Post Archive

Region: Social Technocratic Union

History

United South Africa wrote:Because couldn’t a country pass a law declaring that if someone wants to run for political office they need to have a degree.

I´d like to raise the counterpoint that doing so would omit the interests of the less educated from the decisionmaking process. Wheter or not this is an issue for you obviously depends on how much you share the ideological basis of a representative state, but at least I, as a (libertarian) socialist, do value the interest of the people of all classes, especially since these people are sizable demographics in most nations. And don´t get this wrong, I´m not opposed to the concept of meritocracy, quite the opposite, but I nevertheless believe that everybody deserves a voice.

Vierslan wrote:Not related to United South Africa's question but, who is Drew Durnill?

A youtuber whose name I spelled wrong (Durnil, one l), who made a video about NS and caused a site-crashing surge of new players.

Technocratic Founder wrote:A youtuber whose name I spelled wrong (Durnil, one l), who made a video about NS and caused a site-crashing surge of new players.
I see. Thanks.

Technocratic Founder

Zestria wrote:I´d like to raise the counterpoint that doing so would omit the interests of the less educated from the decisionmaking process. Wheter or not this is an issue for you obviously depends on how much you share the ideological basis of a representative state, but at least I, as a (libertarian) socialist, do value the interest of the people of all classes, especially since these people are sizable demographics in most nations. And don´t get this wrong, I´m not opposed to the concept of meritocracy, quite the opposite, but I nevertheless believe that everybody deserves a voice.

If one is to go down that line, the state would certainly need to ensure easy and free access to higher education for the entire population to maintain meritocracy. I'm not such a fan of the specific "you need x degree to run" thing, but that's because I am entirely uninterested in having a democratic government.

Vierslan wrote:Not related to United South Africa's question but, who is Drew Durnill?

A somewhat famous youtuber

Technocratic Founder, United South Africa

I’m slowly getting more machines to do the human work. I highly recommend it!

Technocratic Founder wrote:Naturally, that would depend on a great many factors, most of all the section of government you want the person to run. Political "science" degrees really don't have much going for them, imo. Especially american ones. It's a thing focused almost exclusively on studying the existing US system, which is itself entirely incompatible with technocracy, and would need to radically be overhauled.

Good point. Would you consider perhaps a law degree to be one that all government positions should have as they should know the capabilities and boundaries of their respective departments? However here in South Africa we have some 30 departments some of whom deal with the same issue but different directions so a law degree in their respective area would sometimes mean two people having studied the same laws though.

Technocratic Founder wrote:If one is to go down that line, the state would certainly need to ensure easy and free access to higher education for the entire population to maintain meritocracy. I'm not such a fan of the specific "you need x degree to run" thing, but that's because I am entirely uninterested in having a democratic government.

Thats why in this game i spend 25 percent of my budjet in education (You can check)

The Great Hiatus wrote:I’m slowly getting more machines to do the human work. I highly recommend it!

Wait until the machine uprising happens

Technocratic Founder wrote:If one is to go down that line, the state would certainly need to ensure easy and free access to higher education for the entire population to maintain meritocracy. I'm not such a fan of the specific "you need x degree to run" thing, but that's because I am entirely uninterested in having a democratic government.

In my experience with political discussion, this is the point where we either acknowdledge our ideological differences and agree to disagree, or slowly start disliking each other, and since you seem like a agreeable person, I´d much prefer the first.

Technocratic Founder

Zestria wrote:I´d like to raise the counterpoint that doing so would omit the interests of the less educated from the decisionmaking process. Wheter or not this is an issue for you obviously depends on how much you share the ideological basis of a representative state, but at least I, as a (libertarian) socialist, do value the interest of the people of all classes, especially since these people are sizable demographics in most nations. And don´t get this wrong, I´m not opposed to the concept of meritocracy, quite the opposite, but I nevertheless believe that everybody deserves a voice.

I do agree that everyone’s voice should be heard as I am a more democratic socialist where yes all people’s opinions and voices should be heard though. But I still feel that some positions in government should be based on skill. For example a Finance minister should be someone who has a degree in business though.

There are plenty of inbetween options. You could have a house of elected officials and a house of experts. You'd need to have a real good set of laws to make sure the experts stay neutral and the houses don't deadlock each other though.

Technocratic Founder, Ceterra

Dijkland wrote:There are plenty of inbetween options. You could have a house of elected officials and a house of experts. You'd need to have a real good set of laws to make sure the experts stay neutral and the houses don't deadlock each other though.

