Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

Lyn, I'm not sure that most Minmatar have a "staunch independant and free mindset." I get the impression that clans tend to enforce conformity on their members. And to a lesser extent so do tribes. Maybe not to the same degree as the Caldari Megas, but this is an analogy we are discussing rather than an equivalence.

Yes, that sounds fair.

Though isn't it the case for most societies ? The Amarr with their religion, the Caldari with their patriotism, the Gallente with their mass media... Even if less true for the gallente in the end, they seem conflicted in that matter (liberty of opinion vs the media soup they eat everyday).

What I was refering too was more the "spirit" behind. After so many years of enslavement it would seem logical to see a strong sense of independance emerging, though like in a wolf pack, very conformist to the kin. It's true that it can create parallels with the State on that point.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I don't think I-RED's official reasons either IC or OOC was that the Minmatar are buddy-friends to get close to. Some of our members may have incorrectly put it that way though, and the error is on them for it. I-RED has from the start considered the Minmatar untouched markets that should be tapped. Ishukone has PF history of cooperation with the Republic (until recently with Hilen Tukoss), and with foreign markets in general. I-RED was following along that.

It should be noted that unofficially IC, we did purposely bend the wording of public announcements and private conversations with Minmatar to appear like we wanted to be buddies. I don't think friendship was ever really one of our goals IC. Only a means to an end, if that.

I-RED had for a while been attempting to build bridges for the purpose of cooperative trade, but it became clear that all four 'faction blocs' were against I-RED forming relations with the Republic. Amarr saw it as an insult to current trade agreements upheld by Ishukone Corporation. Gallente railed against Caldari exploitation of the Minmatar. And Minmatar attacked I-RED's past and Ishukone Corporation's current trade with the Amarr. Top level decisions were made to completely abandon all public trade initiatives with Republic entities, thanks to the political s**tstorm that occurred IC. Some private arrangements remained.

All in all, it ended up being a very well played out political RP across all four major power blocs. It was very realistic, in that there was no deus ex machina that could be employed to suddenly get the Minmatar to cooperate with I-RED or Ishukone. It was simply not possible to build bridges. To counter Seriphyn's assertion however, the Caldari conflict with Gallente never really stood in our way. It was the cooperation with Amarr that was the largest impediment to progress.

I'll answer his question OP. It was a stragetically profitable move to cooperate with the Republic because 'cooperation' with foreign markets is one of the strongest 'Liberal' Caldari ways of doing business. For non-Liberals, I suspect there may be the element of weakening the Gallente by 'stealing their friends', so to speak. I think that's just as legitimate. The Minmatar might be trying to Steal the Caldari friends from the Amarr too.

IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, and the Caldari and Minmatar allied with each other at the expense of their current allies... that would leave the other two largely alone to fend for themselves (counting only the big four). For both Minmatar and Caldari, this is something beneficial to both.

OOC? Maybe we're just sick of roleplaying the same tired 'alliances' and want to try forging something new.

[Silas Vitalia]

I think plotting against rival Megacorps stop right at the State border; IE they are cuthroat with each other but the State comes first.

Alliances with foreigners to dominate another Megacorp seems to cross several lines for me, but my State RP knowledge is fairly weak.

Corporate-specific alliances with foreign entities include, amongst others, Lai Dai's invenstment into Khanid Innovations. Of course, it is arguable that the Greater Amarr is allied to the State.

As of corporations backstabbing each other abroad, there's mentions in PF about corporations sabotaging each other. I was able to find the following:
http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3431&tid=11
(Though for some reason I seem to remember that it wasn't the only such incident - I also think the Lai Dai / SuVee thing spilt abroad... just can't find the news.)

I think the article you referenced is about one corporation being underhanded to secure more foreign contracts at the expense of it's rival, not colluding with an enemy of the state to benefit themselves at the cost of the State, right?

Business seems to be business and most anything goes, but I still think the Megacorps have certain lines they are weary of crossing.   

[orange]

What Kat said.

[Publius Valerius]

I might be influenced too much by the Summit/OOC clique here, but I'm just probing to see if the desire for improved Minmatar and Caldari relations is driven by actual realpolitik or because these two factions are "hip" and "cool" or badass or whatever.

