-
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
There are perfectly real reasons to dislike Lenin. I am a Marxist in most of my beliefs. I believe in Marxist economics, and I believe we should pursue an aggressive foreign policy. However, I don't see why we cannot do this while also pursuing freedom of the press and preventing the military from having complete control of the government. I find Lenin's attempts to censor the press paranoid and unnecessary, and I find the level he is beholden to the militarists and the army to be worrisome. Also, despite the fact that he is democratically elected, he is certainly attempting to create a cult of personality around himself. Why else would he rename the faction the Marxist-Leninists? Particularly because he renamed it this before he even accomplished much of anything.
Do not be fooled into thinking that it is only radical Anarchists that are bothered by Lenin. I agree with Lenin on many aspects of foreign policy and economics, and yet I cannot bring myself to vote for him because even though there is no way to be certain, I distrust his motives behind taking power.
If you look back you will see I was one of the most vocal supporters of the Marxists early on. I had long debates with anarchists over the necessity of social reforms. I still believe in the necessity of social reforms, but I want a Marxist faction that I can support, not a faction that is essentially the puppet of one man.
Last edited:
Of course comrade, forgive my hallucinations. For Lenin is a democrat, he would never have started a civil war and brought down an elected government. A bad dream, perhaps. Lenin would never outlaw his two major political rivals, leaving only factions agreeable to him, for he believes in freedom of thought and democracy. He would never take control over the printed word in a bid to extinguish criticism of the government, for he believes in free speech. Thank you for awakening me from my stupor.
EDIT: Comrade Winsington's situation echoes mine so closely it is uncanny. I am in full agreement.
The faction was renamed the Marxists - Leninists to reflect the new direction Lenin's ideology was taking the faction. I don't believe it was an individual action of his.
“The true democrat is he who with purely nonviolent means defends his liberty and, therefore, his country's and ultimately that of the whole of mankind”
Mahatma Gandhi.
He does not sound like a democrat now, does he?
I would really like to know this: am I the only member of the Party who is a Pacifist, or at least strongly anti-war? This isn't even a debate in the VSVR. I would love to see some sort of Peace Faction that has very ambiguous, almost non-existent social/political goals, and only focuses on lowering the defense budget and decreasing military size. They could be a willing junior partner to any faction (sans the Militarists) as long as they get their goals.
Lenin was forced to take the actions he took. He shut the press down because it served no purpose other than a call to violence and hate. He resorted to violence because the anarchists would clearly not step down and already were resorting to violence against the unions.He severed the independents because they served no purpose other than to protect an organization that caused this whole mess.
Like Hatman stated, Lenin did what had to be done. I am pretty sure that the Anarchists would do the same, if Lenin had displayed such ineptitude. Fighting for what's right sometimes has to break the law. What of the American Revolution? Would you call that wrong and oppressive? The colonists threw off the shackles, and broke the British law. Yet, it had to be done for their freedom and self-governance. Sure, they are a capitalist society now. The Revolutionaries did what had to be done, just as Lenin has just done. Occasionally, the Rubicon must be crossed for the good of all.
If you are "anti-war" then why does your Signature encourage bomb throwing? Why did you lead the Young Anarchists, an organization that was clearly not about peace?
I think the best way to promote pacifism is to make warmongering a dangerous occupation.
Especially when protesting gets you shot by the state's police/military... and there is absolutely no sympathy from the Party members.
That would explain a lot... :wacko:Lenin, to get rid of the anarchists?
I think you are on to something there, comrade.
You should write your theory down and have it printed. That way they cannot silence the truth even if they kill you.
That is like the opposite of the definition of pacifism. I believe the term you are looking for is belligerence.
Sure, we're belligerant anti-war acitivists, whatever floats your boat. A lot of people like to take the high road and peacefully demonstrate, others like to do things that make a difference.
Kadon is a selective Pacifist, he doesn't believe in war as a correct means to settle international disputes. This does not mean he is automatically opposed to violence in general.
EDIT: I'm curious, why are you anti-war Kadon?
EDIT: I'm curious, why are you anti-war Kadon?
The game does not provide an alternative to Pacificism. Jingoism, Pro-Military, Anti-Military and Pacifism.
I don't think we should go around killing all of the people we seek to liberate. There have been enough other revolutions, countries of the world are spreading the revolution by peaceful means or through relatively small wars. But when the Red Army comes into town, it seems like entire armies are wiped off the map.
Our people might have bread to eat, but they won't have peace until the entire world is conquered. The rest of the world must look to us as the Mongol horde, or maybe Sparta.
Absolute rubbish. The Republic wasn't occupied by an oppresive, imperial power which Lenin broke the law to eject and free the people from tyrrany. He wilfully started a civil war against a democratically elected government. The Anarchists were inciting nothing, and to say that they were preparing to use violence against the unions as justification is ridiculous, as Lenin did use violence against them. To claim that the free press was only inciting hatred is more autocratic nonsense. It criticised, as the press should always and forever have the right to do. Lenin is leading the Republic to tyrrany.
Sorry comrade, but fighting for peace is like fornicating for virginity.
Not necessarily. The concept of violence as a force behind change is far more complex.
In the next update I'm going to bring in a Bernstein led faction. Mostly a splinter from the Moderates their points of divergeance will be on democracy (at home and abroad) and a more peaceful foriegn policy.
I am not an strict pacifist in the Ghandi sense, but declaring yourself a pacifist and then throwing a bomb is an utter contradiction. But I wouldn't expect someone such as you, who would throw the world into bondage so long as the "ends justify the means", to understand.
- Status