Yeah but most likely it wouldn’t work out no matter what as the house with elected officials would campaign on policies that are popular but not in the country’s best interest which could limit the country’s ability to pass laws to help the country.

United South Africa wrote:I do agree that everyone’s voice should be heard as I am a more democratic socialist where yes all people’s opinions and voices should be heard though. But I still feel that some positions in government should be based on skill. For example a Finance minister should be someone who has a degree in business though.

Well, as previously stated, I do believe in meritocracy, and agree that generally, people who know what they´re talking about should be making decisions. But requiring a very specific kind of qualification is, imo, a rather quick way to become stagnant and doctrinal, as people with different backgrounds bring different ideas and with that, the competition and, hopefully symbiotic synthesis of new thought. I honestly think the best way to unify representation and expertise is to not have individual people, but instead "councils" of people elected from their peers.

United South Africa wrote:Yeah but most likely it wouldn’t work out no matter what as the house with elected officials would campaign on policies that are popular but not in the country’s best interest which could limit the country’s ability to pass laws to help the country.

That is true. My point is mostly that there are middle roads between extremes.

Dijkland wrote:That is true. My point is mostly that there are middle roads between extremes.

Dutch Polder Model?

Zestria wrote:Well, as previously stated, I do believe in meritocracy, and agree that generally, people who know what they´re talking about should be making decisions. But requiring a very specific kind of qualification is, imo, a rather quick way to become stagnant and doctrinal, as people with different backgrounds bring different ideas and with that, the competition and, hopefully symbiotic synthesis of new thought. I honestly think the best way to unify representation and expertise is to not have individual people, but instead "councils" of people elected from their peers.

But couldn’t a meritocracy also be a technocracy as both are based on merit but one is more based how good your education is? Yeah that is one of the possible benefits of a meritocracy is that it can bring new ideas as a technocracy can sometimes be stuck in the same way of thinking.

United South Africa wrote:But couldn’t a meritocracy also be a technocracy as both are based on merit but one is more based how good your education is? Yeah that is one of the possible benefits of a meritocracy is that it can bring new ideas as a technocracy can sometimes be stuck in the same way of thinking.

I´d not considered Meritocracy a system, but an idea, the idea that a technocracy fully embraces, so basically a less defined form of the same concept.

Technocratic Founder, Ceterra, Dijkland

Hehe, I wasn't specifically referencing that. You inevitably get influenced by what you live in though. The polder model works in a sense but is also really vulnerable for lobbying. So I wouldn't call it perfect

Rosmana

Dijkland wrote:Hehe, I wasn't specifically referencing that. You inevitably get influenced by what you live in though. The polder model works in a sense but is also really vulnerable for lobbying. So I wouldn't call it perfect

I know, I live in it as well, I just have no sense of patriotism whatsoever.

Zestria wrote:I´d not considered Meritocracy a system, but an idea, the idea that a technocracy fully embraces, so basically a less defined form of the same concept.

I second this

What to choose about uranium mining 🤔🤔

Al

Zestria wrote:I´d not considered Meritocracy a system, but an idea, the idea that a technocracy fully embraces, so basically a less defined form of the same concept.

You said you are a libertarian socialist correct? How does that work? I’m not trying to be rude when asking this? A socialist is someone who advocates for stronger federal government while a libertarian advocates for less federal government. Are there aspects you believe require stronger government and some that require less? I ask this out of curiosity.

i dont understand the security council law . Could someone explain it to me ?

Mouhland wrote:i dont understand the security council law . Could someone explain it to me ?

Its like the UN, as a member you have to follow its laws.

Technocratic Founder

Rosmana wrote:Its like the UN, as a member you have to follow its laws.

Used to be called the UN too, until Max Barry got a cease and desist letter, lol

Rosmana

Impeerium Of Man wrote:Wait until the machine uprising happens

Don’t worry I will do a Doofernstmitz and put a self destruction button Xd

Technocratic Founder wrote:Used to be called the UN too, until Max Barry got a cease and desist letter, lol

Really?

Technocratic Founder wrote:Used to be called the UN too, until Max Barry got a cease and desist letter, lol

Hilarious

Technocratic Founder, Rosmana, Ceterra

I mean the actual law not the council

United South Africa wrote:AlYou said you are a libertarian socialist correct? How does that work? I’m not trying to be rude when asking this? A socialist is someone who advocates for stronger federal government while a libertarian advocates for less federal government. Are there aspects you believe require stronger government and some that require less? I ask this out of curiosity.

