The Zeal caricatured Lenin and Schlieffen. Lest the Marxist-Leninists forget, Lenin is not the republic. Criticizing a leader and criticizing policy do not weaken the republic, they are part of the discourse that defines the republic, they strengthen it.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Independents
We must preserve our republic. Anarchists, please work with us. I have never been prouder to call you brothers than I am now (and that includes when I voted for them).
We must preserve our republic. Anarchists, please work with us. I have never been prouder to call you brothers than I am now (and that includes when I voted for them).
Hmm I acknowledge you have a point there, gathering more information would have been wise. But that's more an issue of hindsight then anything. With the very real threat of civil war looming if quick action was taken can you blame the government for not acting quickly? The real people to blame here are the police officers who gave such a sketchy and exaggerated description of the events going on (YOU COULD EVEN SAY THEY WERE GUILTY OF SENSATIONALIZING THE INCIDENT *WINK* *WINK*). And further this was not Lenin's paranoia. The report clearly states it was the belief of the entire government. That at the very least includes all of the Politburo.
Comrade. Are you not aware of the definition of attack? You can lather on any rhetorical flourish you want, it is never "rational criticism" to attack a government. Its policy yes, the people itself. No. Once again you seek to damage Lenin's image through sensationalism. "Budding Kaiser", "Temper Tantrum", "Goons", "Slavishly Flatter". Can we not discuss this rationally? Do we instead need to place childish insults and name-calling in the forum of the most enlightened nation on Earth? I can respect your criticism of his actions on the press. He deserves it. But please, do it in a respectable manner that's why I started this debate in the first place. Own up to your sides mistakes as you point out those of your opposition.
There are two types of criticism comrade. Constructive and Destructive. Constructive works to better the situation and the person. Destructive works to hurt the person and usually ends up making the situation worst. You tell me where caricature falls in this categorization comrade. You explain to me how slashing a political figures reputation "strengthen"s the Republic.
I am loyal to the chairman. I am not loyal to Lenin.
There is a difference between the position and the man who currently occupies it.
It is the citizen's right to call any citizen anything he likes. Criticizm of the people in power is the most valid form of dissent. In reacting to the policies of Lenin and calling them autocratic, we must by definition call Lenin an autocrat.
These are not nice words. They are, in fact, not very nice words at all. They are, however, an opinion. If the Chairman doesn't have a thick enough skin to withstand them, he does not deserve the position.
I may be against certain opinions, I may even discourage people from expressing them, at my best ask them to moderate their words...but I would never remove anyone's right to express them. To do so is to trod on a fundamental human right, and I dare not do that. In fact, I need not do that, not even for the sake of stability. Such comments invariably even out and moderate themselves.
If we are unkind to the Chairman, it is not the business of the state to lash out at us. In fact, the state must remain neutral! There is a difference between the position and the man occupying the position, just as there is a difference between the man in power and the state.
I will say more on this later. Stay tuned Comrades.
There is a difference between the position and the man who currently occupies it.
It is the citizen's right to call any citizen anything he likes. Criticizm of the people in power is the most valid form of dissent. In reacting to the policies of Lenin and calling them autocratic, we must by definition call Lenin an autocrat.
These are not nice words. They are, in fact, not very nice words at all. They are, however, an opinion. If the Chairman doesn't have a thick enough skin to withstand them, he does not deserve the position.
I may be against certain opinions, I may even discourage people from expressing them, at my best ask them to moderate their words...but I would never remove anyone's right to express them. To do so is to trod on a fundamental human right, and I dare not do that. In fact, I need not do that, not even for the sake of stability. Such comments invariably even out and moderate themselves.
If we are unkind to the Chairman, it is not the business of the state to lash out at us. In fact, the state must remain neutral! There is a difference between the position and the man occupying the position, just as there is a difference between the man in power and the state.
I will say more on this later. Stay tuned Comrades.
Well, I believe the government was rash and I do not want a government that acts rashly. You would agree, no? I doubt the entire government agrees on anything, but the underlying issue is that Lenin and his colleagues did not check their facts before ordering troops to fire on the citizens of the republic. For that alone he cannot be forgiven.
