.
I did not say it equaled liberalism, I said it had an identical ontological foundation. They are two heads of the same philosophical beast, separate, but the same in nature.
Going on from what Crezth said at any rate, moralism of course in those areas where it is primarily Catholic, does not see religious freedom as being an inviolate right precisely because error in Catholic thought has no intrinsic rights (indeed ideals can't really have rights). One could see then how democracy could be seen ambivalently depending on the context (say if proletarism was present in strength, or the liberal movement particularly disdainful of the democratic process) in any given nation by moralists who hold this idea, even though democracy is not fundamentally against moralism. Its more that Democracy is not taken as some absolute good as it is in liberalism. Protestants at any rate, along this conception of error having no rights, have no "right" to preach that which is erroneous to the moralist Catholic (as an aside I note that Catholicism does not teach that non-Catholics are all irrevokably damned, ergo invincible ignorance [not to be confused with the fallacy of the same name] and the mercy of God not to mention the fact one is only assured of salvation once one has passed their particular judgement, but it does teach that outside of the Church as the mystical body of Christ there is no salvation). Afterall men are held to have the right to the Truth! On the same token however, Catholicism does teach that the faith must be freely chosen, and that certain fundamental liberties exist that are God-given and inherent to human nature (ideas may not have rights, but human being do), amongst which is the liberty to choose God or to choose or not to do so according to ones free will. Thus moralist governments in Catholic lands where Catholicism is the foundational faith on which moralism stands (since moralist principles are not exclusively Catholic and can be grafted onto other religious foundations) on the whole have tolerated protestantism and protestants in respect of this ideal, even as they proclaim the Catholic faith as true and establish it as the bedrock of society. Thus it's only been the case (so far) that the Thackers of the world, who attack the Catholic faith and actively seek the destruction of the Catholic moralist way, that have invoked the real ire of the state, and thats not because they are protestant per se, but because the nature of what they are doing is subversive and seen as a direct attack on truth. Even in these cases though, the response has not been fanatical on the states part as we see with Thackers lenient treatment, although of course individual moralists can and have fallen into the error of fanaticism (mankind is afterall flawed), as we see in Argentina and Paraguay, and acted in ways contrary to Catholic teaching and the philosophies of moralism (although that is inflamed by the Argentine states actions towards the thacker incident methinks, its general attitude, and the general promotion of things Catholics see as immoral spewing out from Argentina like some miasma from the thames) even as the state itself has been less inclined to such passions.
In short, these trends I think show that moralism as a philosophy tolerates on the whole those who disagree with it, but that it says to them that if they have nothing to contribute to its positive vision of society, then they shouldn't be so surprised when moralists ignore what they have to say or what they want and continue to go on their own way. Thus in a moralist state a liberal for example can believe in liberalism and be a member of a liberal party and participate in the political system, but when that same liberal party becomes obstructive and provides nothing positive, and only seeks to attack the legitimacy and basis of the licitly elected government, then a moralist government depending on the political situation would have no problem in doing as Nicaragua did in the interests of the greater good (while still allowing liberals to exist I note, the state thus far has not suppressed liberalism, merely bypassed their obstructionism) and ensuring that society can continue to move forward. On the same token then, moralism on the whole, where liberals respect the system and don't hypocritically attack elected moralist governemnts legitimacy and right to do as they do, and don't act obstructionisticially... then you see peaceful democracy (such as in Uruguay) and no contradiction between that system for choosing political leaders, and moralism.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
lurker's comment: I find it amusing that certain people are leaving the PADA because (presumably/partially) their voices are not heard, but they never post about any issue except the fact that their voices are not heard.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Communication is a two-way street, buddy boy.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
Why did Brazil leave PADA in the first place?
Portugal invaded Jamaica.
Portugal was forced to sign the Treaty of Lisbon as punishment for invading a PADA member state.
Portugal left before PADA sent forces to Jamaica, so they handed the island over to the UPRA. I'm still not sure how intentional this was, but Vinland now makes a tradition of leaving burning bags of dog poo outside the Portuguese embassy every few weeks*.
Jamaica's legitimate government was replaced by a proletarist puppet state of the UPRA.
Vinland and several other PADA nations aren't yet aware of how willing the new de facto Jamaican government is to cooperate. Thus, we attempt to diplomatically pressure the proletarists into holding elections.
Brazil acts unilaterally and without consulting the rest of PADA, and invades Jamaica.
Brazilian marines get thrashed by the massive UPRA army in Jamaica.
PADA criticizes Brazil's rashness, attacking before any negotiations take place and thus poisoning the well for a peaceful solution. Hindsight would prove that a peaceful resolution is impossible, but that was not clear at the time.
Brazil declares PADA to be prole-lovers, abruptly leaves the organization amidst much bad feelings.
*Probably not true.
Portugal was forced to sign the Treaty of Lisbon as punishment for invading a PADA member state.
Portugal left before PADA sent forces to Jamaica, so they handed the island over to the UPRA. I'm still not sure how intentional this was, but Vinland now makes a tradition of leaving burning bags of dog poo outside the Portuguese embassy every few weeks*.
Jamaica's legitimate government was replaced by a proletarist puppet state of the UPRA.
Vinland and several other PADA nations aren't yet aware of how willing the new de facto Jamaican government is to cooperate. Thus, we attempt to diplomatically pressure the proletarists into holding elections.
Brazil acts unilaterally and without consulting the rest of PADA, and invades Jamaica.
Brazilian marines get thrashed by the massive UPRA army in Jamaica.
PADA criticizes Brazil's rashness, attacking before any negotiations take place and thus poisoning the well for a peaceful solution. Hindsight would prove that a peaceful resolution is impossible, but that was not clear at the time.
Brazil declares PADA to be prole-lovers, abruptly leaves the organization amidst much bad feelings.
*Probably not true.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
I like the idea of UPRA marines sailing into Kingston harbour just as the Portuguese pull out and yelling 'yoink' as they steal an entire island right out from PADA's noses.
Also, quick question to EQ: do you still have the stats from 1900 or earlier years? I was interested in seeing just how much the world has changed in terms of total economic power of various nations and things like that - I couldn't remember what Spain's total EP was in 1900, for example.
Europe
Spoiler :
The Americas
Spoiler :
Africa/Middle East
Spoiler :
Far East
Spoiler :