The Caldari do not seem to give a shit about any other group unless they are Caldari. They are inward-looking or somesuch, which is fine. Can't expect a man to sacrifice his child for ten anonymous lives. But I don't think I understand why the Caldari would want to associate with the Minmatar beyond having another market to exploit, especially a market which doesn't seem to put much stock in capitalism (thus making it easier to dominate, as the Gallente have done). Similarly, if the Minmatar have allegedly not fairer well under Gallente influence, they sure as heck won't under the Caldari, who dont even have the humanitarian pretense that the Fed has.

Now its fine to RP against the grain, I was just wondering if there was OOC awareness of the above points. I don't think the corporation = tribe angle works since thats going to be present in any human society, just with different names. Spirituality doesn't work either, considering there are similar beliefs amongst the Gallente. Cultural similarities are not enough. There needs to be a core strategic reason from which rationalities (such as culture) can be derived AFTER not before.

The original reason the Gallente helped the Minmatar was to weaken the Amarr. The ideology of emancipation supported the strategy. Whether characters want to accept it or not, the Federation is the most powerful empire other than the Amarr. If the Minmatar want to destroy the Amarr, it is in their best interest to remain with the Gallente, not move to the Caldari who have little interest in other races business. They'd alienate all the Minmatar in the Fed, too. If I were Caldari wanting to build bridges with the Minmatar, you'd want to make peace with the Fed first.

I might be influenced too much by the Summit/OOC clique here, but I'm just probing to see if the desire for improved Minmatar and Caldari relations is driven by actual realpolitik or because these two factions are "hip" and "cool" or badass or whatever.

It is actually a uninteresting line. So let me try to answer that small question first before I move on. So we have first to look....

What is the "benefit" for a Minmatar to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?

And as you already mention, benefit in a realpolitical sence. As the wiki says: "politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises." And as it generally done in the international relations... we go out form a standpoint their is anarchy in the international relations.

The second question would be just the other way around:

-What is the "benefit" for a Caldari to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?

Both question most have a reasonable answer to change the relation between the nation, one postive and one negative wouldnt change the current nature. As Hobbes has it put nicely in his 13th chapter.... You can be pacifistic and can be peace loving as much as you like. Your action doesnt matter, because if other side decides for war/to killing you; you are than in a war, independent from you own convictions.

______________________

So lets looks on the second one (the Caldari). In a monetary way.... a improvement would give a new market as you already mention:

...I don't think I understand why the Caldari would want to associate with the Minmatar beyond having another market to exploit....

So a improvement would give the Caldari a tool to expand their market share on the Minmatar market. It would also most likely mean, that they would loss some share on the Empire market place... So in the best case a zero sum game. And I say best case, because the Empire market is way bigger as the Minmatar ones, so any small change in the Empire market "would have"/"most have" a huge share change in the Republic to be similar in size. Thats way I wrote best case.

What is with the strategic site? The Caldari would for sure loss an ally (the Empire), and win a new one (the Republic). At first glance again a zero sum game; but as we life in a world of anarchy, there will be a problem. But first let me explain shortly... what I mean with it.... as the wiki article gives the full picture. That the anarchy is the base for many theories in the international relations (positivstic theories, like realpolitk is)... but in short form, what I will come out is, that nobody can enforce a guarantee etc... So in first glance we have here again a zero sum game. But in reality it isnt, because the Caldari cant be sure that the Minmatar again ally with the Fed. We can say that a most likely the Fed will not ally with the Empire, but we cant say that or lets say guarantee that the Fed doesnt ally again with the Republic. So in his case... the Caldari would loss for sure the Amarr as allies, to get a new ally which isnt guarantee that that ally is team-up again with the enemy (the Fed). So this uncertain which is given with the Minmatar, but not with the Amarr, is the reason that a strategic improvement would be a no win (and in the best case, if we live in a world without anarchy a zero sum game. But as we already mention, in our case we work with anarchy in the interantion realtions. So a No win.)

So lets see: What is the "benefit" for a Caldari to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?
Is their a monetary "benefit"? Answer A zero sum game (in a best case scenario).
Is their a strategic "benefit"? Answer No.
______________________

For first one (the Minmatar): They would in such a case win the Caldari, but surely loss the Fed... so as you mention:
 
[/quote]

Similarly, if the Minmatar have allegedly not fairer well under Gallente influence, they sure as heck won't under the Caldari, who dont even have the humanitarian pretense that the Fed has.

