Socialists become capitalists when they play EVE

[Dr Zaius]

There are a lot of EVE players that come from socialist countries or nanny states where the government is heavily involved in every aspect of the economy (and we all know how talented politicians are at "managing" the economy).

So it's interesting to see how these folks morph into ultra-capitalists in EVE. Could that be because capitalism and competition are the only thing that really works in EVE?

Several organizations have tried a socialistic approach to running a nanny state in EVE and the result is always the same: epic fail.

 

[aiabx]

I played a war criminal once in ASL. Don't read too much into games.

 

[Chaim628]

Hmm, while in ASL you have your scenario and max a campaign, you get a whole society in Eve. Capitalism needs freedom so obviously it flourishes in this environment. However I have read that there are complete collectivistic corporations. I wonder if they are effective. It doesn't work even on this planet, so how in an environment that gives so much freedom, I would guess they get competed out pretty fast.

 

[Dr Zaius]

You can pretty much run an alliance or corporation any way you want. There are some that are one form or another of authoritarian tyranny, where the regular members get littler or no say in the day to day operations of the organization. Others are very progressive democratic states, where the members actually have a lot of influence and, in a few cases, even vote on important issues.

But in the vast majority of cases, alliances, at least, practice some form of democracy. Why? Because no member corps will willingly join or submit to a tyranny. If an organization loses its space because a big tyranny moves in and takes over, the leadership will likely simply move to another area of space.

 

[Revthought]

There are a lot of EVE players that come from socialist countries or nanny states where the government is heavily involved in every aspect of the economy (and we all know how talented politicians are at "managing" the economy).

So it's interesting to see how these folks morph into ultra-capitalists in EVE. Could that be because capitalism and competition are the only thing that really works in EVE?

Several organizations have tried a socialistic approach to running a nanny state in EVE and the result is always the same: epic fail.

Real life communist and Political Science Phd student here. I've actually written about this issue before, but I'll spare you.

Needless to say, I am a pirate in game, and my politics there are somewhat different than my politics in life... as are my "economic" behaviors.

However, there are a number of corps that have been famously run in a rather "communistic" style. A lot of the bob corps functioned that way, though it clearly opens the door to being robbed blind.

Personally, I'm in a small pirate corp 9 or 10 of us, who know each other quite well (from many different games). We actually run things VERY collectively. Pvp loot goes into the corp hangar and sold. We share a common warchest for the fitting of ships and ships themselves, so it *can* be done.

-R

 

[Chaim628]

Real life communist and Political Science Phd student here. I've actually written about this issue before, but I'll spare you.

Needless to say, I am a pirate in game, and my politics there are somewhat different than my politics in life... as are my "economic" behaviors.

However, there are a number of corps that have been famously run in a rather "communistic" style. A lot of the bob corps functioned that way, though it clearly opens the door to being robbed blind.

Personally, I'm in a small pirate corp 9 or 10 of us, who know each other quite well (from many different games). We actually run things VERY collectively. Pvp loot goes into the corp hangar and sold. We share a common warchest for the fitting of ships and ships themselves, so it *can* be done.

-R

That is funny. I'm a hardcore libertarian in RL but an Amarr in the game and probably will join a totalitarian corp after the uni, just to have that experience.

I don't think bob is a good reference and I do think that EVE shows what is the best model (in case you did not get the RL examples).

 

[Redwolf]

Talk about a stretch. Sorry.

In the real world people can't quit. In the game they can. That kind of changes how people react to changes in society, doesn't it?

 

[Chaim628]

Talk about a stretch. Sorry.

In the real world people can't quit. In the game they can. That kind of changes how people react to changes in society, doesn't it?

What do you mean can't quit ? I fled my corporatistic country and live in one of the more libertarian countries in the world today. A lot of people are conditioned, that is something else.
The game goes to show what people will do if given the freedom to act.

 

[Redwolf]

What do you mean can't quit ? I fled my corporatistic country and live in one of the more libertarian countries in the world today. A lot of people are conditioned, that is something else.
The game goes to show what people will do if given the freedom to act.

Have you tried switching countries?

Switzerland isn't exactly friendly to immigration of -say- Zimbabwe.

There is no such thing as freely picking your country by form of government and/or society organization. In addition to legal troubles you have language, integration issues and cost.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Redwolf has a point. Then again, you can't just pick any group you want in EVE, either. A lot of the better corporations accept members by invitation only. VETO is infamous for being really picky about who they take. Just look at their public recruitment forums and see all the 'denied' applicants, many of which were very experienced players.