I´m sorry, but this sentence is extraordinarily american. Anyway, Socialism doesn´t necessarily have anything to do with governement size, if anything, you´re thinking of authoritariansim. Socialism is an ideology initially based on Marxist ideas, primarily worker-owned means of production (and produce), a goverment of, for the most part, direct-democratic worker councils (in russian the "soviets" the SU was named after, although those weren´t actuallly close to the principles they were intendet to function on) operating on the principle of subsidiarity (this might not be a term in english, it´s a spontanious translation, I apologize should that be the case) the government gradually dissolving itself, egalitarianism and internationalism. Socialism, is above all else, the demand for a economic structre following the idea of "from each to their ability, to each to their needs", which also means it´s inherently intended to be meritocratic. The most common interpretation of this is a planned/command economy, which does indeed require strong state intervention, which is why I generally dislike it.

Rosmana, The Committee For The Liberation Of All

The Great Hiatus wrote:Don’t worry I will do a Doofernstmitz and put a self destruction button Xd

Like that ever works

how do you propose socialism without a strong government?

Ussr Of Big Brother wrote:how do you propose socialism without a strong government?

Without planned economy you mean? Well, I currently propose a mixed economy, where all essential production (food, housing, electricity and so on), are state controlled, but luxury goods are left to a private sector based on the concept of worker-owned production. And the systematic abolition of corporatism. But a) I´m no expert on economics, and most certainly not naive enough to believe that things are/will be this simple, and b) this is already a suboptimal compromise between what I consider ideal and deem realistically feasible, which is, once again not really a scientifically based model. But I generally try to be open to new ideas, so I welcome any and all suggestions.

Vierslan wrote:Not related to United South Africa's question but, who is Drew Durnill?

A youtuber who does gaming related to nation type things and other stuff

Paugupt

socialism without a strong government depends on the inherent choice by individuals to act according to socialist values. You can decide how feasible you think that is

Karambo, Paugupt

I am in an ideal world, a communist, however socialism is necessarily the first step in that direction. Communism means no government whatsoever, where money is abolished and people work because they want to. I also understand that this would be impossible without a colossal amount of work and effort from a big, benevolent government in the form of an amazing education system, and if anywhere in this process a bad person comes in, hhm stalin hhhhhhhm, then this all falls apart.

Pax Scio, Karambo, Paugupt

Welcome once again to all the new nations who’ve joined. Hope you enjoy your time here.

Uncuteatoo, Dijkland, Paugupt

Are there wars between nation's?????

Paugupt

Ussr Of Big Brother wrote:I am in an ideal world, a communist, however socialism is necessarily the first step in that direction. Communism means no government whatsoever, where money is abolished and people work because they want to. I also understand that this would be impossible without a colossal amount of work and effort from a big, benevolent government in the form of an amazing education system, and if anywhere in this process a bad person comes in, hhm stalin hhhhhhhm, then this all falls apart.

Well, yeah, if things worked as intented, I´d be ancom. But they don´t, and therefore I settle for something I believe to be possible, if unrealistic, which is, in my case, Libertarian Socialism.

Pax Scio

Both possible independently, however together they are almost as impossible as true communism

Paugupt

Ussr Of Big Brother wrote:Both possible independently, however together they are almost as impossible as true communism

I concur, but that’s the price one pays for staying true to what they believe. And I’d rather slave away to bring forth an unrealistic, but grand ideal then allow myself to resign and peddle mediocrity.

You never know, we might eventually figure out a benevolent bureaucratic AI that takes over governing for us. Would make direct voting/polling on subjects an option as well

Dijkland wrote:You never know, we might eventually figure out a benevolent bureaucratic AI that takes over governing for us. Would make direct voting/polling on subjects an option as well

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov is just that, and a great book.

Antarctic Sarnz, Dijkland, Zestria

The Culture is kind of interesting as well. But it really depends on your point of view if you see that as utopian or dystopian

Welcome new Nations!

Antarctic Sarnz, Eunorica

I like this game I really do but I have a problem with it. My problem is that we can’t go and wage war against other nations at will. Do you guy/gals have a game like this that give you the option to wage war?

Muharam wrote:I like this game I really do but I have a problem with it. My problem is that we can’t go and wage war against other nations at will. Do you guy/gals have a game like this that give you the option to wage war?

Call of War maybe?

