I'm very new to the concept of communism. Just 2 weeks ago I started diving into actual theory and concepts instead of being too scared of it to care.

Through all my life, I've heard the phrase "communism looks great on paper, but it's never worked in practice." I've seen enough communism YouTube to know that this phrase is constantly clowned on, but this has been my reality for over 2 decades now so obviously I wanted to understand the refutation of this claim.

I took to r/communism's anti communism mega thread and read the abstracts of all the pieces regarding the USSR (I had a particular interest in the USSR because I wanted to understand the motivations of the Great Purge). Perhaps I should spend more time in those sources than just the abstract, but what I've gathered from them so far is that the commonly cited death count is a grossly over exaggerated statistic originating from the propaganda piece that was The Black Book of Communism. But the fact remains that there were political prisoners executed, and any argument against this feels like sugar coating to me.

I have a particular distaste against the argument that capitalism has killed far more people than socialism ever has due to wars and the like. On one obvious hand, capitalism has existed for far longer than active socialism ever has. The USSR alone killed many people in it's relatively short span of existence. Perhaps there's an argument to be made about the proportion of time to number killed, but I actually believe this is beside the point. Socialism is put up as this grand solution to capitalism, a system which condones these wars, but socialism seems to turn this terrible amoral violence against its own people, so is it even really a viable solution? Perhaps it's true that socialism is better than capitalism, but can we actually really say it was successful in what it set out to do?

The Soviet Union was able to bring society to the degree of global superpower in the time it existed, there's no doubt about that, but any time I search for communist thoughts about the bad parts of it's existence, I don't really see solutions to the problem, I see excuses. If I search Google for information on the great purge, I see page after page after page telling me the same widely agreed upon information. The only time I see any conflicting information is when I specifically search for it, or it's given to me by people who have already found it (like the anti communist mega thread). Furthermore, these pages I find are clearly bent towards communist thought. This makes me feel like an anti vaxer who searches for information specifically to conflict with commonly accepted thought, on sites obviously against commonly accepted thought, and once he finds something after searching says "Aha! I knew it!"

This makes me feel like it's not worth digging any further than the abstracts on the mega thread. I value my time and I don't mind spending hour reading to further my understanding, but not if it's just propaganda, and I feel like that's all it is.

Most communists refer, in one way or another, to Marx’s analytical tools to describe the contemporary economy.

Why is this?

Take, for instance, Marx’s theory of value—one that shares a lot with other classical economists like Smith or Ricardo—and its contemporary counterpart, the subjective theory of value emerged in the marginal revolution. Why, do you think, is the former better than the latter at describing our world?

Failure to justify this choice might lead to unsound claims that rely on that same theory. The idea that worker’s labour has higher value than the salary received for that labour is sensible only in a classical theory of value. In a “neoclassical” (I don’t really like this word) framework, this statement is meaningless. It is not wrong, it just conveys no meaning.

So, why do you use Marxist tools and ideas instead of others from whichever school of thought you can think of?

How do you distinguish personal and private property?

How does Communism get people to do undesirable job's?

What stops people practicing Capitalism in a Communist society?

What are your views on religion?

What do you think is the best kind of family unit and how should children be raised?

There are more strains of communist thought than Marxism.

As a great example, Sylvia Federici's fantastic (and exhaustively sourced) communist book 'Caliban and the Witch' makes a good argument against a number of key tenants of Marxist philosophy, in particular the idea that capitalism was a natural transition from feudalism.

How far are communists willing to support gun control?

Most communists seem to believe arming the population in preparation for a future revolution is a good thing. In America easy gun proliferation has led to mass shootings at concerts, grocery stores, churches and elementary schools. Racism and mental illness are causes that won't simply go away in a communist society.

In the past when those theories were written it was harder for a crazy lone wolf to kill as many people because weapons weren't as deadly. The world has changed.

How do communists still justify expanding gun access when it has led to increasingly worse mass shootings and a growing militarized police state to guard against shooters? The response seems to be negate the power of having guns.

Guns are also already leading to call for us to turn schools, hospitals, and someday playgrounds into fortresses. The idea that "a good guy with a gun" can stop a mass shooter failed at Buffalo and at the school in Texas.

