How would you describe this system?

[BR7]

They are too broad.

All of them? Too broad for what? By whose judgment?

Just because someone is an authoritarian who runs the economy on corporitism does not make them a fascist.

It does according to this definition I linked earlier. And probably according to Mussolini.

Not really. Nationalism requires the concept of a nation. I'm not aware Eve groups have anything roughly approximating that.

Groups that conquer territory, rule it with sovereignty, and wage war on similar groups are not nations?

That would be considered a social clique.

A social clique existing outside the game that serves as a marker of "group" and "non-group" in-game when actual racial information is not available. A marker that one can't readily change once playing Eve, as counterintellignece sweeps try to catch people joining SA to join Goonfleet.

None. Mike controls the board, but the services it provides are optional- he is as much a dictator as a restaurant manager who reserves the right to refuse service.

That's the real-life context. In the context of the board, you don't get to opt out, since doing so leaves the context of the board. And within the board, he is more or less a dictator. An Emperor, if you will. With the restaurant example, the manager can, within the context of the restaurant (and the bounds of the law, which are rather more restrictive than those that govern forum owners), determine what service, if any, a customer will receive. In real life, the customer can leave, but leaving the restaurant leaves the context of the manager's domain.

...Yeah? That still means that the government (whatever it may be) must own and distribute all goods. Since the corporation control game mechanics don't allow that, Eve corporations aren't communistic.

How would that differ from a normal black market?

Where did black markets come in? I thought this line of conversation was about whether communism has both economic and political requirements. Also, I'm not sure what "that" refers to, so I'm not sure how it differs.

How big is the area they cannot regulate?

If you mean corporations, The CEO/directors/etc. can't access/otherwise control private property. In order to set up a communist system, they would have to.

Since when does socialism not count if the people involved are related?

Because than all families would count as communist?

Note that communism != socialism. Families that pool resources for common use are indeed socialistic according to the definition I posted earlier. That doesn't make them communistic.

Unless you have universal conscription or militias. Which would be prevalent in any universe as violent as Eve.

Actually, universal conscription is (so far as I have seen personally) pretty rare in Eve in non-pure-combat corporations. So-called carebears can contribute to the economic strength of a corporation, but would leave if faced with conscription. Anyway, that's beside the point, as I had said:

Not all governments have social programs comparable to the ones described in the OP, and my point was that having such social programs does not make a government communistic.

Anyway, in real life, there are nations without universal conscription, and there are nations with universal conscription that aren't communistic, so where are you going with this?

[Samuel]

All of them? Too broad for what? By whose judgment?

Too broad to provide a meaningful definition.

It does according to this definition I linked earlier. And probably according to Mussolini.

It also happens to describe every single country in Latin America during the 30s. Which is rather odd considering that Brazil was left wing with a 5 year plan.

Also the link gives

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

Authoritarianism?

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Do you need me to explain why having fascism mean dictator is way to broad to mean anything at all?

Groups that conquer territory, rule it with sovereignty, and wage war on similar groups are not nations?

You are catching on. That defines governments.

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory

A social clique existing outside the game that serves as a marker of "group" and "non-group" in-game when actual racial information is not available. A marker that one can't readily change once playing Eve, as counterintellignece sweeps try to catch people joining SA to join Goonfleet.

So? That doesn't alter the fact it is a social clique at all. It just shows that making rascist states in Eve based on real world ID is impossible.

Where did black markets come in? I thought this line of conversation was about whether communism has both economic and political requirements. Also, I'm not sure what "that" refers to, so I'm not sure how it differs.

I was refering to the sections of the economy the corporation cannot control. Communist states did not control the entire economy either- even without legal small businesses there were black markets.

If you mean corporations, The CEO/directors/etc. can't access/otherwise control private property. In order to set up a communist system, they would have to.

Can they require individuals to give it to the corporation?

[BR7]

Too broad to provide a meaningful definition.

For any purpose at all?

By whose judgment?

All of them?

"All of them" happens to include Roger Griffin's, which is rather specific, as noted elsewhere.

It does according to this definition I linked earlier. And probably according to Mussolini.

It also happens to describe every single country in Latin America during the 30s. Which is rather odd considering that Brazil was left wing with a 5 year plan.

So? What if they were fascistic according to that definition? Is this a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria?

Also the link gives

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

Authoritarianism?

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Yes, that sounds like a handy definition of authoritarianism. Now, how does it relate to the discussion?

Do you need me to explain why having fascism mean dictator is way to broad to mean anything at all?

Apparently. Seeing as how fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism made it into that textbook. Anyway, note that I haven't been arguing that that's the only valid definition of fascism, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be the default when not specified. What do you have to say about that, the actual point?

