#other things that don’t function the same in the dsmp as it does on our world

[sing-me-under]

I like to think that all the people of the DSMP are functionally immortal until fatally wounded, it’s just that Phil just happened to survive the longest.

Like, the then-minors are all young in comparison but they’re still older than what our reality labels children. They all age and develop at wildly different rates, with Tommy being the youngest physically, mentally, and literally. Eryn is possibly the only other person to compete for youngest, but no one really knows for sure. They were childhood friends though.

Basically, this is me pushing the “Reality Has No Bearing On The DSMP”

[7ven-devils]

A really long overanlysis of minecraft servers.

This will be my only warning, this shit is really long.

I promised this to @ivi-prism 2 weeks ago (hi, i am Svetla) but university said no and then i feel my notes were incomplete so i have to do more research.

So let's talk about anarchism and capitalism. As a future political scientist, really bugs me how the fandom and some content creators (im looking at you techno) misinterpret both theories.

Yeah this will be a overanalysis about the political, social and economic system of two minecraft servers. Why? Cause i like analysis things like this and finally i can solved what is the system of hermitcraft and thats make me happy.

Things to consider:

First im not native english speaker and im lazy so im not often write or talk in english so my typos can make Doc really proud.

Second i don't watch Dsmp i only know things about the server by the animatics, the constant information wich pop up here on tumblr, the crossover fanfics and the tiny vods that youtube insist play when i have activate automatic reproduction.

Third i tried to simplified this much as i can because this analysis i maded talking with my friends (also political scientists) and a former professor, so it got quite technical while i was writing it.

And finally don't take this seriously, I'm not trying to insult anyone, I only started this because the hermitfandom started saying that hermitcraft was capitalist and then everyone started comparing the Dsmp with hermitcraft saying anarchism vs capitalism, that's why the dsmp entered into this analysis.

Guys, seriously chaos isn't anarchism and "sucefully economic" isn't capitalism, even paid with "money" (diamonds in this case) isnt necessary capitalism.

First, mini glossary:

I understand a server like a Society/State (country) with Mr Weber definition. In really vague words a State is anyone that has a territory and has legal control of violence (the laws, no the abuse of authority).

I understand the private property as the hermits bases and/or shops (i suppose only base in dsmp? Idk)

I understand the mass production as the farms and resources.

Capitalism is a economic, politic and social theory, wich it considers private property essential and tends to monopolize the resources 'cause this it also considered private property.

Anarchy means "without government" it has its origin in the Ancient Greece. And Anarchism theory is just a society free from any political authority, but respecting the liberties of the others.

A Failed State is which one lose control of the legal violence, and can't provide the peace, essential human rights and the basics for a normal lifestyle to its people.

I think thats all the bored shit (i hope so). Now the interesting shit.

Why hermitcraft isnt capitalist?

Short answer, their idea of private property is not the same as capitalism has.

Long answer, even if they have their own stuff, they had a really strong sense of community and dont really care if someone take things from them.

We can see this in the beginning of season when Iskall take some mini blocks from Etho and he didn't really care (yeah, iskall "paid" him, but later i will explain this) or the multiple times Grian "borrow" things from Iskall and Mumbo in season 6 or Scar in season 7, the team ZIT constantly take things from each other and i can go on and on with examples, but the point here is this couldn't happen if they had a capitalist society because this would break the "private" part of private property and mass production.

Basically their friendship made so strong their sense of community that they are basically inmune to capitalism, Uncle Marx would be proud of them (not really, but would be funny). So they are communist? Nope, communist don't believe in private property and the hermits does.

But you just said-? I said they dont has the SAME idea of private property as capitalism does. They still have their bases, farms and shops, but for them their private property isnt sacred like in a capitalism system would be.

They're respect each other things because they appreciated the effort and values the time the person puts on their buildings and not only because doesn't belongs to them (and obviously cause theyre frends, but shush, this is a overanalysis, the obvious things doesn't have place here) i mean even for the shenanigans they are really polite and try to cause the least damage possible not because is not of them but because they valued the person.