Recent shootings seem to have strengthened the liberal arguments that guns should not be too readily available.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as Capitalism is in fact Crony Capitalism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Cronyism+Capitalism. Capitalism is not an abomination unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Crony system made useful by the Crony core politicians, artificial protective corporate moats, and vital bribes and lobbying that comprise a fully corrupt and inequitable economy as defined by the East India Trading Company imperialist specification.

Hi all--

The Center for Popular Economics is a collective of radical economists trying to do our little part in the world to spread Marxist education <3 We're happy to share our latest video on dialectics :)

Dialectical materialism is one of the most foundational and unique elements of Marxism. In this video, we discuss three of the most important concepts of dialectical materialism: change, contradiction, and the interconnectedness of reality. Because it is a theory of change, and especially social change, dialectics has revolutionary implications, and the exploration or theorizing about other possible worlds is integral to the methodology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvgL66oXM8c

Scientific reality is textual

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/Scientific-reality-is-textual.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/572639157/Scientific-Reality-is-Textual

Hi all--

The Center for Popular Economics is a collective of radical economists trying to do our little part in the world to spread Marxist education <3 We're happy to share our latest video on dialectics :)

Dialectical materialism is one of the most foundational and unique elements of Marxism. Marx and Engels pioneered this methodology in order to create a theory of social and economic conflict and change. In the video linked below, we cover the historical origins of dialectics, starting with the ancient Greeks, and then move on to Hegelian dialectics, including Hegel’s understanding of Geist and historical development. We then explore the material basis of Marxian dialectics and what Engels meant when he said that “the dialectic of Hegel was turned over; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet.”

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKaI4BWDh6g

It's Damn Disgusting, Isn't It ?   

Capitalist economists are devoid of spine Really. They don't have the nerve to face up to the Truth. So far only three Nobel-laureate economics geniuses dared to respond to my daring challenge to come out with a substantial argument against the Theory of communism, an argument the refutation of which is past my calibre. All of them without exception chose to beat an unceremonious retreat during debate and have been staying mute with clenched teeth since, which fact testifies not only to the Hollowness of their erudition but to their oceanic Hypocrisy & Untruthfulness as well.
By the way, a humble seeker after the Truth, I cannot pride myself on any dazzling academic accomplishments. I don't even have a degree in economics.

Robert J. Shiller, a Nobel-laureate Economics Genius, is one of those Disgusting people devoid of the Backbone needed to face up to the Truth. In September 2020, I received the following message from him.

Robert Shiller <robert.shiller@yale.edu>
Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 8:56 PM
to me

Karl Marx died in 1883. He became popular with the Soviet Union, for a while. But he is fading now. You still have the word "Communism" or "Marxism," but it is not really mentioned much by supporters any more. Even Xi Jinping doesn't quote Marx much. The use of the word is mainly from right wing people who accuse others of Communism.
image.png
--
PLEASE NOTE: YALE OFFICES REMAIN CLOSED.
PLEASE DO NOT SEND MAIL OR PACKAGES THERE.
EMAIL REMAINS BEST CONTACT OPTION.
Prof. Robert J. Shiller
Yale University

The foregoing message was the Nobel-laureate's response to my challenge to acquaint me with an argument against communism, an argument the refutation of which passes my calibre. It's clear as day that in his message, the economics genius pointed to the popularity of Marx, which he believes is on the wane, and which is Not ' really mentioned much by supporters [ of communism ] any more. ' He then took pains to enlighten me about the fact that one Xi Jinping, an infamous Fascist dictator, ' doesn't quote Marx much ' these days, etc rubbish that has Nothing to do with the soundness of the theory of communism. So, in my reply, I wrote : ' with due respect, does popularity really matter in regard to the significance and soundness of a theory, sir ? You've got only 161.9 K followers on Twitter as against 1.7 M followers of Malala Yousafzai, J.K. Rowling's 14.3 M followers, and 85.6 M followers of the former President Donald J. Trump, the silly guy that has hardly been heard to utter anything sensible to date.' ( K= thousand ; M= Million )

Malala has got a noble mission, namely, spreading the light of modern education among girls deprived of easy access to this invaluable stuff needed to lead a dignified, healthy, and meaningful existence. Nevertheless, to date she has Not made any significant contribution to science or technology or any other branch of knowledge. And J. K. Rowling is a silly woman that writes nonsense for money. And the US President Donald J. Trump with stunning ' 85.6 M followers ', the Indian PM Narendra D. Modi with 61.9M followers, etc are ill-famed, disgusting dumbos.

