Commentaries/Rebuttals

Commentaries on Regime section

by [Cody Doyle]

UNCLASSIFIED

To: Sisto Jacobo, President of The Socialist Republic of Prenza

From: Cody Doyle, Chief Leader of The Republic of Dacca

Subj: Official Demarche Regarding The People’s Socialist Party

Text:

1. It has come to my attention through reading Prenza’s Constitution outlining its’ Regime Structure that The Socialist Republic of Prenza is overseen by the People’s Socialist Party, also known as, Prenza’s Head. Maintaining a cabinet of “democratically elected” officials to advise and support the President on matters pertaining to the nation is entirely sound. Where I become concerned is that Prenza’s President and “The Seven”, which together make up the People’s Socialist Party, are “carefully selected by the People’s Socialist Party in order to ensure the best leaders are being provided for Prenza’s people and ensuring the Party’s vision is continued…with reelections being held as the Party sees fit” (Prenza’s Constitution).

2. Within this section of Prenza’s Constitution, we see outlined before us, one of the greatest discrepancies of the Socialist ideology; a hidden hand removing the ability for the people of Prenza to democratically elect their leadership. This same idea has been discussed by academics including Stanford University who describe a similar situation, “the system introduced in the Soviet Union featured intense concentration of political and economic power in the hands of an elite controlling a single party which, in turn, controlled a non-democratic state apparatus” (Gilabert and O'Neill, 2019). By the single Socialist party representing their ideals and maintaining the ability to choose who “Prenza’s Head” is, the People’s Socialist Party will be able to maintain its’ own ideals, separate from “Prenza’s peasants” as they are called in your constitution.

3. Furthermore, it is frowned upon that the “Eyes Division” being the “Party’s homeland security force”, not the nations, is responsible for ensuring the citizens of Prenza continue to work together and remain loyal to the Party. Dissecting this single sentence provided substance to the real goals of the Party; to remain unopposed. For one, why would the homeland security force belong to the Party and not the nation. Secondly, it ensures the “citizens” of Prenza continue to work together excluding the “Party” from the work even though your Socialist construct discusses work split evenly between all people. Finally, it requires that citizens of Prenza continue to remain loyal to the “Party”; not Prenza, not the Constitution, only the party.

4. It is requested, by the nation of Dacca, that you adjust your Regime Structure to fit a more democratic ideology providing legitimate rights to all the people of Dacca. Just as the United States did during the Cold War against the Soviet Union, the Republic of Dacca will stand up for the democratic rights of all people to choose for themselves what their government and country look like.

//SIGNED//

Cody Doyle

UNCLASSIFIED

Gilabert, Pablo and Martin O’Neill, "Socialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/socialism/

Jacobo, Sisto. Prenza Constitution, Regime Structure. 2022. https://sites.google.com/asu.edu/sp22-nations-sim/prenza/ideology-and-structure

by Jared Iverson - Chief Diplomat & UN Ambassador of Orissa

Cordial greetings from the people and government of Orissa. After having reviewed the regime structure of Prenza, we noticed several points about which we respectfully request further clarification.

1) The description of your regime states that the People’s Body will be divided into 30 Local Districts, each of which would have a representative who is elected by the electorate, and who will, in effect, serve as a liaison between the People’s Socialist Party and the rest of Prenza’s citizenry. Additionally, you claim that “Ultimately the power will remain under the Party’s discretion and use, but the division of the nation into districts and its local leaders will ensure that the Party remains connected to its people and disperse routine responsibilities throughout so that the Party can focus on goals and tasks for Prenza’s future” (Prenza’s regime structure). However, if there are popular elections held at this level for each district, what about the possibility of political opposition in the form of other political parties? Is this possible in your system, albeit under highly restrictive conditions to preserve the PSP’s power, or are all other political parties banned? After all, “One-party rule is a regime in which a single political party monopolizes politics and bans other parties or excludes them from power” (O’Neil et al., 2018, p. 374).

2) Also, regarding one-party rule regimes, “Typically, the party includes only a small minority of the population – in most communist countries, for instance, party membership has been less than 10 percent…” (O’Neil et al., 2018, p.374). With this in mind, how do you reconcile the socialist critiques of market capitalism – that the proletariat (the majority) is alienated and exploited by the bourgeoisie (the minority) – and the fact that the one-party rule system effectively necessitates rule by few having economic and political control over the people? There seems to be no distinguishable difference in terms of results between the two.