Basically the famous honor code of hermitcraft.

What about the economic system and the shopping district?

Lets talk about the elephant in the room.

If Hermitcraft isnt a capitalist system, why they have a economic system based in diamonds?

Well, despite the exchange based in money for resources or services is a principal characteristic of capitalism, it isnt exclusive of that theory.

The money is a social consensus, cause barter has becomes obsolete and gold isnt cheap or infinite to use as payment. And basically, this is why we use money on this days (if you want to know the history of money ask to your trusted historian or Wikipedia).

What does this remind us? Yep, diamonds and iou's are a consensus too. When the 1.16 came out some hermits tried to change to netherite as payment and didn't suit, so they ignored it and continued with their current payment system.

And as much as Mr Smith likes to say that this is how the free market (and his stupid invisible hand) works, capitalism needs the monopoly of resources and people who works to pay for those resources.

But in Hermitcraft nobody really controlled the resources, anyone can go and collect their materials or made a farm. They just decided don't do it and go and buy it, because they save the time to go and collect for themselves, in other words they paid for the time.

Various hermits say they saved so much time go and buy the materials instead to collect themself or trade with the villagers (cause theyre the worst and all of us know it) thats why the barge and lookie lookie at my bookie are so profitable.

The shopping district it wasn't a thing before season 4, i dont really sure how it worked before, because i started watch in season six and sadly i have a boring adult life to saw the old seasons, but i assume it works in the same way that the trades the hermits does between them to accord a discount or a collab, and speak directly with the interested hermit or directly take it and pays what's considered it was fair, like iskall did with etho.

Like i said all what's happen in hermitcraft is a consensus, even the shopping district.

So yeah, that isnt a thing that would happen in a capitalism system, probably you would be dead, because "how are you dare to entered to my property", or in the jail, "because thats not yours".

So, what is hermitcraft?

For the surprise from much of you, Hermitcraft has an anarchist system.

What?! But their server is so peaceful, they don't steal from each other, they doesn't griefing, hows that possible?!

Well, the anarchism isn't really a violent political theory, at least in its beginning, actually anarchism is one of the most peaceful theories i studied, thats why i dont really thing it will worked in our society, but work in a server of 24 friends. Its too idealist.

I don't really study all of the thoughts corrents of anarchism because they are a lot. But the one we are interested is one of original thought corrent, The Mutualism, this in contrast with their cousin Communism doesn't believes the private property was something bad and considered like one of the rights from the individual, but different as capitalism because like i said before it wasn't sacred and communal things will exist to help others to start or recover.

Proudhon, one of it intellectuals, considered not paid for the work of the other it was a form to violate their liberties and feel horrofied with Marx when he said we have to abolish the private property.

The mutualists believes that each person should possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, and the products obtained would be trade in the market for the amount equivalent of their work.

This sound familiar, isnt it? Hermitcraft works in this way.

The thing with anarchism is they don't believes in a government over the people. And the hermits doesn't have one, yeah there's Scar being the mayor, but he isnt have a power over the rest and only is in charge of the "cowmercial district" even aquatown isn't part of his jurisdiction, his function is more of organization, like when we put a friend in charge to organizing part of a roadtrip.

It's the same with Xisuma figure, we all put him in a position of the admin of hermitcraft, but the truth is he isnt the only one with admin commands (but apparently some or all of them losed their admin status, at least in one of the last tango's streams, he hasnt it anymore) and various hermits said that he is more like an ambassador of them in the legal things of the server.

The hermits take all of they decisions in group and in the majority of things all of them needs to be agreed with the decision or they simple doesn't do it. And this is a characteristic of the mutualism because for them anyone are over the other.

