Let the ruling classes tremble – an Interactive Revolutionary AAR

[Raph]

There will be no socialist vote or a need to split votes since the workers vote will be based on issues rather than ideology now. I suppose Tommy4ever will just use the results of an ingame lower house election as the workers vote.

Oh, I read what he posted backwards. Man, do I feel stupid now

[J. Passepartout]

Collective Anarchists

The Moderate platform on African tempts me but I think in general the Anarchists are the best.

[naggy]

Militarists! We must not shirk from our duty to spread the revolution, both within and without!

[John Forseti]

Marxist-Leninists


There is no better vision for the future than that presented by this faction. Carry the Revolution onward!

[Communard]

Well, I agree with the Marxists on Social Reform, the Anarchists on the management of industry, the Moderates on Africa (purely because in game terms VSVR Africa can never be anything other than a colony or run by colonists) and the Independents on the Press (obviously), foreign policy and tax!

In the end I must vote for the Independents.

They are the only faction that promotes both social and political reform, and therefore the only party which allows the two greatest pillars of Socialism their full expression. And of course, I encourage any Marxists like myself to do the same, or you may well never get the opportunity to vote for anyone other than Lenin again.

I must say I am highly disapointed in the Moderates for their lack of support of the abolishment of Lenin's censored press. They have shown themselves not to be what we hoped, a faction of true Marxists opposed to Leninist tyranny, but rather the lackeys of Lenin. Marxists beware, a vote for the Moderates is a vote for Leninism!

EDIT: I've just thought, Tommy. How will you deal with coalitions where one faction wants political reform and the other social reform? If you just make the senior faction the ruling party then any compromise would be impossibe, wouldn't it?

[Necazian]

I must say I am highly disapointed in the Moderates for their lack of support of the abolishment of Lenin's censored press. They have shown themselves not to be what we hoped, a faction of true Marxists opposed to Leninist tyranny, but rather the lackeys of Lenin. Marxists beware, a vote for the Moderates is a vote for Leninism!

So was I, I originally thought on voting upon the Moderates as they were the natural step down from the Marxists, but then I saw no restoration of the Freedom of Press. So eventually the choice became easy.

[Viden]

Marxists-Leninists!

[Zzzzz...]

Militarists

[Dyranum]

Independents.

I mean come on, they have such a compellingly complex name!
</sarcasm>

Oh and does anybody else find it funny that the anarchists have never been the ruling faction?

[geek_knight]

Independents!

[Jape]

In the name of defeating the Militarist-Leninist clique, returning the free press, decentralising power and developing Africa (hopefully to the point of equal membership within the Republic), I give my votes to: the Independents

[Tommy4ever]

I'm suprised by the level of support for the Independents. I know I shouldn't tell you this but they are the least popular faction with the workers - getting less than 1/3 of the vote the leading faction gets and 1/2 the vote of the 4th place faction.

But who ever said the Party has to reflect the will of the people?

[Dyranum]

I'm suprised by the level of support for the Independents. I know I shouldn't tell you this but they are the least popular faction with the workers - getting less than 1/3 of the vote the leading faction gets and 1/2 the vote of the 4th place faction.

But who ever said the Party has to reflect the will of the people?

Yep, we ain't even elected by the people.

[calum the VI]

Marxist-Leninists

[Gergenuss]

I cast my full support towards the Independents. since the party are astonishingly close to my politically views


Break the chains of the totalitarians! - Forward towards liberty and equality!

Edit: @Tommy4ever Have my opinions in any way had any subtle effect on the Independents platform? Or is it just a coincidence that they reflect my views so well?

[keynes2.0]

I find it weird that the moderate socialists are never full citizenship parties in this AAR. I don't really see why. I can't think of a single political system where the more moderate wing of the socialist party wasn't on the left side of the political debates on rights for immigrants and minorities. On the other hand it would be a severe understatement to say that the hard left communists left a lot to be desired regarding minority rights in the Soviet Union and Communist China. But in this AAR the socialists are always limited citizenship and the commies are always full citizenship, what's up with that?

[Communard]

I'm suprised by the level of support for the Independents. I know I shouldn't tell you this but they are the least popular faction with the workers - getting less than 1/3 of the vote the leading faction gets and 1/2 the vote of the 4th place faction.

But who ever said the Party has to reflect the will of the people?

How did you calculate it this time, out of interest? For example how do you split the votes of those who support reducing the working day between Marxists, Militarists, Indepedents and Moderates? Or State Capitalism, that's held in common too. It'd be interesting to see the breakdown compared to how you did it with ideology.

I think the problem with the independents is that, in issue terms, they share every policy with several parties, and thus their vote is split. Whereas in reality someone might support both free press and shorter work day and thus vote Independent, the issues system doesn't take that into account.

Did you see my question earlier? It was "How will you deal with coalitions where one faction wants political reform and the other social reform? If you just make the senior faction the ruling party then any compromise would be impossible, wouldn't it? "

[Necazian]

I find it weird that the moderate socialists are never full citizenship parties in this AAR. I don't really see why. I can't think of a single political system where the more moderate wing of the socialist party wasn't on the left side of the political debates on rights for immigrants and minorities. On the other hand it would be a severe understatement to say that the hard left communists left a lot to be desired regarding minority rights in the Soviet Union and Communist China. But in this AAR the socialists are always limited citizenship and the commies are always full citizenship, what's up with that?

I tend to agree. The only party so far that would have such a policy would be the German Socialists, as they favor Germans.

[Seek75]

Independents.

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchill

[Tommy4ever]

I find it weird that the moderate socialists are never full citizenship parties in this AAR. I don't really see why. I can't think of a single political system where the more moderate wing of the socialist party wasn't on the left side of the political debates on rights for immigrants and minorities. On the other hand it would be a severe understatement to say that the hard left communists left a lot to be desired regarding minority rights in the Soviet Union and Communist China. But in this AAR the socialists are always limited citizenship and the commies are always full citizenship, what's up with that?

The Marxists, Marxist-Leninists and Anarchists have throughout this AAR been the strongest proponents of internationalism. Non of them are at all comparable with the abominations of the Soviet Union of 'Communist' China.

The closest we have gotten to the 'bad' communists was Blanqui and I remind you the Centralists had residence as their policy.

Meanwhile the moderate factions are much more willing to accept the concept of nations and by extension nationalities.

I'm also not so sure about your claim that moderate socialists are better on minority rights than radicals.

How did you calculate it this time, out of interest? For example how do you split the votes of those who support reducing the working day between Marxists, Militarists, Indepedents and Moderates? Or State Capitalism, that's held in common too. It'd be interesting to see the breakdown compared to how you did it with ideology.

Did you see my question earlier? It was "How will you deal with coalitions where one faction wants political reform and the other social reform? If you just make the senior faction the ruling party then any compromise would be impossible, wouldn't it? "

For shared issues I divided them.

However I'll admit to being a little harsh on the Militarists. I gave them a big slice of pro miliatry and jingoism adn not much else. But they still come out as a big force. I just didn't want them running away with about 30 seats.

The Independents really did have very few issues in common with the people.

I've also thought of a nice way to explain the different faction's stances on the problems in Africa.

The Marxist-Leninsts and Anarchists ignore them.

The Militarists don't care.

The Moderates want to tackle them.

And the Independents accept the problems exist but are banking on things just sorting themselves out.

Yet these idealists seem to have impressed you guys so I guess their doing something right.