I would add that this "humanitarian pretense" has bill the Elder fleet, it was Fed money which was used for it. You can also add that most likely a lot of money is coming from the Minmatar immigrants inside the Fed (like the cubans in Florida and "their sending back money", are making a big contribution.... to rise the standard of living  and the spending power)´. So if we look it in a pure monetary way, it would not be advisable to switch flags.

Now, let use look on the strategic site. We can say (almost for sure), that in such an "improvement" the Amarr would be hurt and would loss an ally (the Caldari). As for the Fed, they would loss an ally too (the Minmatar). But I dont think, such an move would lead to an Gallente-Amarr Alliance. So strategic would be "just", to weaken your enemy; by taken away an ally in form of changing my own ally. So for the Minmatar on the first glance a no winner (just an ally swap), on a second glance it would be a win. But as I mention before this second line... which gives use a "benefit" would be just as long be true as the their isnt any Amarr-Gallente alliance. If this isnt the case... It would be for the Minmatar in a best case just be a "zero sum game". As I call it "best case", in reallty I would count the Fed stronger as the State (but this is my 50 cents). So lets just say.... "best case" = a zero sum game. A win would it be just if the Minmatar can guarantee their will be never a Empire-Fed alliance, which the Republic as outside player cant.

So lets see: What is the "benefit" for a Caldari to "improve" Minmatar and Caldari relations?
Is their a monetary "benefit"? Answer No.
Is their a strategic "benefit"? Answer Yes, but not guarantee; also a possibility for a zero sum game.
______________________

So now back to may half ass Hobbes line. So, as we have now in a realpoltikal way describe for both sites the benefits (monetary and strategical ones). And come to the conclusion that a improvement is most likely not the case. As the Caldari havent any strategic "benefit" and the Minmatar no monetary.... This means no change.... as both sides need to have a win-win that does relations change from the current status quo.


Sorry for any misspellings and so on... for any question ... just comment..... So overall I have to agree with Seriphyn there isnt a general/coherent reason for both side to be allies. One side can win in certain areas, but not both in the same area. See you all and fly save.

[Nmaro Makari]

I think it's important to remember the word "stalemate". A diagram would be better but this should do:

Gallente: needs to keep Amarr and Caldari from becoming too powerful, Minmatar alliance essential for that purpose.

Minmatar: needs to press on with the war against the Amarr because :slavery: Gallenter essential to stop Amarr overrunning Minmatar in the first place.

Caldari: needs to become more powerful to stand toe to toe with Gallente, feels the victim of the Gallente. Amarr empire crucial in forming the defensive front. Ideologically similar to no one, really, but less dissimmilar to Minmatar

Amarr: needs to keep the Minmatar menace at bay and prevent any meddling from Gallente which could weaken the Amarr and make the Minmatar stronger. Caldari essential in combatting the Gallente.

Above is the (very) simplistic reason why Caldari and Minmatar are not jumping into bed anytime soon.

[Silver Night]

The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).

That being said, I think there is a fairly strong argument to be made for there also being strategic, economic, and political reasons for better relations with the Republic. For one thing, if you look at the map, the State terratorially has a certain level of exposure along that border. Additionally, there are various State corporation that operate in the Republic and vice versa. The Republic might also make a useful place for a proxy influence war with the Gallente, forcing them to abandon influence or spend resources to maintain influence in the Republic - and if you are the Federation, you don't want that money Minmatar migrants send home to the Republic being subsequently spent on Caldari exports. 

I agree that they aren't likely to suddenly break with their current partners - but I also think that at the start of the FW nonsense, it would have been far more interesting if they had allied than the current situation. And I also think that the major obstacle to that is that from a plot perspective, CCP needed 2 sides. It wasn't that the Minmatar and Caldari weren't a good fit, it was that it would leave the Amarr and Gallente as the other side which makes no sense.

And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship (certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.)