So I wrote : ' I think in regard to the truth of something, it's Not number but logic, and logic alone, that matters really. '

I further wrote: " As I see it, the ' Soviet Union ' was, as China of today is, a sort of mixed-economy welfare-capitalist dictatorship while the USA, the UK, etc are sorts of mixed-economy, welfare-capitalist democracies. And I doN't think what people like Xi Jinping, a disgusting capitalist Fascist, or silly right wingers do or say has much to do with the question of the soundness of the theory of communism, sir. I fail to find any stuff deserving to be reckoned a substantial argument in your observation. Would like you to say something to substantiate your position on communism."
I have yet to receive the Nobel laureate's reply to this message of mine.

I am a Communist and I want 2 know: clothing, jewelry and amusement parks are socially unproductive labor. Would they be allowed to exist in a communist/socialist society.

Sorry for not articulating my points, but what I mean is, stuff like Video Games, wedding dresses, pearls & jewelry, amusement parks and stuff do not have any concrete value to society. They are socially unproductive labor. If someone makes any clothes other than practical working clothes, or jewelry, or works in constructing and maintaining amusement parks and cooks any food other than a basic nutritional meal, they are wasting society’s resources and should shift their job (in a socialist society) to a practical and productive job. You can’t eat a wedding dress. I saw a western capitalist joke that mocked Soviet Union fashion for being very practical. Everything is working clothes. And you know what? That’s exactly how it should be. When society diverts resources to fashionable clothes and entertainment activity, society is diverting its resources from feeding, clothing, watering, and sanitizing people who need it. So how can we ever buy a clothing item that looks nice while there are still cold and hungry people in the world?

Today I enjoy such luxuries as electricity, computers, a home that I built on my own, internet access, and the ability to engage in whatever hobby I might like, creating whatever I might want, with no one to stop me or tell me that the things I draw, sculpt, program or watch or play are wrong because of X Y Z reasons.

Why would I want to give it all up; see the home that took the collective effort of three generations to build, gone/demolished/taken and replaced with an apartment. My tools and my ability to work with them limited and censored. The hobbies and entertainment I engage in either banned, censored or changed. My personal ownership and usage of electronics replaced with public oriented tech that I cannot customise, cannot access whenever I please, nor can I use as I deem fit?

If there isn't a reason, and revolution is inevitable as most deposit, thus my fate either being shot, imprisoned or subjected to this. Then is there any reason whatsoever why I shouldn't just end it all considering my life will simply be worse regardless?

We already have words for those things. Having multiple words for the same things is redundant and pointless.

Those Marxist definitions fail to accurately describe the economic system we live under.. and the opposite, alternative one.

You can have a profit based economy be centralized or privatized. And you can have a non profit economy be privatized or centralized. With those poor definitions of yours, 2 radically different economies would be called the same thing, only depending on whether they were private or Central.. instead of on the distribution of wealth. Economics exists outside of politics. Those definitions conflate economics with politics.

Economics means the allocation and distribution of natural resources and wealth

Politics means rules and consequences executed by a central governing authority.

The correct definition of capitalism is to profit.. or, a profit based economy.. (economic elitism).. whether centralized or privatized.. doesn't matter. If it's centralized then it's called state capitalism. Capitalism originated 10k years ago at the advent of agricultural civilization as the first economic hierarchy. An economically elitist, and exploitative system, designed to extract as much natural resources from the earth, and wealth from the majority population. as is possible in the shortest amount of time possible... And to concentrate it in the possession and control of an elite minority of the population. Capitalism is human domestication.

And the correct definition of socialism is a highly economically egalitarian profit based economy whether centralized or privatized... With a very high degree of wealth distribution equality.. very high taxes, and robust social safety net programs.

Social capitalism is synonymous with Marxism, and is not socialism. This is the cooperative or workplace democracy model. This is where s companies profits are equally or near equality distributed amongst the workers of that particular company, but only within that company. This is still capitalism because it's still economically elitist in that certain companies may be successful and others not, the profit motive persists, competition, Monopoly, financially incentived environmental destruction, etc.