Muharam

Muharam wrote:I like this game I really do but I have a problem with it. My problem is that we can’t go and wage war against other nations at will. Do you guy/gals have a game like this that give you the option to wage war?

This is a game about social politics, mostly. At least, that's the most interesting part of it.

Ceterra, Microsa

....So, anyone here read Peter Zeihan's works?

Muharam wrote:I like this game I really do but I have a problem with it. My problem is that we can’t go and wage war against other nations at will. Do you guy/gals have a game like this that give you the option to wage war?

There are plenty of role-play based regions, or here, where you can actively role-play with. Some choose to do raiding (Invaders) against other regions, or some choose to be Defenders that is defending your own region or someone else's region to prevent raiders from obtaining that region. Now, these usually happen once the Founder ceases to exist.

Microsa wrote:Call of War maybe?

I already play it =( and call of war is great the only problem is that there ain’t a lot of politics and things you can do with your nation. I’m looking for a game that’s a mix of call of war and nationstate

Ceterra wrote:There are plenty of role-play based regions, or here, where you can actively role-play with. Some choose to do raiding (Invaders) against other regions, or some choose to be Defenders that is defending your own region or someone else's region to prevent raiders from obtaining that region. Now, these usually happen once the Founder ceases to exist.

How do you invade?

Muharam wrote:How do you invade?

By invading a region, you require a World Assembly membership (Link), and once you have that. You go to a particular region, with no founder around (Tag: Founderless), and then if you have a group of your own, they either endorse you and you endorse that particular raider in your group if you wish to raid a region.

In order to swiftly, gain control of the region, the WA Delegate would require Executive Powers (Like our Delegate Antarctic Sarnz but Non-Executive). Usually, when the Founder ceases to exist (expires after 28 days without activity), there would Executive powers, if there is no one in that position at all.

To do so, you would need to endorse more than 2 people to get the Delegateship, and by doing so, there is updates at every 12th hour in the NationStates. It's best to do it, just before the update happens, because if you do it later, then you'll have to wait for the next update.

Hi everyone! I think that the phrase "as any reasonable region should" should be removed from the preamble. I like our stance on that topic, but I think that that phrase is a bit too partisan for a constitution that should sound very formal and unbiased.

Ryannica wrote:Hi everyone! I think that the phrase "as any reasonable region should" should be removed from the preamble. I like our stance on that topic, but I think that that phrase is a bit too partisan for a constitution that should sound very formal and unbiased.

I am intentionally insulting backwater sh*tholes with that line, trust me

Antarctic Sarnz, Uncuteatoo, Apellidor

Ryannica wrote:Hi everyone! I think that the phrase "as any reasonable region should" should be removed from the preamble. I like our stance on that topic, but I think that that phrase is a bit too partisan for a constitution that should sound very formal and unbiased.

This isn't the BBC thankfully. We don't have to be impartial.

hi

Antarctic Sarnz, Uncuteatoo

i hope i can have fun here

Uncuteatoo

Greater Puerto Rican Empire wrote:i hope i can have fun here

I hope so too :)

Greater Puerto Rican Empire wrote:i love drew durill

As is a pretty likely thing from most of the new players we've seen in the last couple of days, lol

Who is drew durill? sorry if I sound really dumb

Ussr Of Big Brother wrote:Who is drew durill? sorry if I sound really dumb

drew durnil is a Youtuber who does videos on country simulation games including Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Stellaris, Crusader Kings, and Imperator Rome. He made a video about this game.

Technocratic Founder

Ryannica wrote:drew durnil is a Youtuber who does videos on country simulation games including Hearts of Iron, Europa Universalis, Stellaris, Crusader Kings, and Imperator Rome. He made a video about this game.
He also used to do Civilization videos

Eunorica wrote:He also used to do Civilization videos
And Totally Accurate Battle Simulator

Eunorica

Peimbertia wrote:I think we are just missing someone from australasia and antartica

Well, we kinda do. So maybe we've covered the world XD

Eunorica wrote:Hello. I am new to this. Is there anything I need to know other than what was in the telegraph?

Welcome!! Nothing in particular unless you have specific questions we can answer. If you're on the discord that is probably the best place to ask ^-^

Kiranistania wrote:Also quick question, how would one become a citizen on the discord?