Groups that conquer territory, rule it with sovereignty, and wage war on similar groups are not nations?

You are catching on. That defines governments.

States or sovereign governments, perhaps, but not all governments are sovereign. City governments in the US, for example, do not conquer territory, are not sovereign, and do not wage wars, yet (I assume you would agree) they are governments.

Anyway, it seems that I misconstrued your mention of nations to mean nation-states, and answered in support of statehood. To nationhood!

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory

How many of those do corporations in Eve match?
Body of people: Check.
Share common history: Varies; more significant for older/more tightly knit corporations. Within the game, many characters stay with the same organization for years, plenty of time for history in an MMO. Those in leadership positions have often been with the corporation for most or all its existence. If the corporation is active, a few weeks can contain a decent amount of history.
Share common culture: Check. Those who don't share it are typically kicked out or never admitted in the first place.
Share common language or ethnicity: Check, especially for language as a practical matter. Corporations based on ethnicity are less common, but they do exist.
Inhabit a particular country or territory: Check. Definitely for territory-holding corporations. Even empire-based corporations often set up operations in a particular spot or spots of choice.

So then, it would seem that, according to your definition, corporations in Eve qualify as nations, and are therefore capable of nationalism.

So? That doesn't alter the fact it is a social clique at all. It just shows that making rascist states in Eve based on real world ID is impossible.

You seem to be missing my point. I agree that traditional racism (i.e. based on actual race) is impossible/impractically difficult in Eve. However, rather than discarding racism entirely as a criterion (say, if it has something to do with qualifying for fascism), I propose that analogues for racism be investigated to see if they operate in a similar manner to racism in the real world. What do you have to say to that?

I was refering to the sections of the economy the corporation cannot control. Communist states did not control the entire economy either- even without legal small businesses there were black markets.

Yes, but those black markets were illegal, and communistic states were, at least in principle, capable of enforcing the relevant laws, seizing the property, etc. Even if a corporation in Eve sets communistic rules, it can't enforce them.

Can they require individuals to give it to the corporation?

Only by mutual consent. Unlike the taxation mentioned previously, there is no mechanism that gives a corporation access to the private property of members unless the members themselves place it in corporation storage facilities. A corporation could, as a matter of policy, require members to put all their property in such facilities, but there is no accounting mechanism to be sure that members actually do that, or to check member finances to make sure they gave all their money to the corporation.

[Samuel]

For any purpose at all?

Correct.

So? What if they were fascistic according to that definition? Is this a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria?

Yeah, countries with 5 year plans don't really fit into the fascist label. Especially when their are actual fascist parties.

Yes, that sounds like a handy definition of authoritarianism. Now, how does it relate to the discussion?

The link you are citing says that fascism is

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

Seeing as how fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism made it into that textbook. Anyway, note that I haven't been arguing that that's the only valid definition of fascism, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be the default when not specified. What do you have to say about that, the actual point?

Words fail me. What they are saying is fascism includes absolute monarchies, Roman dictators, viceroys, populists...

It is like saying that all fruit are bananas because they are edible plants. I can't think of any other analogy tortured enough.

So then, it would seem that, according to your definition, corporations in Eve qualify as nations, and are therefore capable of nationalism.

Wow. You used such a vague interpretation that my school qualifys as a nation. You want to try something more accurate?

What do you have to say to that?

You said there are no communists in ever because it is impossible to abolish private property. You see the contradiction?

Only by mutual consent. Unlike the taxation mentioned previously, there is no mechanism that gives a corporation access to the private property of members unless the members themselves place it in corporation storage facilities. A corporation could, as a matter of policy, require members to put all their property in such facilities, but there is no accounting mechanism to be sure that members actually do that, or to check member finances to make sure they gave all their money to the corporation.

I'm getting mixed messages. Don't corporations have guns?

[BR7]

For any purpose at all?

Correct.

Counterexample: Consider fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism. The corporation control game mechanics of Eve Online result in corporations operating in authoritarian manner, but do not support a communistic system very well. The corporation control game mechanics of Eve online can therefore be described as fascistic.

Concise. Accurate. Specific enough that it identifies relevant attributes, but general enough that it covers the possible variation in the situation under consideration. Sounds like a purpose for which that definition is meaningful.

All of them?

[Wherein I reminded you that I am not saying that a particular definition is universal, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be by default.]

By whose judgment?

[Wherein I implied that you saying so is insufficient to settle the matter.]

So? What if they were fascistic according to that definition? Is this a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria?

Yeah, countries with 5 year plans don't really fit into the fascist label. Especially when their are actual fascist parties.