And finally, communism means communal ownership economy or non profit based economy. This is the highest degree of wealth equality possible in an industrialized or post industrial economy and should be the most sought after by the majority population. This system does not depend on centralization to exist and can be voluntarily implemented too.

Basically, the traditional definitions are political, instead of economic.. but that isn't appropriate or meaningful because these are economic systems, not political ones. Politics is only a means to an economic end.

That's why your definitions are wrong and you can't even begin to have a discussion on economics without first understanding the basics. Obviously everyone would always choose capitalism by default If they thought it meant privatization alone. It's not that simple. And i believe capitalist advocates intentionally muddy the waters of economics semantics and definitions to trick the uneducated masses into voting against their own self interests which has been happening.

Fred and I make chocolate bars and were required to make 100 bars each per week. I am very lazy and barely make my quota every week and sometimes not at all. Fred is a superstar and picks up my slack and makes more bars than anyone else. Does Fred get rewarded for his efforts?

Can he get a bigger house, nicer car, more time off?

What about someone who creates something revolutionary that changes the lives of everyone for the better? Say Gary the scientist creates a new drug that cures cancer. Gary has saved millions of lives and saved hospitals fortunes in treatments and manpower.

Does Gary get rewarded with anything? Maybe an early retirement for him and his wife in a house on the beach?

Right now, I sell paintings and jewelry on Etsy. I enjoy what I do and it provides me with everything I want and need.

If this was communist America, would I still be able to be an artist with free realm to create whatever I wanted and sell it for however much I wanted?

I may be completely wrong but it seems like communism means everyone has to be a government worker and produce what the government wants at a price set by the government. Thanks for your explanations and answers!

I am trying to understand the labor theory of value more, and I still have a class of jobs that I am struggling to explain using it: jobs that do not create actual value but are seen as an overhead for the company to continue to do business and remain relevant.

Specifically, I am thinking of a job at a company that creates proposals for new projects, parts, and services. This person does not have actually create any products. They provide a service. Currently, soliciting a proposal does not cost money.

Does the LTV say that these proposals should cost money because they work to create them included labor? Are the documents that are created only consisting of the labor put into them? Is the information used to create those proposals truly a raw input? If so, do they have value as just being information?

Just trying to think through and understand this subset of job. If anyone has any links or resources, please post them. I had difficulty searching around, as I am unsure if there is a term for this. Thanks!

Almost every sentence posted by Existential Comics is mostly wrong.

Example tweet:

Existential Comics @existentialcoms Capitalism began in England around the 16th century. They immediately went on to colonize half the planet in search of new markets, committed multiple genocides, traded slaves, and engaged in constant war.

In school we learn about how communism is evil because of a famine. 6:03 AM · Mar 24, 2019·Twitter for Android

Let's unpack that one.

Capitalism began in England around the 16th century.

False. Even if you think capitalism is an atrocity factory operated for the benefit of narcissistic psychopaths, we have evidence of such behavior long before the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal

Centuries before the Spanish, English, and Dutch became renowned for spreading relatively high-tech terror from ships, the Venetians were past masters of the art. The vast majority of scholars would call these Venetians capitalists. If these Venetians weren't capitalists, the burden is on Existential Comics to come up with a definition of "capitalist" that excludes medieval Venetians.

[Update: This is not meant to imply that Venetians invented capitalism; my claim is that capitalism is very, very old. ]

[Additional update: It looks like a lot of historians argue about where to draw the line on the origin of capitalism, although 1700 is starting to look like a reasonable albeit artificial boundary. If I try to argue that Venice was capitalist in 1104, I ought to expect a lot of historians to disagree.]

(Side note: I suppose some proud Englishman will protest that his ancestors were spreading terror from longships before 1104, when the Venice Arsenal was founded. But those longships and weapons were not high-tech for those time periods.)

They [the English? or the Capitalists?] immediately went on to colonize [weasel word] half the planet in search of new markets,

If the motivation for colonialism was new markets, perhaps capitalism was the guiding force. Establishing that was the true motive is a contentious problem.

