A Critique of Imperialism by Charles Cerebella
I've been following with a lot of interest the conversation started by OnderKelkia's essay in the excellent Europeian Standard on imperialism and the UIAF. Both Onder and other commentators have raised a number of good points, some of which I agree with, some which I don't. I've been wondering whether to comment myself or not but a lot of what I have to say is broader than just what has been brought up rather than a more narrow response so I feel that the best thing is just to start a new thread for it, though obviously it will touch on other things that have been brought up.
Only a very small group of people have had a career more closely entwined with imperialism than I have. Having started off in TNI, I went on to serve in practically every role there, including multiple terms as head of government. I was an admin, involved with the intelligence service, became Commander of TNIAF and obviously eventually ended up monarch. For most of the period from 2010-2014, I was either directly responsible for TNI's foreign policy, or would at least had a major say in its conduct. I've also had an extensive career in the LKE, twice serving as Prime Minister, each time overseeing record forum activity as well as serving in other roles including a stint as admin. I played a significant role in the foundation of the first UIAF, the second UIAF was formed on my initiative, of which I then became the Joint Commander, before then becoming a member of the Imperial Military Council with the formation of the third incarnation. I played a large part in securing the recognition of imperialism as separate from just raiding that we saw happen in late 2012 and early 2013, writing two essays on the topic at the time.
Given all of that, I think I am pretty well placed to be able to offer my thoughts on imperialism, and hopefully they are of some interest.
In my first essay on imperialism, I described it as being driven by the Primat der Politik, the primacy of politics. This is a theme that Onder has returned to extensively in his piece for the Standard and in the replies following it. I think this remains at the heart of what an imperialist region is. Imperialist regions are ones driven by a sense of conflict and strife between opposing internal factions. That is their source of vitality. It is also their biggest weakness. They derive their activity from an active political system, based primarily on party politics, with differing aims and objectives. TNI's height of internal activity came at a time where there was a deep division in 2008-2009 between royalist factions and the progressives who sought to strip the monarchy of its power. Their eventual victory meant the absence of any significant point of contention, leading almost to the death of the region in the absence of the political conflict that generates its activity.
Without active political debate and arguments, the biggest flaw with this model of region is the absence of new members. From late 2009-2012, TNI attracted along the lines of 3 people who stayed active, the rest of the community being made up mainly of people who had joined the region during the period of political contention beforehand. It was a similar situation in the LKE. This is something I realised was a clear problem and in 2012 I set out with another member to artificially create political conflict and division in TNI with the formation of a new political party, with a radical agenda. Lo and behold, it succeeded in its objectives, generating forum activity and seeing the integration of a large number of active members, some of whom, like MagentaFairy and Christopher Bishop, have gone on to have significant and successful careers in NS. Yet again, the very structure of a political region meant this was not sustainable and by 2013 it was beginning to drift back into inactivity once more. That year, I repeated the trick of rejuvenating politics and activity in the LKE, by forming a new party, within a termbousting the incumbents who had been in power years, and I oversaw record population levels and the integration of a generation of politicians who have gone on to dominate the LKE since then, including the current PM and the current WAD.
It is into this context of cycles of political debate and chronic inactivity that imperialism takes its place. In what can be deeply divided political cultures, imperialism helps serve to create a siege mentality, something that is often consciously fostered. With a lack of cohesion within the region, its members are then defined against what they are not, i.e. defenders and other nefarious groupings. A strong imperialist line internally can help secure control of the region by directing some energy towards the opposition of outside forces, through wars. As much as imperialism is about gaining power externally, it is also a useful tool for creating narratives of greatness internally, directing attention to things such as military success, in the absence of other successes such as activity.
For all the talk of imperialism as furthering regional interests as well, while that is broadly true, it cannot be denied that those interests have traditionally been set by a very select few, and this is coming from someone who was one of that select few for a long time. NS foreign policy is certainly something where long term involvement is necessary to have any real understanding or significant success. You just have to think of how many first term foreign ministers in any type of region get in and their aim is a reform of the diplomatic service to make it more efficient/ or report back better/ or something else. I imagine pretty much everyone here has some kind of memory of something like this, and many of the people in this forum may have once been that person themselves; I certainly was.
Yet once people get that experience, it is important to bring them into the realm of actually formulating policy. Make them part of the discussion. Make them invested in the future of the region and its course. Imperialism has been very bad at doing this. I only became one of the chief figures in imperialist foreign policy because I first made myself indispensable domestically in TNI, then by far the largest and most active imperialist region. Throughout my time, I very consciously tried to ensure more people were trained up to be able to make contributions to the direction of foreign policy, for example through my establishment of the Reich Elector position in TNI that separated foreign from domestic policy with a position with a term length of 4 months, enabling the holder to really get to grips with diplomacy. Yet no one really succeeded in breaking into a controlling position. Chris Bishop came closest, yet even as Joint Commander, and then King of Albion, his opinions did not have the weight that they should have done given his massive contributions, not to mention those of Albion to the UIAF as a whole.
Albion was founded on the basis that I was aware of both the strengths and the flaws of the regions I had been involved in and I believed I knew how to construct a region that could avoid the pitfalls. While Albion was made with the intention of being a strong imperialist region, I guess with hindsight it is no surprise that it has drifted away from that course of policy given that its fundamental basis as an ideology, rooted in politics, has no place in the region because I was intent to escape that cycle that I've spoken of. If a region is thriving domestically, it has no need to define itself by its 'enemies'. If a region is confident in who it is and what it stands for then there is no need to exclude people because of gameplay backgrounds rather than fear subversion. It has no need for wars that cannot be won given gameplay mechanics, despite being urged to make them.
Given we've seen so many notable gameplayers over the years retire, often citing the toxic atmosphere, I would ask regions, to what extent they want to get involved in an ideology that is explicitly confrontational and opposed to swathes of NS? Obviously, it is somewhat hypocritical of me to be saying any of this given my involvement, but I'd like to think that even those I've been opposed to would at least give me the justice of always being polite and conciliatory in my conduct. I represented one strand of imperialist thought, and I'm not sure if anyone has stepped up to replace me on that wing of it.
For all that Onder has criticised regions that operate on the basis of a 'quasi-social network', where NS is but 'one facet of their activities without any pre-emience as an aspect of regional life', a clear reference to Albion given we've made that stance explicit, I would ask regions, whether that, or the imperialist region building model is the one to follow. Over six years, the LKE has made almost 100,000 posts. In under six months Albion has exceeded that. If politics is the be all and end all, then a region can lose out from not developing RP, or other gaming.
Regions can carve a path that puts them in opposition to defenders (or raiders), where the basis of activity is aggressive domestic politics but where other activities are limited and actually the path to real power is difficult to find let alone really follow. Or they can take a more holistic view, as I have endeavoured to do with Albion, that can really embrace so much more. Just because a region follows a course that is geared towards its community and ensuring that the community enjoys its time online, does not mean an absence from gameplay entirely or a less than professional attitude towards the problems that can arise within it. But it does mean that they aren't dominated by those things, that they can see the forest for the trees, and can create somewhere that can really thrive.
Can imperialism serve as the basis for a region that really wants to be a successful, interesting place? Outside the narrow context of military achievements, I think my conclusion would be no.
I just think that was a bullshit statement considering our own activities in tagging and refounding.