[Ava Starfire]

The reasoning I've heard behind this is the supposed similarity between the Caldari mega-corporations and the Minmatar tribal structure. While I can take some of the points behind this idea into account, having been a member of SKDI in I-RED, I was never entirely convinced and neither was Kala. Mainly for the reasons mentioned above, to do with the Caldari already being allies of the Amarr. It's why my viewpoint began to shift towards 'Minmatar first, everyone else can screw themselves' >.>

Ava's viewpoint has similarly shifted. She sees the Caldari as having similar traits in ways, but not as allies; theyre aligned with the Amarr, that is reason enough. Does she see similarities? Of course; lost homeland, advancement through merit, loyalty to one's duty and group. Does she see friends or allies? No.

[Publius Valerius]

The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).

That being said, I think there is a fairly strong argument to be made for there also being strategic, economic, and political reasons for better relations with the Republic. For one thing, if you look at the map, the State terratorially has a certain level of exposure along that border. Additionally, there are various State corporation that operate in the Republic and vice versa. The Republic might also make a useful place for a proxy influence war with the Gallente, forcing them to abandon influence or spend resources to maintain influence in the Republic - and if you are the Federation, you don't want that money Minmatar migrants send home to the Republic being subsequently spent on Caldari exports. 

I agree that they aren't likely to suddenly break with their current partners - but I also think that at the start of the FW nonsense, it would have been far more interesting if they had allied than the current situation. And I also think that the major obstacle to that is that from a plot perspective, CCP needed 2 sides. It wasn't that the Minmatar and Caldari weren't a good fit, it was that it would leave the Amarr and Gallente as the other side which makes no sense.

And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship (certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.)

The way you phrased the question dismisses the possibility that on an individual level characters might have reasons other than realpolitik or 'hipness' or 'badassness' for wanting a better relationship between the Republic and the State. (Incidentally, I don't think assigning those kind of motives to players fosters the debate in a useful way.)

Most likely but also on individual, the mikro level; you have the same rules/laws as on the makro level. Which means both sides have to have a win-win. Or on your mikro level: Both individuals should be "benefit" from it (see benefit def. above). Because as we know without a benefit, no improvement in the relation.

There can be ideological reasons (which may have more to do with opposing Heth, for example, than actual interest in the Republic), or even personal reasons (relationships with people in the Republic).

True that, but you have than also to explain why that thing "opposing Heth" is a benefit for the other side.... So that the other side improves its relationship to you. So lets say... you as individual (Caldari) have already a good relation to a matari, how those that you dont like Heth improves your relationship form the current status quo? I would say not at all. Just my 50 cent

Like I said: One side can win in certain areas, but not both in the same area.


About:

And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship (certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.)

True that.... If you dont mind, I split if you like:

certainly I suspect they currently have a better relationship than say the Amarr and Gallente. Unlike them, the Republic and State don't have much int he way of essential, irreconcilable differences.

I would totally agree on that.

And just because they aren't likely to turn on their current allies and switch, it doesn't mean they can't have a better relationship.

True that..... I think nobody said that But it - the relationship - will just improve in those areas where a win-win is possible. Over that small strap of commen "benefits", I dont see any improvement at all.  I even thing that the current stats quo shows that their is a very small commen win-win (Which got, as the OP mention, alittle overblowen by us players. The reason? As you mention FW, boredom etc.....).

[JinOtsi]

* There are a lot more options than the fairly insulting range Seriphyn puts up.
* The two nations have far less baggage working against a neutral stance than a hostile one.
* Both are only too aware that their current allies are far from healthy in the long run and will sooner or later become a problem.
* Both are aware that reducing tension and hostility means that much more resources can be shifted against the real enemy.
* Both are aware of the fairly significant trade and technological possibilities.
* The Summit is not even a statistical representation of the nations. It does not need to be RPd as such.
* If the Fed/Amarr RPers are that much less compatible for RP than the Min/State ones, that's how the RP will go.
* Warm and fuzzy feelings does not enter into it either. From purely practical points of view neutrality would benefit both incredibly much.

tl;dr, there'll always be something stopping any kind of alliance between the two, but there is frankly nothing stopping them from moving towards a neutral position that would benefit both. Especially in RP where it turns out the "stay within the painted lines! Caldari/Amarrian and Minmatar/Gallente only!" roleplay alternatives are just unlikable.

[John Revenent]

What Kat said.

