NationStates

Condemn The Communist Bloc

Suport the Condemnation of a tyrannical region that imprisons its citizens.

It is a thriving democracy and no prisons as far as I know.

And where’s this proposal? I only see two lines of text.

Comfed wrote:It is a thriving democracy and no prisons as far as I know.

And where’s this proposal? I only see two lines of text.

I wouldn't call a communist regime a democracy, from what I've seen most nations have little to no political freedom.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:

Comfed wrote:It is a thriving democracy and no prisons as far as I know.

And where’s this proposal? I only see two lines of text.

I wouldn't call a communist regime a democracy, from what I've seen most nations have little to no political freedom.

This is not only a terrible proposal, since it's literally one line of two vapid claims, but is also out of the scope of the security council to condemn a region because of someone's circumstantial testimony that "They gotta be bad, their political freedom is low!" If you want to condemn the CB, you need something far better than this.

-1

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:

Comfed wrote:It is a thriving democracy and no prisons as far as I know.

And where’s this proposal? I only see two lines of text.

I wouldn't call a communist regime a democracy, from what I've seen most nations have little to no political freedom.

The Communist part is mostly theme, it’s a pan-leftist region.

And plenty of nations have low political freedom - should we condemn them all?

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:

Comfed wrote:It is a thriving democracy and no prisons as far as I know.

And where’s this proposal? I only see two lines of text.

I wouldn't call a communist regime a democracy, from what I've seen most nations have little to no political freedom.

It is, indeed, possible to have a democratic political system and a communal economic system concurrently.

You have not provided a proposal with this thread. A Security Council resolution requires both an operative clause eg "hereby condemns..." and the arguments about why such a thing should be done. I recommend that you flip through previously passed resolutions, particularly ones written within the last couple years, to get an idea about what kind of text goes in SC proposals.

I'm not seeing a proposal unless the one line you wrote is it.

Not a good proposal at all. Please scrap your current attempt and go back to the drawing board if you want to improve on it.

Thank you for your criticism. A few things to note:
1. It is not communist in name alone, I have spoken to members and viewed many pages of nations with horrible political mistreatment, imprisonment of citizens within their nations, etc.

2. The proposal is short because it says what it needs to.

3. I will not scrap it because it has been legalized, if you personally support communism regimes and oppression of political freedoms that is your flawed prerogative.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Thank you for your criticism. A few things to note:
1. It is not communist in name alone, I have spoken to members and viewed many pages of nations with horrible political mistreatment, imprisonment of citizens within their nations, etc.

2. The proposal is short because it says what it needs to.

3. I will not scrap it because it has been legalized, if you personally support communism regimes and oppression of political freedoms that is your flawed prerogative.

Also my original post is not the proposal the proposal is in security council proposals.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Thank you for your criticism. A few things to note:
1. It is not communist in name alone, I have spoken to members and viewed many pages of nations with horrible political mistreatment, imprisonment of citizens within their nations, etc.

2. The proposal is short because it says what it needs to.

3. I will not scrap it because it has been legalized, if you personally support communism regimes and oppression of political freedoms that is your flawed prerogative.

Legal does not necessarily mean quality. You aren't going anywhere by keeping this terrible proposal up.

I personally think the proposal has merit, and for that reason I will keep it up. If you disagree, you are welcome to vote against it if it comes to discussion

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Thank you for your criticism. A few things to note:
1. It is not communist in name alone, I have spoken to members and viewed many pages of nations with horrible political mistreatment, imprisonment of citizens within their nations, etc.

"Imprisonment of citizens" is perfectly legal under international law, and is done in the vast majority of nations. You need to provide reasoning to suggest why this imprisonment is against human rights. You also need to explain what this "horrible political mistreatment" actually is, you're being far too vague.

2. The proposal is short because it says what it needs to.

The proposal hardly says anything at all. You need to say more about this subject.

3. I will not scrap it because it has been legalized, if you personally support communism regimes and oppression of political freedoms that is your flawed prerogative.

Just because it is legal does not mean it's a good proposal. It is severely lacking in any details, and is particularly dry of endorsement. Even if it does get onto the voting floor, people would probably find the discussion here laughable, and would turn it down as there's barely anything of substance in the actual condemnation.

Also, not all communist regimes in Nationstates support the suppression of political freedoms. That's not going to earn you any support either.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:Also my original post is not the proposal the proposal is in security council proposals.

Can you edit the original post so that it correctly links to it?

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:I personally think the proposal has merit, and for that reason I will keep it up. If you disagree, you are welcome to vote against it if it comes to discussion

There's absolutely no merit to your submission whatsoever. It lacks any substance and doesn't make any good points.

The original post has been updated to include the link. If you have qualms about substance feel free to address them, however, a violation of political freedoms is a deprivation of human rights (not to mention the complete take over of industry, religion, and borders).

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:I personally think the proposal has merit, and for that reason I will keep it up. If you disagree, you are welcome to vote against it if it comes to discussion

Likely not be necessary as there is a near-zero chance the submitted proposal will collect the 49 remaining approvals necessary to reach vote in the next two and a half days. At least barring any intervention from inexplicably meme-oriented delegate from Auctor.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:The original post has been updated to include the link. If you have qualms about substance feel free to address them, however, a violation of political freedoms is a deprivation of human rights (not to mention the complete take over of industry, religion, and borders).

It is admittedly hard to critique substance when the proposal has no substance.

More to the point though, in the SC, commendations and condemnations are often used as sort of career capstones for nations who have put loads of work into the game, playing the role of a positive supporting figure, or doing well to play the role of a villain. Commendations or condemnations regarding regions are argued to be indicative of those types of individuals who live within them. It has been...some...time since a condemnation was used as a unironic tool to shame someone, and I'm not at all aware of one that has ever been passed solely on the grounds of a region's members' gameside policies alone.