3) Additionally, there seems to be a potential problem related to party membership that might undermine the influence and power of the PSP as well. O’Neil, Fields, and Share (2018, p. 374) explain, “Those who embrace party membership only for the personal benefits and not out of any ideological conviction may quickly desert the leadership in a time of crisis”. What mechanisms are in place to prevent or rectify this kind of behavior so that political stability and effective governance of Prenza is maintained?

4) Lastly, it would seem that freedom of speech and press conflict with the rule and control of the Party as it would allow for opposition and dissention among Prenza’s citizenry. If these rights and liberties are granted to Prenza’s citizens, how does the PSP regulate these rights and liberties, if at all, so that it remains in control of the will of the populace and not vice versa?

We thank you for your time and consideration of these matters.

References:

O’Neil, P. H., Fields, K., & Share, D. (2018). Cases and concepts in comparative politics: An integrated approach. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Jacobo, S. (2022). Prenza regime structure. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/asu.edu/sp22-nations-sim/prenza/ideology-and-structure

Rebuttals to Regime Commentaries

by Sisto Jacobo

With regard to Cody Doyle and The Republic of Dacca's concerns,

Prenza and the People's Socialist Party understand your concerns and would wish to address them, we sincerely hope our following responses are adequate and welcome future discourse. Firstly, the Party is made up of more members than the President and The Seven, for example all local leaders, division leaders, and other members of the Party not directly listed in the regime but who serve vital day-day roles, also make up the Party. There is no "hidden hand" in Prenza, our people fully understand the processes of their nation as it is directly outlined for them, and they too can become members of the Party or help vote on their local leaders in order to play a larger role in Prenza's politics if they so wish. Members of the Party and Prenza's "peasants" are ultimately one in the same, each member of the nation is equal and unified in their goal to support Prenza, there is no separation of any kind between social classes or ideologies. Secondly, the Eyes Division does work for the Party, but in doing so they operate on the nation's behalf as the Party represents Prenza's interests and goals. What belongs to the Party, belongs to Prenza. As was discussed earlier, members of the Party and any other citizen of Prenza are one in the same and each works for the benefit of Prenza and their neighbor. A citizen who is loyal to the Party is loyal to Prenza and its constitution, none are exclusive from the other.

Prenza and the People's Socialist Party respect your nation's commitment to its ideals and we hope you will extend that understanding to us as we also work to ensure the rights of our people are secured, as well as the rights of people in other nations. While we are ideologically at odds, we are all one people in the eyes of Prenza.

With regard to Jared Iverson and the nation of Orissa,

Prenza and the People's Socialist Party understand your concerns and would wish to address them, we sincerely hope our following responses are adequate and welcome future discourse. Our nation is represented and united by a single party, and it does not function as a multi-party system as our government and its people did not see it necessary to do so. Those who run in Prenza's local elections do so under the Party's support and jurisdiction, and they reflect the Party's values. We do recognize that the individuals in power within the Party are a minority compared to the rest of the nation, but this does not mean a minority holds power over the majority. Those in power act in accordance to the people's wishes and their decisions are made with Prenza and it's people in mind, there are no individual motivations tolerated within Prenza's government. Furthermore, Prenza fully believes in a totally equal and transparent nation, while the government does operate and distribute many resources and industries, those same resources and industries still belong to the citizens of Prenza. Every Prenzian official operates with this and much more in mind, they are kept in check by the Party's large and complex screening process and subsequent reviews that ensure Prenza's leaders truly operate with no other motive in mind beyond Prenza, and those who are found violating these conditions are terminated from their positions immediately. Lastly, the rights of our people are valued to the highest degree, ultimately, and as stated in the regime, it is up to the discretion of the Party exactly how the rights are protected and defined, but they are ensured.

Further questions are appreciated and we understand your concern for our citizens as we also look into the well-being of other nation's citizenry as Prenza hopes we can all live as one, peaceful people.