You're automatically a citizen once you join and have a nation that resides in STU. Welcome! ^-^

Welcome all to STU! We are really happy you're here. Please make sure you have a look at the 'World Factbook Entry' at the top of our region's page for all the important stuffs and thangs. Including our link to the discord where you can interact with everyone! Extra points if you come bearing gifts in the form of cat pictures ;) We hope you enjoy your stay ^-^

Antarctic Sarnz, Technocratic Founder, Ceterra, The Cloudy Orange Skies

hey nerds im just a sub from a guy called drew on youtube and i want to nuke the world

Uncuteatoo, Peimbertia, Eunorica

Post by The Drew Empire suppressed by Uncuteatoo.

The Drew Empire

The Drew Empire wrote:hey nerds im just a sub from a guy called drew on youtube and i want to nuke the world

Welcome ^-^ please be wary of double posting, especially a blank post. We've had quite the influx of people from Drew xD

Uncuteatoo wrote:Welcome ^-^ please be wary of double posting, especially a blank post. We've had quite the influx of people from Drew xD

I actually discovered the game because of him

Uncuteatoo

Peimbertia wrote:I actually discovered the game because of him

You have something in common with a lot of the new nations then :)

Peimbertia

Probally a stupid question but how do i improve my economy?At the moment it s classfied as a basket case and no matter what i do it doesnt improve.

Antarctic Sarnz, Uncuteatoo

Clarence Valley wrote:Probally a stupid question but how do i improve my economy?At the moment it s classfied as a basket case and no matter what i do it doesnt improve.

You improve it by resolving issues un your country, and you can't really do anything else

Antarctic Sarnz

Clarence Valley wrote:Probally a stupid question but how do i improve my economy?At the moment it s classfied as a basket case and no matter what i do it doesnt improve.

Well, I haven't been here for very long but from what I can see the way you improve your nation's economy and rights ratings is only by how u answer the issues you face, and most of the time it's a tradeoff. Maybe someone else can give better answers but that's all I can see you really do

Antarctic Sarnz

Inseria wrote:Well, I haven't been here for very long but from what I can see the way you improve your nation's economy and rights ratings is only by how u answer the issues you face, and most of the time it's a tradeoff. Maybe someone else can give better answers but that's all I can see you really do

Well I am also kind of new but there isnt anything else you can do

Peimbertia wrote:Well I am also kind of new but there isnt anything else you can do

No, you can only change it from issues

Antarctic Sarnz

Clarence Valley wrote:Probally a stupid question but how do i improve my economy?At the moment it s classfied as a basket case and no matter what i do it doesnt improve.

The above are all right. It's really a give or take kind of thing and you can't predict the changes sometimes. You just answer the issues as best you think and it'll do it's own thing.

Technocratic Founder

Uncuteatoo wrote:The above are all right. It's really a give or take kind of thing and you can't predict the changes sometimes. You just answer the issues as best you think and it'll do it's own thing.

There is technically documentation available on what the issues do, but where's the fun in that?

Technocratic Founder wrote:There is technically documentation available on what the issues do, but where's the fun in that?

>.> even if there is I'd never read it because there's more fun in answering them and not knowing what's going to happen.. right? xD

Technocratic Founder, Peimbertia

Zestria wrote:I´m sorry, but this sentence is extraordinarily american. Anyway, Socialism doesn´t necessarily have anything to do with governement size, if anything, you´re thinking of authoritariansim. Socialism is an ideology initially based on Marxist ideas, primarily worker-owned means of production (and produce), a goverment of, for the most part, direct-democratic worker councils (in russian the "soviets" the SU was named after, although those weren´t actuallly close to the principles they were intendet to function on) operating on the principle of subsidiarity (this might not be a term in english, it´s a spontanious translation, I apologize should that be the case) the government gradually dissolving itself, egalitarianism and internationalism. Socialism, is above all else, the demand for a economic structre following the idea of "from each to their ability, to each to their needs", which also means it´s inherently intended to be meritocratic. The most common interpretation of this is a planned/command economy, which does indeed require strong state intervention, which is why I generally dislike it.

The reason why I said socialism would require more government intervention is because if you had a spectrum of of economic systems from capitalism with little government intervention and communism full intervention, socialism would be somewhere in the middle. And well socialism and communism as a concept says that workers should own more of the factors of production i.e land, capital, labour and enterprise, the only reasonable why to achieve that is for a stronger government to distribute it more fairly. I also dislike a planned economy but I also feel some things should owned and maintained by the state while other goods and services can be produced by the private sector.

