Jump to content

Burninati0n

Comrade
  • Content count

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Burninati0n last won the day on April 4

Burninati0n had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

6 Followers

About Burninati0n

  • Rank
    Comrade
  • Birthday 11/27/1993

Personal Information

  • Location
    New Jersey, USA
  • Gender
    Male
  • Political Stance
    Council Comm / LeftCom

NationStates Information

  • Military Rank
    Sailor

Recent Profile Visitors

656 profile views
  1. As I proposed embassies with the SLU before they offered (independently), I am for this. I urge regionmates to join me in supporting this embassy request.
  2. I'm not sure what regional leadership has done with this, but I'd propose a charter amendment for exceptions such as this if it has not already been done.
  3. Burninati0n

    SoL 3.1: What is Authority?

    I feel like we talked about a similar topic recently, Freien. Coincidence, orrrr..?
  4. I am proposing the construction of embassies between the Social Liberal Union (SLU) and our region, The Internationale. > The SLU is large [160 nations, 63 endorsements on the WA Delegate] and active. > The SLU is leftist; from the WFE: "A region for democratic socialists and socially minded liberals. The SLU is a region dedicated to democracy, social welfare, equality and freedom of opinion; debate is encouraged." > The SLU is tagged socialist. > The SLU is involved in the ILC, along with TI and the DSA. The SLU maintains embassies with fellow NSLeft regions of DSA and TLA. Relations between TI and the SLU were low at one point when the SLU applied to join the NSLeft, but I think that enough time has passed and tensions eased that it makes sense to open an embassy. (TI is nonsectarian after all....)
  5. Comrades, Antifa, an NS gameplay organization that acts against Fascist regions on Nationstates and that The Internationale is a participating member of, has initiated the process to remove Libcom as a member region. You can follow the links left by Vippertooth explaining this action on Antifa's RMB. I have screenshotted the information below, as well. As always, vetoes do not count unless they are explained. The vote will close in 10 day -- it will be up to the next General Council to administer the results of this vote.
  6. Nominations are now closed. Congratulations to the new General Council: WA Delegate: @Soviet Potheads Information: @Mansuetus External Affairs: @Aarnonia Activities: @Asturies-Llion
  7. Nominations accepted: WA Delegate: Soviet Potheads (Social Democrat Revisionist) Information: Mansuetus External Affairs: Aarnonia Activities: Asturies-llion I nominate @Freien for Activities. I also invite @World Anarchic Union, Cantabria, and SLC [for some reason I can't find Canta's or SLC's nation to tag you XD] to accept a general nomination to pick one of these offices to run for.
  8. Thank you for your nomination, Aarn, but I believe I have served to my ability. I have implemented my ideas to the extent that I had them, and I believe it is time for new blood. I must therefore decline the nomination for WA Delegate.
  9. I nomnomnominate @Freien for External Affairs. I nomnomnominate @Asturies-Llion for WA Delegate.
  10. Why ever would you do that?!?! Let's get all positions to have at least 2 nominees so there's a vote. I like votes, votes are good. I like votes, votes are good.
  11. The terms for the current GC are expiring -- I'm actually a little off on timing for this thread. (Oops.) That's why the nomination period isn't quite perfect. Don't wanna forget, though. Please nominate candidates here. Positions are the Councilor of Activities, Councilor of Information, Councilor of External Affairs, and Comrade WA Delegate. Please see this thread for a more complete description of the roles, if you are interested in running. If you are nominated by someone else, you must accept the nomination by posting your acceptance here for it to be valid.
  12. Burninati0n

    Hi!

    Welcome!
  13. Easy to ask, hard to answer. By living in society, each of us depends on others for our day-to-day experience. We owe others for inventing the technology upon which we rely, for producing and transporting the things we consume, for teaching us, for so many other things. It is, therefore, legitimate that society can require some things from us in turn. The questions of what can fall under this category, how these things can be demanded, and who can do the demanding remain open under this framework. But in short, the interdependence between the individual and the group -- specifically that for which the individual owes the group -- is at least a potential basis for legitimate authority for the group to make enforceable demands of the individual. I should note that there is some parallel between what I have said and what Engels says: "Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?" I answer this question with a "no," given what I said previously -- co-dependence amongst people does, in my opinion, create situations where the group (properly understood as workers councils) has the legitimate authority to make certain demands upon the individual. In that sense, authority springs from organization in quite practically the way Engels goes on to explain.
  14. Well I'd say what I support looks like a government because I do think that these councils can justly/legitimately exercise coercion backed by threat of violence against a member of society. That's typically the hallmark ability of a government. I take it that most anarchists do not support any institution having this power. In this sense, I don't think that I fall under what Engels is calling "anarchists" here. But anyway, I was mainly concerned with Engels' definition of anarchy in context, but I think Freien's answer about context possibly makes sense. Much of the anarchist literature with which I am familiar is more recent, ie. Rudolf Rocker, for example.
  15. Although I am unsure if I should be considered an anarchist (I think not -- the kinds of workers councils I'd support look a lot like local governments), I do wonder if Engels is here committing an error by banking on an ambiguity on the word "authority," or even committing an equivocation. Do anarchists oppose the kind of authority Engels says they oppose? (And even if they do actually, do they have to to remain anarchists?) Engels says: "Authority...means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination." I am not convinced that these two "halves" of the definition are equivalent, that both are necessary, and that anarchists do oppose or must oppose both halves. (At least, not without further discussion.) Also, Freien never gets any love for posting these. Thanks, Freien
×