Attacking a government simply means "I disagree with the Leninist government" dressed up in rhetoric. It is not some abominable crime. I am currently attacking the Marxist-Leninists. Because I disagree with them. As should be my right. My side? I am a Marxist who believes in democratic liberty. I am no Anarchist, I find their economic policies horribly reactionary. If anything I am on the left of the Marxists. But I agree with their right to say whatever they damn well please. I apologise if my rhetoric may seem harsh, but I believe Lenin represents the greatest threat to the revolution since Blanqui, and so you can see why my statements may get somewhat emotionally charged. Some situations call for strong words.
Last edited:
So long as the slashing is targeted at legitimate complaints it spreads legitimate information and opinion. If the Zeal does not state that it thinks Lenin and Schlieffen are acting tyrannically, how will the public know that such opinions exist? What type of constructive criticism do you offer to a person you believe is overextending his mandate, attempting to consolidate power in his person, and going against the revolution? Do you simply ask him to stop? What good does that do, if you believe he already ignores the public when it goes against his desires? Does it not make more sense to attack his support for the next election while elevating that of the party you support? Is this not constructive criticism, it grows support for the anarchists and moderates against Lenin? Such a distinction is entirely a matter of perspective, this is why the press must be free.
Yes I think we can agree on that haha. Rash action is usually ill-advised, but with the threats at hand I think the government may have been justified in sending in troops. Really the situation should have been reported better initially. That's your opinion regarding forgiveness and I'll respect that.
No my good friend you are confused in your definition I'm sorry to say. Let me give you an explanation. You express an opinion that Lenin desires to be King.
A. I disagree with you an state Lenin has shown no evidence he wants to be king.
or B. I attack you, I say you are a counterrevolutionary scumbag who doesn't deserve to live in this Republic.
Notice in situation A I present rational reasons that you should reconsider your opinion, I contribute to the betterment of the situation by working towards mutual understanding. Notice in situation B I don't do this, I instead hurt you (or atleast try to) and try to extract some petty satisfaction from my actions, there is no progress towards mutual understanding instead we likely stop being friends. This is exactly what occurred in the earlier newspaper debacles. Did that caricature present a reason Lenin should reconsider his action in Africa? No. It only sought to hurt him and antagonize the situation. Should this kind of discourse be encouraged or even allowed? Should I be able to call my neighbor every word in the book because he disagrees with I policy I favor?
I shouldn't have said side I apologize. Rather we should be able to own up to all mistakes that occur whether they be our own, those of our allies, those of our enemies, or anyone in general.
@Tssha: I disagree with you, but you said you'd say more later so I'll wait
A politician expresses that he is a communist and the he would like to see a Union Socialist Soviet States in the U.S. A woman disagrees with this and has a "legitimate complaint". That evening she goes home and posts an image of said politician eating babies. How does this spread "legitimate information"?
Lenin consolidates power by circumventing the will of the Politburo to get a law passed. I don't agree with this. I publish an article listing the ways Lenin has failed his duties as Chairman by upsetting the system as set by our constitution (We have a constitution I assume). I constructively contribute to the situation. I give the people rational reasons to not support Lenin in the next election. Lenin and his supporters are free to respond in kind.
Here lets touch closer to base eh? Lenin establishes a project to bring Socialism to Africa. I don't agree with this. I could draw a picture of Lenin as a Pharaoh, but I choose the path that might actually help the situation and post rational arguments as to why Africa isn't ready for the project and that our resources could be better spent elsewhere.
WOW, that was hard.
You do attack his support, but you do it with FACTS not simple fearmongering.
After the Militarists huge success I will, of course, vote for them again.
The most important issue at this time, at least for me, is to stop the ongoing infighting. How about we find some nice little island where we let all Anarchists create their little stateless commune. They would even get the same limitless support all our other communist friends in other states receive. That would leave us a chance to concentrate on the important things and, well... I'd be surprised if the anarchist tribes would survive more then five years without setting their whole island aflame about who the better anarchist is.
Only united can we bring communist peace and order to the world!
The most important issue at this time, at least for me, is to stop the ongoing infighting. How about we find some nice little island where we let all Anarchists create their little stateless commune. They would even get the same limitless support all our other communist friends in other states receive. That would leave us a chance to concentrate on the important things and, well... I'd be surprised if the anarchist tribes would survive more then five years without setting their whole island aflame about who the better anarchist is.
Only united can we bring communist peace and order to the world!