So it was a setup to show that a different definition doesn't apply to situations that don't meet the defining criteria! Note that "having 5-year plans" is unrelated to the definition you were arguing against, so, by that definition, they do fit the fascist label if the actual criterion is met (that being non-communistic-authoritarianism). Arguing that situation X does not qualify for label F by definition B does not address situation X qualifying for label F by definition A, or the validity of definition A as a definition.

Yes, that sounds like a handy definition of authoritarianism. Now, how does it relate to the discussion?

The link you are citing says that fascism is

Today used to describe any authoritarian government that is not communism

So we seem to agree on this. How does that relate to the things we seem to disagree about?

Seeing as how fascism-as-non-communistic-authoritarianism made it into that textbook. Anyway, note that I haven't been arguing that that's the only valid definition of fascism, but that Roger Griffin's should not be assumed to be the default when not specified. What do you have to say about that, the actual point?

Words fail me. What they are saying is fascism includes absolute monarchies, Roman dictators, viceroys, populists...

Yeah, if they are authoritarian (not all Roman dictators, viceroys, and populists are/were) and not communistic (some populists are/were). The textbook might have used this definition to compare societal attitudes towards things like rule of law in such situations. And this makes the definition invalid how?

So, back to my actual point: What do you have to say about Roger Griffin's definition of fascism not being used by default?

It is like saying that all fruit are bananas because they are edible plants. I can't think of any other analogy tortured enough.

Actually, it's more like defining vegetables as edible parts of plants, then claiming that bananas are vegetables. It's true according to that definition, but it runs counter to the usual consideration of bananas as fruit and not vegetables, as vegetables have a more common, more restrictive meaning.

Wow. You used such a vague interpretation that my school qualifys as a nation. You want to try something more accurate?

You're the one who supplied that definition, not me. If you disagree with my application of it, could you explain your objection in detail?

And yes, your school might qualify as a nation by that definition. Schools are quite capable of analogues of nationalism (That's a crazy documentary. Check out the preview.).

What do you have to say to that?

You said there are no communists in ever because it is impossible to abolish private property. You see the contradiction?

By "that" I meant analogues of racism in contexts where actual race doesn't apply.

I'm assuming your point here addresses a different line of conversation with my point that corporations in Eve can't institute communism because they can't abolish private property. That real communist governments didn't completely abolish it isn't a contradiction. Real communist governments could, in principle, check to see whether a person is hoarding private property, running a black market, etc. and, if found, could confiscate that property. Corporations in Eve can do neither.

I'm getting mixed messages. Don't corporations have guns?

Yes, and they can use them to coerce members to do things if they stay in space in corporation territory. Guns can't hit people docked in stations though. Guns also aren't useful if you can't identify someone to shoot. With regard to establishing a communistic corporation, the game mechanics of corporation control don't give tight enough accounting of member assets to know whether or not members are actually giving all their property to the corporation, and there is no mechanism to take members' private property even if it is known to exist.

[Samuel]

The corporation control game mechanics of Eve Online result in corporations operating in authoritarian manner, but do not support a communistic system very well. The corporation control game mechanics of Eve online can therefore be described as fascistic.

Or we can just say they are dictatorships. Which desribes them perfectly- it doesn't attribute anything but the fact that power is in one persons hands.

Yeah, if they are authoritarian (not all Roman dictators, viceroys, and populists are/were)

Authoritarian means

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Roman dictators and viceroys, by definition, fit this label. Populists are more varied though.

not communistic (some populists are/were).

None of the populists were communists (I'm refering to the South American variety). One of the major features of populists was that they were corporatists.

So, back to my actual point: What do you have to say about Roger Griffin's definition of fascism not being used by default?

As opposed to authoritarian non-communist? Seriously, it would be hard to find a worse definition.

You're the one who supplied that definition, not me. If you disagree with my application of it, could you explain your objection in detail?

Share common history: Varies; more significant for older/more tightly knit corporations. Within the game, many characters stay with the same organization for years, plenty of time for history in an MMO. Those in leadership positions have often been with the corporation for most or all its existence. If the corporation is active, a few weeks can contain a decent amount of history.

Traditionally a "common history" for a nation concerns things that happened so long ago it is measured in centuries or decades, not years.

Share common culture: Check. Those who don't share it are typically kicked out or never admitted in the first place.

Culture does not just refer to wheter or not the group is a bunch of militant assholes, but what sort of cultural stuff they have. Do they have a similar collection of music, art, food, symbols, stories, etc?

Share common language or ethnicity: Check, especially for language as a practical matter. Corporations based on ethnicity are less common, but they do exist.

Ethnic origin. No, they don't.

Inhabit a particular country or territory: Check. Definitely for territory-holding corporations. Even empire-based corporations often set up operations in a particular spot or spots of choice.

This is the only one that really fits.