Commentaries of Ideology section

by Tyler Boettcher, Khulna – Head of State

To the socialist republic of Prenza, you elect representatives to your government to form a sort of equality and freedom in which everyone can enjoy. How do you choose when there is a difference in opinion between representatives and individuals? Would you not have to try to influence others? If so, changing the mind of a representative in turn violates moral agency by not following the reason they were elected in the first place, to ensure that their will is carried out (not the needs/will of another representative and their people). Furthermore, to avoid the capitalist pitfall, your state must control all the resources so what is to prevent from those in power, though elected, from granting themselves a larger share? You have allowed yourself to divide your people, not just by who is in power but through representation you have created your own districts which must argue to ensure equality. If those in power were to grant themselves a larger share, or (through coercion of other representatives) grant their “districts”/people a larger share of resources you in turn would create groups of “haves and have nots”. Those who have in surplus could sell the extra to those in need resulting in profit making which you fear in a capitalist society. I would argue a better form of government is the single head of state and allow your people to “vote” in the form of an opinion survey. Here, everyone has the same voice of what they desire. Then a decision can be made: go with the majority or create some sort of hybrid solution to “best fit” with what the people want. Either way, all are equal under the decision receiving equal voice and equal share of the state’s resources. As long as resources are equal, everyone can express their freedom to choose on what to do with it and how to live their day to day lives. Unfortunately, I believe, when representation is used it creates an incentive to create inequalities in which only those in power have true freedom by exploitation of resources and those under them.

Ideas to counter themes of social democracy and Marxism from:

Carter, April, and Geoffrey Stokes, editors. Democratic Theory Today: Challenges for the 21st Century. Polity Press, 2007.

by Ally Lakis, Cavan

Dear Officials of Prenza,

I am writing with concern about aspects of your idealogy. I am primarily concerned that you have a communist state designed, rather than a socialist state. Although both states are aimed to empower the working class, these two government types are not the same. I’m writing with particular concern about the following passage from your ideology. You state, “ The newly awoken working class is then led to pursue revolution in order to seize the means of production once held by the capitalists. Ownership is then transferred to the public sector for the collective ownership of profits through the newly founded dictatorship. The working class is then empowered to profit from their own labor and enjoy a life of leisure without persecution and prosperity.” First, your brief states that you will be a democratic society, later you say that it will be a “newly founded dictatorship”. I believe that socialism is more of an economic ideology than a political one, you can have multiple types of government and maintain a socialist ideology. However, these two types mentioned in your manifesto are in contradiction to each other which I find concerning, I am looking forward to clarification about your type of government in your rebuttal. Furthermore, it is my understanding that in a socialist state citizens have access to public goods owned by the state and that public good is of chief importance, but the workers themselves do not own the means of production. I found some sections of your ideology referring to the citizens owning means of production, and some sentences about turning it over to the state. I think that clarifying these discrepancies would make for a more clear and more effective ideology. I have attached a graphic below that I believe illlistrates the nuances between these to government types well, I hope it is helpful.

This being said, as a member of Cavan leadership, I am very appreciative that you value the individual rights and liberties of your citizens so highly. As a libertarian democracy, this is something that Cavan looks for in our allies. I look forward to hearing from you and beginning our relationship.

Socialism vs communism. Economics Help. (n.d.). Retrieved March 28, 2022, from https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/socialism-vs-communism/

[insert Commentary2 text]

by George Wible, Representing Kurgan

Upon reviewing the Ideology of Prenza, a Socialist nation, it becomes concerning that the greater part of this document is less a description of its socialist ideology and more of a critique of capitalism. Although it may be perceived that socialism provides benefits over other ideologies, all of which are arguable, this critique of capitalism, to provide evidence in favor of socialism, is rather misleading.

It is stated in Prenza’s Ideology that, “[T]he Party protects its people from the dangers of individualistic greed and, in turn, the exploitation of class divisions.” Is not this “individualistic greed” that which often drives innovation? Innovation that allows a nation to move forward, to progress, to become greater than it was yesterday. Does not this quelling of such drive mute competition? Competition that breeds great ideas, and then ideas greater than those.

It is widely known that a trait of a socialist ideology is a “potential lack of motivation” (Heath, 2020). What motivation do the citizens of Prenza have if they do not have anything to gain as an individual? What is the motivation to go above and beyond? Prenza claims that their “working class is then empowered to profit from their own labor and enjoy a life of leisure without persecution and prosperity.” Profit in what manner? Could not the capitalist make a reasonable argument that the working class is empowered to profit from their individual efforts, thus attaining the upward mobility Prenza claims to be a fallacy and enjoy a life of leisure as a result. Furthermore, what sort of leisure might one expect in a socialist nation when one is constantly working for everyone else?