A political cartoon is a form of art. The Zeal could write an article noting the parallels between Lenin and autocrats and imperialists in Africa, or more elegantly and concisely they can portray him as a Pharaoh in a cartoon. They have no obligation to offer an alternative, they are not a party like the anarchists, just a paper. I would even go so far as to say that much of the substance of their arguments may have been contained in the cartoon or accompanying articles. Much more to the point, what of the Leninist press. The two people that threw a bomb at the police station were terrorists. Can you prove that statement? Can you prove they had a political intent? This is supposition, likely interpreted in part by the aftermath.
More than anything though, why must the press appeal solely to our rational minds? It is a form of expression as much as other media, and should be a legitimate forum to express opinions. If all we desired was facts, there would be no need for multiple papers, after all FACTS are facts are they not? The entire press exists because we choose to dress and report facts differently. In fact the cartoon, is meaningless without its context. The reader must be aware of the facts to understand it. The must be aware of the facts that Lenin is the chairman, that he is advocating and pursuing the colonization of Africa, they must be aware that he has been a forceful leader that has taken some bold steps in his authority. Without this, a caricature of him as a pharaoh is just that, an odd depiction of some guy.
On Africa, there are a multitude of reasons that people may object to it: Africa is not ready, it gets us needlessly tangled with other great powers in a realm of little interest otherwise, it stinks of imperialism, it diverts funds from projects in the homeland, it does not benefit the homeland in the present or foreseeable future, ... Not all people against the policy would agree with all these reasons, if you seek to raise support against the policy, it is better to appeal to peoples emotional objections and remain hazy on reasons, so as to cast the widest net and not alienate anyone.
More than anything though, why must the press appeal solely to our rational minds? It is a form of expression as much as other media, and should be a legitimate forum to express opinions. If all we desired was facts, there would be no need for multiple papers, after all FACTS are facts are they not? The entire press exists because we choose to dress and report facts differently. In fact the cartoon, is meaningless without its context. The reader must be aware of the facts to understand it. The must be aware of the facts that Lenin is the chairman, that he is advocating and pursuing the colonization of Africa, they must be aware that he has been a forceful leader that has taken some bold steps in his authority. Without this, a caricature of him as a pharaoh is just that, an odd depiction of some guy.
On Africa, there are a multitude of reasons that people may object to it: Africa is not ready, it gets us needlessly tangled with other great powers in a realm of little interest otherwise, it stinks of imperialism, it diverts funds from projects in the homeland, it does not benefit the homeland in the present or foreseeable future, ... Not all people against the policy would agree with all these reasons, if you seek to raise support against the policy, it is better to appeal to peoples emotional objections and remain hazy on reasons, so as to cast the widest net and not alienate anyone.
We broke it Tommy. All for you .
EDIT:
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's a picture or an article. If all its going to scream is "LENIN IS A VILLAINOUS DICTATOR WHO ENSLAVES PEOPLE" what does it contribute to rational discussion? It brings no facts to its claim, its good for nothing but stirring up a confrontation.
Uhh can I prove they were terrorists? " Extremist elements of the mob firebombed a police building and murdered two soldiers." Lets see... that clearly says they were associated with the rally and they were using fear to advance their own agenda. Sounds like terrorists to me. Get your own "supposition" straight before you try to question mine.
"Why must the press appeal solely to our rational minds" What? Because its their job maybe? You know to report FACT so that we can take rational action based on said FACT. You can't say the press and some other media like painting or music are the same. Art is focused on creating a response. That should not be the focus of the press. Its focus should be to report fact not butcher it to elicit the response they want.
"Why multiple papers?" Because a Marxist paper isn't going to report the platform of the Anarchists or all their initiatives to help them win the election. Further, say the Anarchists publish their platform. A Marxist paper would then go on to point out the facts of how one policy or another might not work, the Anarchists obviously aren't going to do this themselves. A paper is simply a voice that talks to many people, it speaks on what it wants to. Should any one person spread lies about another person without proper proof? No. So why should a paper be allowed to do so?
"It is better to appeal to peoples emotional objections and remain hazy on reasons" WOW let me see. How many historical tragedies do you think I could cite on this belief? Hmm lets see. Invasion of Poland, Holocaust, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, Invasion of Iraq, etc etc. I mean really now?
EDIT #2: Do you know why people resort to emotions and remain hazy on reasons? Its because they know they can't give a valid reason for their policy. If all your reasons are great, solid, and convincing why the heck would you need to resort to emotion?