I-RED took alot of time getting the Cal-Matari program in place most of it was backroom deals and such so many people have a hard time understanding what really went on. All in all I-RED managed to make a few billion off the Matari markets and some private deals before shutting the project down as it was starting to strain relations we required elsewhere. Not saying some people involved did not really try to create a working relationship but it is almost impossible due to cultural differences between Matari/Caldari RPers.

[Publius Valerius]

* There are a lot more options than the fairly insulting range Seriphyn puts up.

It is his style... so dont be insulted  .

* The two nations have far less baggage working against a neutral stance than a hostile one.

Nice theory, plz explain. As I see it...it is the opposite.... As the Caldari have hugely invested in the Ammatar Mandate (see here), Khanid Kingdom, and the Empire (see Carthum and Lai Dai etc) (and of course the other way arond see CAESA etc..). I would say that form you mention "baggage" isnt so small as you think or which. But as I said plz explain 

* Both are only too aware that their current allies are far from healthy in the long run and will sooner or later become a problem.

Plz explain your theory. I would say on the current state none of the EVE nation is "healthy", most of all the Jove ones. If you mean with "healthy" stabile ones? I would even say the opposite... that both Fed and Empire actually more stabile. But as I said plz explain your theory and what you mean with healthy?

* Both are aware that reducing tension and hostility means that much more resources can be shifted against the real enemy.

I would also mean that the Fed needs put less resources to you. As they will most likely not support a Repuclic which is in the bed with the main enemy the State. I think such a move would even split the matari population in the Fed, and shift them to the Fed side more (It would be great tool for an assimilation. As were done it done by the prussians to get the french huggenotten integrate in to the state... but it would take to long to explain see here (sub-chapther Model Patriots or Huggenottes in third reich.... but very off topic.).

So overall you spend less resources against Caldari and would get less, a zero sum game. And in the worst case, you would loss the matari in the Fed. Me personally I wouldnt do it.... most of all not in a"one-way only". Meaning, put out my resources in the hope that the Caldari doesnt use it to greater their benefit.... Image it like a Prisoner's dilemma were you choice the "possible"/"but not likely" pareto optimum and "choice to cooperate" (in our case pull out resources), without knowing what the other side is doing... and If the other side doesnt choice to cooperate, but choices defects they win. As you have now, no resources against them; which lets that you lost the conflict. So I would say it "is"/"and will be" in the Nash equilibrium, that both defect; and thats the reason why both cant pull out resources; just my 50 cents.....As I already said.. plz ecplain your theory.

* Both are aware of the fairly significant trade and technological possibilities.

Plz explain your Theory.... I would say... that, as mention some post before, that "any significant trade and technological pluses tru improve relations, will must counterweight the negativ of lossing another market (As for the Caldari: Empire, Kingdom, Mandate etc.. and for the Matari the Fed.). So as I mention (seíhe above) in the best case most likely a zero sum game. But again plz explain, what you have in mind?

* The Summit is not even a statistical representation of the nations. It does not need to be RPd as such.

True that... but has someone said something else? Ans is it improtant (P.S. I try not to comment on the IGS  Most people know may stands on it)?

* Warm and fuzzy feelings does not enter into it either. From purely practical points of view neutrality would benefit both incredibly much.

Have we enter a IGS 2.0? Or what you mean with warm and fuzzy feelings? As for the second part... please explain... the win-win of both side.... As I mention their is ... but I also thing that those are used up and the reason why both arent on each other neck. As anything new above of this current status quo, I dont see anything; or in other words "no new win-win aeras". If ypu see some... as I said, plz explain.

tl;dr, there'll always be something stopping any kind of alliance between the two, but there is frankly nothing stopping them from moving towards a neutral position that would benefit both. Especially in RP where it turns out the "stay within the painted lines! Caldari/Amarrian and Minmatar/Gallente only!" roleplay alternatives are just unlikable.

As you already marked nothing.... but havent explain it. I have to say pull shit (sorry). If there wasnt nothing...."stopping them from moving towards a neutral position" than why should they have current "hostile" status quo? As someone said in the Fiction section ones on a comment about the hate rant of another player (The player ranted that the Jin-Mai fiction wouldnt fit his picture of the subfaction. The second one mention is that what I try to say.).... If you dont like the facts of EVE... dont lie to yourself and more... dont trash it, because it doesnt fit in your world view or RP. It means even the other way around, that you have put in effort, to find the "true", or lets say a way that it fits in your RP.