In closing, your opening statement claims that, “[T[he Party's purpose is to ensure the equality of all citizens in both liberty and opportunity.” Mark Perry described this more accurately when he wrote, “Socialism…promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery” (Perry, 1995).

Heath, Alex. (February, 2020). What are the disadvantages of socialism ideology? Easierwithpractice.com Retrieved on 28 March 2022 from https://easierwithpractice.com/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-socialism-ideology/

Perry, Mark. (May, 1995). Why Socialism Failed. Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved on 28 March from https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-failed/

Rebuttals to Ideology Commentaries

by [author of Ideology section]

Commentaries on Education Policy

by [enter name of person writing 1st commentary]

[insert Commentary1 text]

by [enter name of person writing 2nd commentary]

[insert Commentary2 text]

Commentaries on Energy Policy

by [Thomas Engle]

[A major concern of mine with the Prenza energy policy is the lack of investment in energy storage. The investment in renewable none fossil fuel energy sources is admirable for climate change concerns but with Prenzas focus on tech investment and increases investment from outside tech sources will require stable and ample sources of power to supply that innovation. Cost of lithium battery storage has declined considerably over the past two decades making the cost of energy storage paired with renewable sources such as wind or solar a viable solution to the issues caused by the unreliability of the solar and wind combination.[1] In the current energy creation market the solar storage combination cost places it within the same price arena as conventional nuclear power. Prenzas emphasis on maintenance, regulation, shared power agreement with its neighbor Kurgan, and on a technically trained populace makes it a strong candidate to stabilize and expand its power grid through nuclear energy. Prenzas current identified power expansion options of Biomass and geothermal have major concerns of their own including extreme location specificity for geothermal while biomass power releases carbon back into the atmosphere along with other combustion by-products.[2] Prenza should focus its efforts into expanding its energy sector into nuclear to ensure it has the viable base load power available for its expanding tech sector. While some may have some aversion to nuclear power its safety rating closely matches that of wind, hydropower, and solar. The lead opposition to nuclear in the 21^st century seems to be comprised of the fossil fuel industry stoking fears that were popularized in the 1970s anti nuclear protest movement.[3] The U.S Navy operates 84 nuclear powered ships home ported across multiple locations in the United States and Japan holding an excellent safety record on vessels that operate under the ocean and in hostile environments having zero accidents releasing radioactive materials into the environment.[4] The longevity of the civilian nuclear power industry has allowed for long term studies investigating the health risks associated with living near nuclear power stations has been found to be negligible.[5] While nuclear waste disposal is an issue there are solutions such as deep geological disposal, use in lower level reactors, and other innovations coming to tackle the waste issue.[6] The energy density of one kg of Uranium-234 is 3,900,000MJ making the substance incredibly energy dense compared to all other sources of energy.[7] The United Kingdom identifying the independence given by such energy density coupled with the clean power generation has made nuclear energy a cornerstone to their clean power strategy authorizing eight new reactors to relive their nation from fossil fuel dependency.[8] Prenza should not be afraid to harness the power of the atom when moving towards a fossil free energy sector the expediency needed to stabilize climate change while renewables mature requires the use of all the clean technologies we have available.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/australia-switches-on-victoria-big-battery-powered-by-tesla-megapacks.html

[2] https://www.energy.gov/eere/forge/geothermal-basics, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/biomass-energy/

[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/15/natural-gas-industry-blasts-nuclear-power-with-fake-news/?sh=7d21807a133b, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf

[4] https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/fact0604.pdf , https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/23/americas-nuclear-navy-still-the-masters-of-nuclear-power/ , https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/ , https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-submarines-and-aircraft-carriers , https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/missions/powering-navy

[5] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638017/

[6] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180703

[7] https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density

[8] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61010605

]

by Marcus Brown (Assigned education section isn't complete)