And if you aren't already bored at this point and you put attention to what i wrote of the concept of private property in the mutualism, you would see it is practically the way hermitcraft works. They make their bases and farms, recolect resources and sell what they don't will use, buy mostly to save time and paid for the price what they considered fair. Yeah i know sometimes they do some farm specifically for one shop, but this is more "yeah, this is my thing" (Tango and Iron; Ren and wood) or a division of activities "if you do that, i do this".

The perfect utopia.

What about the Dsmp?

If you do it to here, congratulations.

So what about the Dsmp, i entered here because i want to read of them and the only thing i read was about hermitcraft.

Well, the Dsmp only entered in the equation because much of you said they were an anarchist server, but i see it more like a "failed state" and when i was talked with an exprofessor he agreed with me.

I know the term of failed state is controversial and is almost obsolete, but is the best way to describe the server and stop said it is anarchist.

So why failed state and not an anarchist state? Because they have a government (or apparently multiples) a failed one, but is there, if it were an anarchist server wouldn't have one.

Usually the failed states are known for being violent and volatile places in which ones their governments can't provides the basics to their people to live, normally are places with ethnics conflicts, civil wars, authoritarian governments or states in wars. The most common examples are Haití, Somalia or Syria.

And i am sure you can see the similarities with the Dsmp, so yeah, theyre chaotic but not anarchist.

The wars ruined the stability from the server, have a multiple sides and a megalomaniac for admin, but the goverment still there and they are fighting for the power wich wouldn't happen if the server were anarchist because anarchism don't believe the power should be possess for someone.

The server simply is failed state wich struggles under a violent fight for power.

--------------------------------------------------

If you read this far, you're a hero and had my gratitude for read my useless thoughts. Maybe some day i do it other overanalysis of this servers. I hope you enjoyed and dont confused so much.

Thanks for read.

And if there are some angry economist with me for "misrepresent" the capitalist i am completely open to a debate, my only condition is it would be in chilean spanish ;)

[morning-glory215]

I’m sorry but saying that the US is like Europe (a bunch of different countries) is just wrong. It is still one country run by the same government, yes there is obviously going to be differences between states but nothing near the likes of say Estonia compared to Azerbaijan compared to Ireland you know? I’m not trying to be rude sorry the two just aren’t comparable

This is such an oddly funny ask to get. I'm mostly a DSMP blog, but you've activated my irl trap card - US politics. I'm a political science major. I live, breathe and sleep this kind of stuff.

Though to be honest, I have no idea what post you're referring to.

However - I'm going to operate under the idea that you don't know what federalism is. Federalism is the government function of separate national and state governments. Brazil, the US, Russia and Canada are federalist off the top of my head. How much power is enumerated to each level is varying by country - I'm most comfortable discussing the United States.

I’m going to give you the short and skinny of my viewpoint - the US federal government is sort of like the individual state’s manager. Each individual state has their own rights/powers, and so does the federal government. The federal government largely handles money and the protection of the Union - because each state is in agreement to be in the union. Of course, secession is another pretty legally dubious subject and one I’m not too interested in getting into.

In the United States constitution, certain powers are expressly (enumerated) stated to the federal and state levels. The basis of enumerated powers were that basically, any powers not explicitly stated for the federal government were thus given to the states. Some of these powers thusly given include; governance of how to deal with punishment for crimes; how to define those crimes; to create state militias (these are like mini state armies, that are used to deal with state emergencies, but are always superseded by the national military); how to administer education; copyright laws; regulations for businesses; creation of roads (which are often given money to maintain interstates). There are so many more, and they are STILL debated. 

Now, back in the days of dear old mother England supervising her thirteen little wayward colonies, we were, in fact, thirteen colonies that were separate from each other. Just because they all touched did not mean they were run the same. Crown colonies, private colonies. Sure, by the time of the American revolution, all the thirteen were run by the Crown, but they were still separate governments. There's a reason only Massachusetts was punished by the crown for the Boston Tea Party, and that's because it was seen, accurately, as a bunch of Massachusetts colonists causing problems, and not all the thirteen colonies causing problems.