 

[Redwolf]

There also many kinds of socialists. Some concept might apply in a computer game but others won't.

• "There poor guys, we need to give them something"
• "These guys just need a kickstart and will be useful"
• "Some of these guys just need a kickstart and will be useful"
• "Let's give these morons some money so that their kids have a chance at all"
• "Can't we just bribe them so that they don't start a revolution?"
• "Let's feed them until they are too fat to start a revolution"

Obviously, some concepts just don't apply for voluntary contributions by experienced game players, even if the same players in real life subscribe to one or more of the above concepts.

The publisher might want to steer things towards underdogs having fun, which might fit some categories.

 

[Revthought]

Talk about a stretch. Sorry.

In the real world people can't quit. In the game they can. That kind of changes how people react to changes in society, doesn't it?

Its more complicated than that, but you are on to something about self-selection.

That said, MMOs like eve are great illustrations about how material conditions, i.e. hardcoded game design features shape the norms and institutions within a game.

-R

 

[Chaim628]

Have you tried switching countries?.

What do you mean ? I 've been to many countries and chosen Switzerland to flee to.

Switzerland isn't exactly friendly to immigration of -say- Zimbabwe.?

Oh, but Switzerland is. 1/3 is foreigner, 1/3 Swiss from foreign origin and 1/3 Swiss. One of the highest in the world. Of course you would have to bring something or be capable of doing something.

There is no such thing as freely picking your country by form of government and/or society organization. In addition to legal troubles you have language, integration issues and cost.

Sure, not without trouble but can be done. After just a few years I'm ahead of what I was before.
I just came back from West Bengal, India, a state that has a communist government (and is being attacked by Maoist rebels as we speak). Thousands are fleeing every day because communists are locking them up and keeping them poor (because of policy and to keep their customer base) towards the more free Maharastra and Gujarat. 25% of all displaced persons in the world live in India. Language and culture is a major issue between states, but if people have the opportunity they will flee to freedom. They would have to put up a Berlin wall to stop this.

 

[Chaim628]

That said, MMOs like eve are great illustrations about how material conditions, i.e. hardcoded game design features shape the norms and institutions within a game.
-R

Very true. What is interesting is that if you give people an open environment without political regulations you get an anarcho-capitalistic society...

I actually did a similar experiment with students when I was working at a State University (read socialist). Gave them resources and money to start from and they build a free market in no time. When I took half of their assets away and redistributed them they were first surprised, by the second time they complained and by the third time they refused to play anymore. It was a real eye-opener for most of these collectivistic students

 

[Revthought]

Very true. What is interesting is that if you give people an open environment without political regulations you get an anarcho-capitalistic society...

I actually did a similar experiment with students when I was working at a State University (read socialist). Gave them resources and money to start from and they build a free market in no time. When I took half of their assets away and redistributed them they were first surprised, by the second time they complained and by the third time they refused to play anymore. It was a real eye-opener for most of these collectivistic students

Well I disagree with you on this point, because I don't find eve to be devoid of rules and regulations. In fact, eve is set-up in a way that encourages self-interested behaviors and capitalist dystopia. And that's just what CCP was going for, tbh.

But, don't fool yourself. Eve is a sandbox for sure, but market functionality, the sovereignty system, the emphasis on player versus player conflict, etc are regulations, rules and conditions that shape online institutional genesis and facilitate the production of norms.

You also need to be extremely careful when trying to connect what happens in a game with the "real world."

The farthest I will take it is using MMOGs to illustrate how real world institutions *might* be formed. For example, I would point to (and have in a few articles) the ways in which game mechanics serve as structures that help fix what online norms and institutions look like. I would then simply argue that MMOGs are analogous to the real world only in the sense that material conditions (structures) help to fix real world institutions and norms.

As for that game you are talking about, would you be surprised if a told you I don't find game theory, or the games themselves, very indicative of anything. Not only does the game itself prime the players to behave in certain ways, there are extreme cultural difference which impact the outcome?

For example, did you know that doing classic "games" with students who are in the humanities often times breaks the games? I.e. the humanities students don't act on individualistic self-interest.

-R

 

[aiabx]

Of course, you have to remember that a game like EVE has no real penalty for failure - if the failure of your corporation led to personal bankruptcy and the starvation of your real-life family, how long would it be before people starting building social safety nets into the game? It's easy to be a libertarian when you aren't risking anything except a game character.