This is simply a vein that has no chance of success. Even if it were, you have neglected to provide any argument in the proposal about why it should be done.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:The original post has been updated to include the link. If you have qualms about substance feel free to address them, however, a violation of political freedoms is a deprivation of human rights (not to mention the complete take over of industry, religion, and borders).

You've clearly shown to have not addressed any criticisms of your poorly-written resolution. Either actually add substance to your draft or just abandon it altogether.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:You've clearly shown to have not addressed any criticisms of your poorly-written resolution. Either actually add substance to your draft or just abandon it altogether.

My claims have substance, I have read your criticisms and respectfully disagree. I have listed what violations where committed. I think that that is enough substance. As for the claims that condemning is only for regions that have "earned it", I find this trend deplorable. If a nation or region is mistreating its constituents, it should be punished.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:

My claims have substance, I have read your criticisms and respectfully disagree. I have listed what violations where committed. I think that that is enough substance. As for the claims that condemning is only for regions that have "earned it", I find this trend deplorable. If a nation or region is mistreating its constituents, it should be punished.

You don't seem to understand how the Security Council works on this site. The actions that you are condemning are being perpetuated by individual nations within the broader scope of the region. The Communist Bloc does not directly regulate what its member states do, nor should the Security Council. It is not the responsibility of the SC to step in on behalf of oppressed people in specific nations, especially when you're suggesting condemning the entire region for this. That'd be like hearing that there's criminals in a bank, so we should fire nuclear weapons at the entire city.

Additionally, far more regions commit similar or worse offenses. What makes the Communist Bloc special? What makes them deserving of a condemnation over several other authoritarian regimes? This proposal seems like a thinly-veiled attack on the communist ideology of the region rather than any actual concern for her people.

For reference, this is the proposal

Understand that The Communist Bloc is failing its citizens. They have taken control of industry and their leaders intentionally decrease civil liberties. Some of them trap their citizens within their horrifying walls.

"Understand that The Communist Bloc is failing its citizens" - How is it failing its citizens? Is it the job of the security council to step in to a government that doesn't keep its promises to the people? Are we keeping any ideas of the political, economical, or ideological motivations behind any states that are failing? Why are we condemning the entire region for this, when many nations in the CB have extremely high standards of living.

"They have taken control of industry" - Not illegal under international law, and is perfectly within the right of a nation to do, even if others may find it deplorable through their ideology. This is not worthy of condemnation.

"their leaders intentionally decrease civil liberties" - You fail to provide any examples of what you mean by this. What civil liberties are being "decreased" and why? Technically speaking, if I forbid people from having sex with animals, that would be decreasing their civil liberties. Doing so is not illegal under international law, we need more context to determine the legality of their actions.

"Some of them trap their citizens within their horrifying walls" - This actually could be worked around, as it is a violation of the freedom of movement, but again, this is not done or condoned by everyone in the entire region. Why is it the jurisdiction of the Security Council to rectify this problem? You need to convince this to us; you're not even trying to convince us, you're just saying "I made it, and you can like it or not." Your goal is to make us like it so that we can vote on it.

Kazakhstan 3 wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:

My claims have substance, I have read your criticisms and respectfully disagree. I have listed what violations where committed. I think that that is enough substance. As for the claims that condemning is only for regions that have "earned it", I find this trend deplorable. If a nation or region is mistreating its constituents, it should be punished.

No you just don't acknowledge our criticisms and keep on thinking your submission is good when it really isn't. You really need to expand on your proposal and actually listen to the regulars who want to help you but are getting impatient with rehashing the same criticisms over and over. This is not a good proposal no matter your personal opinion.

Wow, just wow lol this proposal is complete bollocks. A one liner with zero effort, research, and the most basic of anti-communist statements. I don't really have much to add as others have already pointed the major flaws. This is guaranteed to fail in the queue and will never reach vote.

The one thing I will say is that if you actually want a proposal to pass or even make quorum, you will have to actually listen to criticism. No work of genius was written by one man, you gotta at least let some folks help ya

Hey, current leader of TCB here, if you need help writing a condemn for us, feel free to ask for something that's...yknow....true.

I especially take issue with the description of our walls. They're beautiful walls. The best walls. Nobody makes beautiful walls like me. You can see how great our walls are by how many people come in and out.

We've done loads of evil deeds. We raided ISIS, and everyone knows raiding is bad...oh and we occupy some nazi regions, and occupations are really really bad....no wait that's a good thing.... erm....

I've been elected twice to leader which shows our democracy is a fix!!!!11!1 Oh, wait, you're claiming we dont do elections at all...this is awkward, we got criticised recently for doing too many elections.... erm..... We don't elect our Admin staff, very evil and condemnable, yes. Oh, and the Peoples Assembly isn't elected, how corrupt! If only the Peoples Assembly wasnt...yknow...all citizens.

Oh, the Card Factory we run, you should see how nasty we are to the lazy workers in them! Truly, the most oppressed peoples. So evil. Someone should liberate them.

Oh, we're really really really mean to Anarchists. No wait, half the government are LibLeft. Hm. Then we must be really mean to AuthComs!!! Aha gottem! Wait, what do you mean half the government are AuthCom. WE'RE PANLEFTISTS!?!?!?!

Damn, are we not condemnable. There goes next terms campaign. Heck.

Note- yes most of us in TCB are RL commies. You got us there.

I can attest to the fact that TCB is literally 1984. They must be stopped before it is too late!

Laughably misinformed and bare-bones. Like our current chief executive said, if you wanna condemn us, at least do some damn research first. You could make an argument that our past association with raiding groups is worth condemnation, but like, even that's debatable.