The Constitution is a living document - and one nearly not brought to life. I won't bore you with early US history, nor the entirety of the Articles of Confederation. However, I will tell you that the Articles of Confederation were weak and did not support a federalist basis of government. They barely could make the infant states do ANYTHING. This is because they were not under an agreement to join into a union as we know now. A confederation is simply a loose joining of groups for a common goal - but frankly, all the Articles succeeded in doing was letting wealthy states walk free whilst states burdened by debt flounder and allowed states to largely function as independent nations.

Moving on, let’s circle back and look at the separation of powers - between federal and state levels. In Article VI of the Constitution, we are granted the words of the supremacy clause - “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”. The supremacy clause states that the laws of the federal government are the supreme law of the land (it also forbids religious tests to be mandated to be entered into a public office, and makes the federal gov. responsible for debts incurred during the time of the Articles). 

What makes this especially interesting is the simple fact of the matter that… well, state governments were often upheld above the federal government. Before the Civil War, the federal government did the bare minimum (collect taxes, raise an army, deal with foreign powers) and state governments superseded the national government. People even identified with their states far more than they did with the actual United States. Just listen to Hamilton and see how much they refer to each other by their colony/state instead of their national identity. 

I’m going to wrap this up before it gets too long and I lose the plot. However, thank you for indulging me and TLDR: I don’t think the US is like Europe in the sense that every state has very deep and well-defined cultures. However, it’s naive to think that federalism in the United States has not created a sort of differing identities by state. I know as somebody from Kansas, I’d sooner die than be lumped in with somebody from Oklahoma. I know people who’d sooner jump in the ocean than be lumped in with Texas or California or Florida. Just - all in all - US politics and our government is very weird.

And please…. Don’t ask me about our presidential election cycles.  

[cat-bit]

Unity vs Conformity in the Dream SMP

/rp /dsmp

So a couple of weeks(?) ago I jokingly talked about writing an essay on the true conflict at the heart of the Dream SMP, and it got more interest than I thought it would SO

Guess what fuckers it's not a joke anymore brace yourselves.

"The biggest underlying conflict in the Dream SMP is the ephemeral battle of Unity vs Conformity, how the two are often mistaken for each other, and how this clash of ideologies is represented on a broad level with factions, AND on an individual level in different characters." 

Long post under the cut, head up!

I want to start by giving the token acknowledgement that all the characters I am about to talk about are morally grey, barring Dream, who is just a straight up villain. There's no one tried and true formula on judging whether or not a character is "good," because it is most often entirely subjective, and depends heavily on each character's specific motive. That being said: while motive is our gateway to understanding why a character acts a certain way, it does not therefore also function as an excuse for their behavior, which will be an important thing to remember later on. 

The true conflict at the center of the DSMP's lore, and what I believe to be the closest thing we'll get to a "moral of the story," is the friction between unity and conformity as both conflicting and intertwining ideologies. 

If we take a closer look at each of the individual battles we've seen take place on the SMP, we can actually see the two ideologies interact both on a factional level and on an individual level. Case and point: the L'Manberg revolution, where L'manberg represents the concept of unity, and the Greater Dream SMP represents the concept of conformity, or again with Manberg vs. Pogtopia, and at a character level with Tommy vs Dream, or Tubbo vs Techno.

This is an interesting dynamic because both concepts are at the same time very similar, yet very different, as both of them are essentially about a group of people coming together to form a single unit. But where unity is an organic, social process that rewards both teamwork and individuality and exists primarily to benefit the group, conformity is an unnatural social construct most often enforced by the threat of violence as punishment for defiance, and exists primarily to benefit the enforcer(s).

While these two concepts, at their core, are incredibly different from one another, it is their surface level similarities that often get one mixed up with the other. This is why we end up with characters acting out in extremely malicious ways, while at the same time believing that they are in the right. 

We can see this most recently with Dream and Tommy. 

I don't think there has ever been a more perfect example of unity on the Dream SMP than the Final Disc War. 