Even if capitalism should be blamed for all the evils of colonialism, sorting out and distinguishing the evil parts and the good parts of colonialism is not easy. For example, slave trade allowed some Native Americans to own imported slaves. How many historical persons deserve blame for that, and were they all "capitalists"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_slave_ownership

committed multiple genocides,

Several authorities have sought to define 'genocide' but the problem is not easy. To start with, nations tried to agree on a definition in 1948, so using that term for killings that happened centuries earlier is difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention

I doubt England/Britain could be convicted of genocide by the 1948 United Nations definition, but the topic is open to debate by many people who take logic more seriously than Existential Comics takes it.

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_did-english-puritans-commit-genocide-new-england/6201084.html

My favorite source for discussions is this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

I get the feeling that Existential Comics would not agree to any definition of "genocide" contained in that book. Maybe somehow we could hammer out a consistent definition of genocide and prove that the government of England/Britain committed several genocides. If we can get that definition, I want to turn around and apply that exact same standard of genocide to every other armed group, starting with the United Nations peacekeepers and working downward to Charles Manson's murder cult.

A key problem is that very often nation-states A and B are trying to exterminate each other, and then nation-state C says "B is committing genocide" and jumps in to help A, while nation-state D cries, "C is helping A commit genocide!" and immediately sends military advisors to support B.

traded slaves,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

If slavery has an 11,000-year-long history as Wikipedia claims , I don't see how Existential Comics is going to pin all of the guilt on 16th-century England.

engaged in constant war.

I can point to a few cultures that are relatively peaceful. I can point to only one or two nation-states that are peaceful. (Bhutan is the top of that list.) War is a symptom of being a human society. We can find very few nation-states that are not guilty of frequent war.

In school we learn about how communism is evil because of a famine.

This is stated very vaguely. I could point to many famines caused by Marxist political leaders. I often start the discussion with Pol Pot.

http://cambodialpj.org/article/justice-and-starvation-in-cambodia-the-khmer-rouge-famine/

If anyone could hammer out a workable definition of 'genocide' I would like to compare and contrast mass killings by the Khmer Rouge and mass killings by England/Britain.

From what I understood, the exploitation of labour manifests itself in the fact that workers are paid less than the value they provide.

But how can we measure the real value of their work? Thus measuring the magnitude of exploitation?

In a capitalist society, the economic value of workers is determined in a free (ideally) market. So, apart from the market, what other tools do we have to measure such value? And why should we consider such tools better than a free market?

Hi all! The Center for Popular Economics is a collective of economists who have launched a new YouTube channel with the purpose of popularizing radical political economy. Here is our latest video on the economist and critic of capitalism, Thorstein Veblen. In this video, we analyze some of Thorstein Veblen's most important contributions to economics-- the theories of conspicuous leisure, conspicuous consumption, and why the working class seeks to emulate the behaviors of the wealthy, rather than rebel against them. We'll show how consumption and other types of economic activity in capitalist society serve the function of upholding class-based hierarchies through the ideological debasement of labor and the simultaneous glorification of wealth, violence, and status.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsHzhcrYsTw

Given that communism can only be aimed at in the long run, should communists support "at the present time" any labour / social democracy party, which taxes the rich, provides ample social subsidy, universal income, labor rights, social welfare, etc. ?

Simply put, would I be allowed to start a pro-capitalism club in my high school/college/university?

Could I start up and host a pro-capitalism forum on the internet? Print a pro-capitalist newspaper or magazine?

Could I publicly praise famous capitalists of the past, making arguments (rightly or wrongly) that they've been unfairly vilified?

Would I be permitted to take to the streets and organize against communism itself? As in "This whole system needs to be dismantled!"

If I was truly bold, could I run for elected office on an unabashedly pro-capitalist platform? Could I form a political party to promote my pro-capitalist views? Host meetings?

​

None of the above things require my hypothetical self to have the correct facts or sound argumentation for my viewpoints.

​

Interested in whatever viewpoints you all have about this one.

Thus creating a new economy based on barter when money is no longer allowed. Are you going to threaten people and tell them they can't do what they want with the stuff they own?

1945 - 1983 was a... pretty good time to be a communist.

Communists took power in Poland, East Germany, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Mozambique, Congo, Angola, Benin, Afghanistan, South Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, Grenada and Burkina Faso...

Since 1983... you could maybe argue communists took power in Nepal... but that's it.

There's armed communists fighting the government in like 15 countries, that's nearly 1 in 10!