.EDIT:
You are missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's a picture or an article. If all its going to scream is "LENIN IS A VILLAINOUS DICTATOR WHO ENSLAVES PEOPLE" what does it contribute to rational discussion? It brings no facts to its claim, its good for nothing but stirring up a confrontation.
Uhh can I prove they were terrorists? " Extremist elements of the mob firebombed a police building and murdered two soldiers." Lets see... that clearly says they were associated with the rally and they were using fear to advance their own agenda. Sounds like terrorists to me. Get your own "supposition" straight before you try to question mine.
"Why must the press appeal solely to our rational minds" What? Because its their job maybe? You know to report FACT so that we can take rational action based on said FACT. You can't say the press and some other media like painting or music are the same. Art is focused on creating a response. That should not be the focus of the press. Its focus should be to report fact not butcher it to elicit the response they want.
"Why multiple papers?" Because a Marxist paper isn't going to report the platform of the Anarchists or all their initiatives to help them win the election. Further, say the Anarchists publish their platform. A Marxist paper would then go on to point out the facts of how one policy or another might not work, the Anarchists obviously aren't going to do this themselves. A paper is simply a voice that talks to many people, it speaks on what it wants to. Should any one person spread lies about another person without proper proof? No. So why should a paper be allowed to do so?
"It is better to appeal to peoples emotional objections and remain hazy on reasons" WOW let me see. How many historical tragedies do you think I could cite on this belief? Hmm lets see. Invasion of Poland, Holocaust, Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, Invasion of Iraq, etc etc. I mean really now?
EDIT #2: Do you know why people resort to emotions and remain hazy on reasons? Its because they know they can't give a valid reason for their policy. If all your reasons are great, solid, and convincing why the heck would you need to resort to emotion?
Last edited:
Precisely my point, the people who sold these ideas thought they were operating the interest of those they led. They successfully used emotion to more easily sell an idea that would be more contentious and difficult to sell otherwise. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of people have beliefs based primarily on emotional considerations rather than rational ones.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Having cited the NUMEROUS instances where the greatest acts of EVIL ever committed by humanity were undertaken following this belief. You still intend to advocate for it?
"The vast majority of people have beliefs based primarily on emotional considerations rather than rational ones." *Looks around for Utopian society where putting beliefs on emotional consideration has led people to enlightenment.* There's a reason we started this Revolution.
What about all the good decisions we've made, weren't they made the same way: Humanitarian Aid, most defensive wars, the emancipation of slaves. From the perspective of proponents, these have alternative motivations that are more rational as do those above. Also, in choosing your examples, I do believe you are resorting to emotionally charged ones.
EDIT: To clarify, the last sentence is meant to draw attention to the fact that while you dislike the press saying that Lenin is an autocrat, you make the claim that the above acts are unquestionably evil. I would say both assertions have grounds to be considered.
EDIT: To clarify, the last sentence is meant to draw attention to the fact that while you dislike the press saying that Lenin is an autocrat, you make the claim that the above acts are unquestionably evil. I would say both assertions have grounds to be considered.
I can respect that comrade. Good decisions have been made in moments of emotional charge. Heck, I'll even admit there have been times where emotionally charged events were the only way the rational thing was done. But still you have to acknowledge the facts of reality. When it all pans out has throwing away reasons for doing things and instead trusting in emotion gotten humanity where it is today? Does the good outweigh the bad? [Aside: Since you seemed to question which moral code we're basing these actions relative to(When you said "From the perspective of proponents, these have alternative motivations ...) I'd like to clarify I'm basing morality around the ideals of this Revolution (Equality, Fraternity, God-given Rights, etc.).]
In response to your edit, I don't like the press saying Lenin is an autocrat because they have little to no fact to back up these claims, instead they publish slurs they know are false in the hopes of starting a confrontation. Morality is a tricky issue. You can only say something is good or evil relative to a certain moral code (If I follow moral code A it might be perfectly fine to kill someone but horribly evil if I follow moral code B). The majority of us follow similar morality codes concerning the events I listed before and there are entire volumes devoted to information on said events so I have the fact to back up my claim that they are evil.
In hindsight, using the word "evil" wasn't very smart for the reasons I already gave concerning moral relativism. You can take evil to liberally mean that it hurt the betterment of the human race.
- Status