For the first time in a long while-- perhaps ever, really-- most everyone on the server stood shoulder to shoulder in order to accomplish an important goal: standing up to the puppetmaster that had been pulling the strings behind the scenes, and making them all suffer for months. Even those who had proven themselves to be Tommy's enemies set aside their bitterness for at least a little while in order to confront Dream. It was an incredibly stunning moment, and to this day I still think that it is the highest point in the entire storyline. I'd never felt so overjoyed.

This coming together of individuals was organic and willing, meaning that it happened naturally, and that everyone who was there wanted to be there. The only person you could argue was there out of obligation was Punz, as he was paid to show up, but everyone else who came with him essentially volunteered. They didn't have to be there, they didn't have to take that risk, they had no idea what they'd be walking into, but they did it anyway, and that is the essence of unity. 

Conversely, you have characters like Dream and Techno, or the Eggpire faction, all of whom confuse a desire for unity with the act of enforcing conformity. 

Dream wants the server to become "one big happy family" again. But his quest to accomplish this has twisted him into a pale imitation of his former self, someone who has no empathy or remorse for what he has done, because he sees his actions as entirely justified. To him, the ends justify the means. Tommy is the villain in his story, and making him suffer is par for the course. We begin to see that Dream is actually very aware of what he is doing. He understands the distinctions between unity and conformity, and has decided that he would rather have the people of the server conform by force than unify by choice. He wants control. He wants power. He wants to be a god.

It's the same principle with Techno and the Syndicate, albeit for different reasons and under different circumstances. 

Unlike Dream, Techno is not really a villain. He is certainly on the darker end of the morally grey spectrum, but he has not reached the same level as that disgusting green teletubby. Yet.

However, this doesn't mean that he also isn't in the wrong with this new Syndicate. The circumstances are just a little different. 

This is one of those instances where motive becomes an important factor in judging a character's actions. While Dream abuses and hurts Tommy out of his innate desire for control, and that pesky god complex, Techno acts in the service of his beliefs, which ultimately boil down to: no one person should have absolute power over any other.

As admirable as that belief is, Techno's enforcement of it is where we hit that slippery slope. 

On a surface level, the Syndicate seems like a good thing; an organization set up and geared towards preventing tyranny on the server, supported by and supporting local anarchists. But what is it really, other than a glorified police force made up mostly of the richest, most powerful people on the server, waltzing about with their maxed armor and weapons, scaring the daylights out of everyday folks. 

The Syndicate exists to put an end to tyrants, but who decides what a tyrant is on the Dream SMP? Who gets to make that distinction? The Syndicate itself? How do they decide what qualifies as tyranny? What prevents them from setting arbitrary standards? What right do they have to be the enforcers? Doesn't that make them the tyrants? Sure, they aren't directly ruling over anyone, and all Syndicate members are there by choice, but no one else on the server will be able to form a government or organization without suffering the innate fear of pissing them off. 

This is a prime example of something meant to be good that could easily be twisted into something very bad. The Syndicate exists to wipe out tyranny, yes, but in doing so they also exist to enforce one very specific way of thinking. That's not unity.

Techno's motives are understandable, even commendable given his backstory, but he doesn't seem to understand that when unity becomes something that you have to force others into, it is no longer unity. The basic tenets have been corrupted, and you are now enforcing a system of conformity that violates the natural freedoms of the people you are trying to bring together, or in this case "set free".

So what does this mean for the story and its conflicts? How do the characters "fix" this? 

It really depends. 

With Dream, I'd say the only real solution is a one way ticket to perma-death. This is a guy that knows full well what he is doing, and he revels in it.

As for the Syndicate, I think it is quite literally a matter of which way the wind blows. Can Techno "the only universal language is violence" blade be reasoned with? Jury is still out. I personally think it's going to take some measure of physical confrontation. You're going to have to beat the Blade to prove anything to him. I am just hoping it all works out