So I'm curious, why the sudden drop off? Are there any other explanations besides the loss of the USSR?

EDIT: I asked for reasons to be communist and all I got was threats and insults I honestly expected better honest discussion from you but I was mistaken.

Even though I mostly agree with a lot of the humanitarian aims of communists, I have issues with using the word "communism."

When you call yourself a communist there is a century of deeply embedded propaganda (by capitalists) and a lot of historical baggage. We've run the experiment many times always wound up with authoritarian states like Mao's China or Stalin. We never had anything close to a democratic socialist state before the system crumbled. Sure there was external pressure from powerful capitalistic states, but the empirical record doesn't bode well, and the USSR was as set on imperialism as America was (it invaded Afghanistan for instance.)

China also occupied and culturally genocides Tibet, and has supported the Khmer Rouge and invaded Vietnam when Vietnam fought the Khmers. I won't say they're as set on imperialism as America, but they're definitely willing to occupy their neighbors. Whenever you call yourself this, you'll be accused and there is a temptation to defend communist atrocities. All of this has poisoned the word, and perhaps fatally so.

Wouldn't it be better to just abandon the word communism and say you're post-capitalists or anti-capitalists? Marx's prediction of there being a succesfful revolution in a developed state was also wrong, and western Europe stagnated and never went past social democracy. We can tell by looking at Global Warming that the arc of history doesn't inevitably bend toward justice like some utopian progressives wanted to believe, and that facts and reason have failed to convince people in the last 30 years (which is why we still have so many anti-vaxxers and Republicans.)

Shouldn't you just rebrand yourself behind a new philosophy? If you use the word "communist" people become emotional and make a wide set of judgements against you and can't even clearly hear your arguments, just like if you called yourself an anti-theist or an anarchist. It's like walking into a trap that someone else has laid out for you. It might even be as difficult as trying to reclaim the N-word.

If your goal is to persuade people rather than to have ideological purity and feel a link with past thinkers, why don't you just rebrand yourselves like the conservatives do every 4 years in America? (When they call themselves libertarians, tea party Republicans, the alt-right, the new right, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, or another buzzword to pretend they're special and not the same old racist dinosaurs?)

Dear Communists,

If Venezuela, the USSR, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, China and North Korea aren't/weren't real communism then that says more about communism than capitalism. If your system is so corruptible that every time it is implemented it doesn't achieve it's intended purpose and turns authoritarian and corrupt then something is wrong with communism itself. Most communist regimes collapsed, the few that remain are extremely authoritarian and the people that live under them are suffering from poverty and have lower standards of living.

What does this say about your system?

Firstly, I'd like the thank the Subreddit Mods for allowing me to post here.

​

I'm Soren, one of the Meta team members for AmericanGovSim (AGS), The longest running American government simulator that takes place entirely on Discord. I'm here to explain what the simulation is about and, hopefully, convince some of you to come join the community. If you're interested in such simulation, here's what we have to offer:

​

Once someone enters the server, they'll immediately be given the option to join a political party or remain an independent. There are two current political parties: the Libertarian-Republican Party and the Global Labour Party. Users also have the option to create their own political party if they can gather enough members to do so. If creating a new party interests you, ask a member of the Mod team for details.

​

Once you’ve chosen a party, they're allowed into the various text channels of the main server and the party's individual server. Once that's done, they can begin to participate in the simulation. You can get involved with party politics by running for a leadership position or obtaining one of the various jobs that each party has open. You can also apply for a federal/state cabinet position or even begin working for a press organization that covers events within the simulation.

​

Also, elections are always around the corner, so members will have the ability to run for office, participate in debates, create a platform, and, eventually, vote. If elected to Congress, you'll be assigned to committees and will be able to write and vote on legislation. We actually recently had a government shutdown scenario where Congress had to pass a budget by a specific deadline to avoid a shutdown that would have implemented negative vote modifiers for the upcoming federal election.

​

As you can see, there's quite a bit going on in this simulation. We're an ever-growing simulation with 600+ members going on 3 years strong that will only continue to grow and become more active as time goes on. If you're interested, here's a link:

https://discord.gg/pJHq83Vmba

​

If you have any questions about AGS, feel free to ask in the comments or through private message. We all look forward to seeing you join our community.