 

[Revthought]

Of course, you have to remember that a game like EVE has no real penalty for failure - if the failure of your corporation led to personal bankruptcy and the starvation of your real-life family, how long would it be before people starting building social safety nets into the game? It's easy to be a libertarian when you aren't risking anything except a game character.

Not only that, but as I've stated, the foundational game mechanics are unchangeable. You can't simply decide, as a collectivity, that we're now going to have corporate oversight and market regulation. You can't decide that the richest in eve need to taxed to support the poorest. You cannot make scamming a criminal offense. Etc.

So the game mechanics themselves limit the possibilities of what eve can be... despite its apparent sandboxy character,

-R

 

[Chaim628]

Well I disagree with you on this point, because I don't find eve to be devoid of rules and regulations. In fact, eve is set-up in a way that encourages self-interested behaviors and capitalist dystopia. And that's just what CCP was going for, tbh.

But, don't fool yourself. Eve is a sandbox for sure, but market functionality, the sovereignty system, the emphasis on player versus player conflict, etc are regulations, rules and conditions that shape online institutional genesis and facilitate the production of norms.

There are more rules in Empire space for sure, but I was referring to nullsec. The set conditions there are minimal, the way stations are build or the way market information is given is marginal to the context. Of course you could say that having few rules encourages capitalistic behaviour... I don't think CCP was going for that, they wanted player made content, and this is what you get.

You also need to be extremely careful when trying to connect what happens in a game with the "real world."

The farthest I will take it is using MMOGs to illustrate how real world institutions *might* be formed. For example, I would point to (and have in a few articles) the ways in which game mechanics serve as structures that help fix what online norms and institutions look like. I would then simply argue that MMOGs are analogous to the real world only in the sense that material conditions (structures) help to fix real world institutions and norms.

True, you obviously have a large number of simplifications, so indeed it is just an indication. The fact we have not seen liberty on a large scale on our planet means it's not that easy, but given you have a no-legacy new environment in space you might get something similar as eve.

As for that game you are talking about, would you be surprised if a told you I don't find game theory, or the games themselves, very indicative of anything. Not only does the game itself prime the players to behave in certain ways, there are extreme cultural difference which impact the outcome?
-R

They are very indicative if well made, they do not mirror reality nor predict, which is something else.
Just read a good book about it's applications and it's quite impressive. Mark Herman is a long time historical simulation designer, some of his games are discussed over here. http://www.wargamingforleaders.com/

For example, did you know that doing classic "games" with students who are in the humanities often times breaks the games? I.e. the humanities students don't act on individualistic self-interest.
-R

Sorry to dissappoint you here, I was teaching simulation techniques as part of the Didactics classes to post master history students wanting to become teachers. And I'm an historian myself btw. You might have been right if I would have told them what I was trying to get to, then they would have reacted in their classical collectivistic reflex, here they thought it was a game test

 

[Chaim628]

Not only that, but as I've stated, the foundational game mechanics are unchangeable. You can't simply decide, as a collectivity, that we're now going to have corporate oversight and market regulation. You can't decide that the richest in eve need to taxed to support the poorest. You cannot make scamming a criminal offense. Etc.

So the game mechanics themselves limit the possibilities of what eve can be... despite its apparent sandboxy character,
-R

Yes you can, you can make some game structures irrelevant. You could build up your super collectivistic corp and start to control whole constellations and force everyone in your corp to give everything they have. Whether they have market information or not is irrelevant then. Some pirate corp tried to pull this off from what I read. Obviously most people would want to flee. You would have to have a heavy policing force controlling everyone everywhere which would be really tough since there are so many ways to get out. Why does all this remind me so much of the DDR and North Korea...

But it is true, players have less to lose than in RL, so they tend to take more risks and worry less about safety. Although it has nothing to do with gaming but to the perceived cost/benefit of taking the risk : the Wild West behaviour in the 18-19th century eg. was as risky as nullsec in eve.

 

[Dr Zaius]

There are more rules in Empire space for sure, but I was referring to nullsec. The set conditions there are minimal, the way stations are build or the way market information is given is marginal to the context. Of course you could say that having few rules encourages capitalistic behaviour...

Are you sure having few rules encourages capitalistic behavior (free markets) or does it encourage piracy and markets ruled by economic fiat?