The same have I to say here.... the current status quo is hostile, if you dont like it... it isnt the problem of the OP. If you dont can bring up a reason why those shouldnt be the case.... or that they should move over time to neutral... isnt the problem of the OP.... As I already said... YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY YOUR POINT (AWAY/OUTSIDE THE STATUS QUO) IS RIGHT; AND THE RELATION SOULD BE IMPROVE. If you cant do that (and I dont saw one argument), you have to re-think your point, but not the lore or the OP has to change.

[Lithium Flower]

Well, I agree with you guys, that Caldari-Minmatar friednly relationship is FREAKING ABNORMAL!

From my point of view, if Caldari tried to make ties first with Minmatars instead of Gallente, it
would cause an even greater cluster**** than we have with gallente. And the source lies in the fact, that these societies are completely incompatible.

For example, place a minmatar in Caldari society, he will find unable to put his family to jobs near him, because of new anti-nepotism policies. He will be all alone in a hostile ruthless capitalist world.
On other hand, a caldari in Minmatar society will find that most of good positions are closed to him, because he is not part of the 'kin'. He will be alone and he will suffer from his abilities cannot be claimed.

Dealing with Minmatar means dealing with emotions, and dealing with Caldari means dealing with cold calculations.

The line that CCP has drawn, that Caldari are better allies with Amarr looks much more natural for me. Some peoples told me, that if we imagine that the State and Empire will win this war, then the Empire will start conquering the State with religion by force or other means. My position on this, that this will never happen, because if you look into Caldari mind and tell Caldari to convert into Amarr religion, she will say: "Ok, I will do this." And this won't be anything wrong for Caldari, because it will be a demonstration of respect to their Amarr partners. Participation in rituals and praying in Amarr temples Caldari will take as a great honor and duty to maintain good relationship. Not because they will suddenly start to believe in God, but only because this will be part of business.

Now tell a Minmatar or Gallente to pray to Amarr God, and you will have huuuuge ****storm.

Besides, most of alliances are made not because of sentimental, but of practical values, or just common interests.

[lallara zhuul]

It seems that the xenophobic nature of the Caldari people is conveniently forgotten.

The post by I-REDs John Revenent kind of outlines the Caldari mindset pretty well, they made billions off the Minmatar market.

Not in it, off it.

Abusive mindset, not a cooperative, abusive.

One of the reasons Caldari are working with the Amarr is that they make a lot of profit out of it.

The Amarrian economical practices seem to be pretty much inefficient across the board.

One of the ruling families is a merchant family and probably not nearly as ruthless in business as the Caldari.

Therefore Caldari can latch on to the Amarrian Empire like a remora and glut itself with the edge in business practices that they have.

The fact that the Amarrians are xenophobic themselves means that they will leave the Caldari the fuck alone.

Just like the State wants.

The Empire and the State have pretty much the perfect relationship for the State.

The Empire leaves them doing their own thing if they leave the Empire do their own thing, while the Caldari can grow in wealth and power.

The Gallente would enslave the Caldari and the Minmatar would insist that they change their business practices (not deal with the Amarr) or they would have to take part in charities that would cause financial loss (help with the impoverished.)

Amarrians just don't give a shit, if you pay lip service to their rules.

Just like their ruling class...

[Hamish Grayson]

I can't imagine any reason the Repbulic would want to see a wedge driven between the State and the Empire or why the State would like to see the Republic less friendly with the Federation.

Concerning the corporations versus tribes argument:  I think people are underestimating how much a Caldari’s personal identity comes from his mega corporation and also just how corporatized a modern Minamatar Tribe in Eve is.   Describing a Caldari Mega as a tribe or a Minmatar Tribe as a corporation wouldn’t be that much of a stretch.   

However, I don’t think that similarity offers a foundation for intra-empire relations. There are too many other cultural factors that I think keep the Republic and State from forming a real rapport.

I.e.  If a Caldari doesn’t like you he’s probably extremely polite, formal, agreeable, smiling, bowing (slightly)and using honorifics.   If a Minmatar doesn’t like you he’s probably going to be in your face screaming, spitting, swearing and using insults.