When it comes to your policy on energy, I really like how you focus on renewable sources such as solar, and water. We in Kurgan also are changing our ethos when it comes to energy in order to be more efficient when it comes to our environmental impact as well. Other considerations that I think are worth taking seriously are those of waste. Waste can harm the environment more than the consumption. For example, when it comes to nuclear power it can cause harmful health impacts such as cancer so ensuring that waste is disposed of properly is something both our states should take very seriously not only to prevent health concerns but to also protect and enable our people to be most effective within our societies as they are key players in our development as a whole. Additionally by using various sources of these renewable resources, we are able to diversify our energy source and prevent dependency on a sole resource. This positions us to better combat depleting a sole resource which could be just as dangerous from both an energy and economic standpoint. I also think that it’s great that you have a separate division within your government that is focused on ensuring that proper energy protocols are followed to ensure you have some type of compliance when it comes to ensuring the mission and vision of your energy program is carried out. Overall, I think the structure that you have in place is great, however, the greatest concern that I think is worth bringing up is how you plan on disposing of waste. Nonetheless, you values around why this is important such as the health of citizens, and overall well-being of your state is something Kurgan can connect on as both are an important component to the overall well-being of our states so thumbs up on this policy for us with caution on the disposal of waste that are a product of these energy resources.

Resources:

“Energy Resources for State and Local Governments.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/local-renewable-energy-benefits-and-resources#one.

“What Are the Negative Effects of Nuclear Waste?: Sustainability from Japan.” Zenbird, 25 Feb. 2021, https://zenbird.media/what-are-the-negative-effects-of-nuclear-waste/#:~:text=Spent%20nuclear%20fuel%20is%20dangerously,mutation%20to%20animals%20and%20plants.

Commentaries on Immigration Policy

by [Luke Laris]

Although there was no direct immigration policy listed in the Wiki page I see a couple of concerns given your form of government. My first concern is that while this form of government seems to be a socialist state, it has some communist ideology mixed in there. If I were an immigrant I would like the idea that I will be taken care of by the government. However, this could create disdain between the working class and the higher educated class. This is because if there are more and more working class immigrants then you could have a disproportionate amount of the population supporting others as well as this could hurt the migration of educated people into your nation as they might find a more capitalist society appealing.

My second concern is that often times people migrate to make a better life for themselves and their family. If one was to migrate there as a working class citizen there really isn't much opportunity to do anything other than maintain the status quo. My questions would be "What about your governmental system makes it appealing for others to migrate to your country?"

I think socialism in paper sounds great as it sounds like it benefits everyone, but I think that these states only last so long before people inherently want more out of life and when they come to the realization that that's impossible they will eventually revolt or at a bare minimum create social unrest. I base this opinion off of recent events in Venezuela and even going back to the formation of what is the current state of Cuba. Even if there isn't much social unrest these countries have a minimal status on the world stage and often times see a very low migration rate. When we look at capitalist states, migration can foster innovation in multiple fields and while not everyone can always make a better life, the opportunity is there and that is what draws people in.

By Almothana Alkhalil

Since there is no immigration policy posted, I will be commenting on the only posted policy, the energy policy. I firstly would like to express my happiness that a socialist state is caring about environmental issues. Historically, socialist states did not care much about environmental threats in contrast to their extra care of energy availability and equality of energy distribution.

I also would like to share my concerns about the vague term “sustainable energy”, I will assume that it means renewable energy sources. Then, we need to discuss the feasibility of the widespread use of renewable energy. If nuclear energy is excluded from the so-called clean renewable sources of energy, can those sources cover the growing need for energy without a significant effect on the environment, especially on wildlife? The answer, in my opinion, is definitely no. I believe that energy policies are one of the most complicated challenges facing humans in the modern age. Even though clean renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal are saving the planet in terms of carbon emissions, they still harm the planet in terms of wildlife conservation. Our ecological system is a very complex system where species are dependent on each other in one way or another and life cycles are intertwined. We might think that harming a few kinds of birds by the huge wind turbines, destroying the homeland of a few kinds of reptiles by covering it with huge solar farms, or killing a few kinds of fish by building dams and generators will not have serious consequences on our planet, but this is not true. When we started burning fossil fuels on large scales, we did not know that they will cause all this damage to our planet, same thing with nuclear power generation, therefore, can the same scenario be applied to clean renewables? I will leave you with an interesting video that answers a crucial question, can renewables save the planet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w