United South Africa wrote:The reason why I said socialism would require more government intervention is because if you had a spectrum of of economic systems from capitalism with little government intervention and communism full intervention, socialism would be somewhere in the middle. And well socialism and communism as a concept says that workers should own more of the factors of production i.e land, capital, labour and enterprise, the only reasonable why to achieve that is for a stronger government to distribute it more fairly. I also dislike a planned economy but I also feel some things should owned and maintained by the state while other goods and services can be produced by the private sector.

Yeah, as economic systems, it has typically been the case that capitalism is thought of as being small-government, and communism is big-government, but philosophically, the objective of the communist state is a form of near-anarchy, where the state if it exists at all, can exist only to resolve disputes about private property ownership. The main goal being the workers control the means of production, but more specifically, that they control the output of their own labour. The re-distribution of property may happen at the early stage of a communist revolution, but the state need not continually interfere after that point, and should not, on a strictly communist point of view, retain nationalized control of property.

Capitalism, by contrast, may be thought of as being laisse-faire, but in practice, most capitalist states are volumes deep in regulations, in order to attempt to avert the tragedy of the commons.

Drawing a line from capitalism to communism may seem logical, but it misses the variety of other factors which contribute to role and size of the state, and which can be more important than the economic model a nation uses.

I'm new, and I was wondering what does influence do?

Uncuteatoo

United States Of Technocracy wrote:I'm new, and I was wondering what does influence do?

Welcome. Influence doesn't particularly do anything, it increases slowly and with World Assembly Endorsements.

*Actually I think it has some effect relating to protecting regions from mass bans from new Delegates and such, but I'm not so sure. Someone who knows will hopefully correct me.

Uncuteatoo

Breaking News:

Proof of a rigged election has surfaced and the high courts are now calling for new elections, but it is unsure if the current government will obey them, as the Workers Party demands the military to step in and remove the right wing coalition from power.

OOC:No war/invasions please.

Hey someone wanna make some endorsement trade ?

Uncuteatoo

Great deal everyone !

Rosmana

Transhumanity Ascended wrote:Yeah, as economic systems, it has typically been the case that capitalism is thought of as being small-government, and communism is big-government, but philosophically, the objective of the communist state is a form of near-anarchy, where the state if it exists at all, can exist only to resolve disputes about private property ownership. The main goal being the workers control the means of production, but more specifically, that they control the output of their own labour. The re-distribution of property may happen at the early stage of a communist revolution, but the state need not continually interfere after that point, and should not, on a strictly communist point of view, retain nationalized control of property.

Capitalism, by contrast, may be thought of as being laisse-faire, but in practice, most capitalist states are volumes deep in regulations, in order to attempt to avert the tragedy of the commons.

Drawing a line from capitalism to communism may seem logical, but it misses the variety of other factors which contribute to role and size of the state, and which can be more important than the economic model a nation uses.

You have point. But that would explain why there has never truly been a complete capitalist or communist country as all economies in history have been mixed. That is why all economies, no matter what people say or do, will and must have, some market and some planned economic aspects. Also wouldn’t a full capitalist economy in theory also eventually be in anarchy as there would in theory be no government?

Mouhland wrote:Hey someone wanna make some endorsement trade ?

Ideally you will all endorse each other, the founder Technocratic Founder and the delegate - myself.

Technocratic Founder

And then I accidentally nationalised all industry instead of just the critical bits like the issue seemed to suggest, woops

Uncuteatoo, Rosmana

Dijkland wrote:And then I accidentally nationalised all industry instead of just the critical bits like the issue seemed to suggest, woops

Good Job Comrade.

Your membership card of the CPN is in the mail. LOL

Rosmana wrote:Good Job Comrade.

Your membership card of the CPN is in the mail. LOL

According to my father my grandfather used to be a member so I guess I'm honoring the family tradition

Uncuteatoo, Rosmana

Dijkland wrote:According to my father my grandfather used to be a member so I guess I'm honoring the family tradition

I guess so, you live in Groningen? :)

Rosmana wrote:I guess so, you live in Groningen? :)

North-Holland

Uncuteatoo, Rosmana

Dijkland wrote:North-Holland

Ok.

North Brabant. (Factbook pictures)

Dijkland wrote:And then I accidentally nationalised all industry instead of just the critical bits like the issue seemed to suggest, woops

Some of the decisions do wildly difrent things than what they suggeste

Rosmana, Socialist Imperators, Peimbertia, Microsa

Hello my friends. I am new in this Union I hope we will get along

Antarctic Sarnz, Uncuteatoo

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.