Let the ruling classes tremble – an Interactive Revolutionary AAR

[Xanthippus]

You people are hilarious, with your "Liberty!" and "Freedom!".

Authoritarianism is but a means to an end. The ends will always justify the means. So long as Lenin brings this Republic to the cusp of Communism, who cares of the methods he uses to get there?

So long as Lenin works for the betterment of this Republic and Revolution I will support him. Why?

Because my loyalty lies with the salvation of humanity in Communism, not some lofty ideal of liberty and freedom.

There is one exceptionally large, glaring hole in your argument: authoritarianism is never a means to an end, but an end in itself. Even if the person implementing it, in this case Lenin, doesn't have any aspirations to permenant dictatorship, and even if he has the best of intentions (which I sincerely believe he does), this changes absolutely nothing. The revolution is built upon worker's liberation. To deny them that liberty is to plant the seeds of counter-revolution. Unless a new revolution emerges to violently halt the Republic from continuing down this path, then the revolution is forever lost. Sooner or later we shall see a new Napoleon assume the position of Lenin and abolish the last vestiges of democracy and socialism. Socialism by halves is impossible! Liberty and democracy are not options, they are requisites!

 

[unmerged(140907)]

There is one exceptionally large, glaring hole in your argument: authoritarianism is never a means to an end, but an end in itself. Even if the person implementing it, in this case Lenin, doesn't have any aspirations to permenant dictatorship, and even if he has the best of intentions (which I sincerely believe he does), this changes absolutely nothing. The revolution is built upon worker's liberation. To deny them that liberty is to plant the seeds of counter-revolution. Unless a new revolution emerges to violently halt the Republic from continuing down this path, then the revolution is forever lost. Sooner or later we shall see a new Napoleon assume the position of Lenin and abolish the last vestiges of democracy and socialism. Socialism by halves is impossible! Liberty and democracy are not options, they are requisites!

Authoritarianism is a process just like Democracy. What special feature makes Democracy a means to an end and Authoritarianism not? It is a simple distribution of power, Democracy is not some lofty utopian government type.
Authoritarianism has its flaws I admit. All too often it falls into vice. But does Democracy not do the same?

You speak of Napoleon as a negative figure. Funny considering his Napoleonic Code forms the basis of the Republic's legal system. Funny considering the ideals which we take for granted now, Freedom of Religion, Appointment by Qualification, and the forbidding of Privilege based on Birth were all codified in Germany only by the French Emperor.

 

[thekonkoe]

I'm not sure if this could be achieved in game, but I beleive the program of resistance I outlined is the only hope the Anarchists have if any of surviving in any form. Essentially they need to compromise a great deal of their ideals in preserving one or two core goals. Then they need to build broad based support to pursue a combination of peaceful protest and assymetric warfare (which is possible for the first time around this period). This is how a small defeated movement can try (usually fail) to remain relevant. Boycot of elections, or else mass write in campaigns for illegal parties, illegal strikes, infiltration of low level government and military, refusal to serve in time of war, high profile clean attacks. The idea in all cases is to provoke assymetric response which grows broad support. It is only because of Lenin's apparent willingness for the latter that this is possible. He may scare the populace into obediance, but he will never achieve fully stable governance.

 

[winsingtonIII]

Actually I modded Proletarian dicatorships rather than create a new government type. This means all prol dicatorships can have any ruling party they like. Annoying they seem to choose the liberal party as often as the communist.

Oh OK, I guess that does make more sense that making a whole new government type, thanks for letting me know!

Also, did you modify the chances of communist rebellion to make them more prevalent? I don't think I've ever had a game with as many successful communist rebellions as this one... or perhaps it's simply a factor of the communists being unlocked from so early in the game.

 

[Ryke]

Authoritarianism is a process just like Democracy. What special feature makes Democracy a means to an end and Authoritarianism not? It is a simple distribution of power, Democracy is not some lofty utopian government type.
Authoritarianism has its flaws I admit. All too often it falls into vice. But does Democracy not do the same?

You speak of Napoleon as a negative figure. Funny considering his Napoleonic Code forms the basis of the Republic's legal system. Funny considering the ideals which we take for granted now, Freedom of Religion, Appointment by Qualification, and the forbidding of Privilege based on Birth were all codified in Germany only by the French Emperor.

Democracy is a process. Autocracy is a state.

As for Napoleon, he was a prime example of a bourgeois militarist imperialist. Would you support imperialism so openly?

 

[unmerged(140907)]

Democracy is a process. Autocracy is a state.

Explain. What special feature divides the two? Autocracy is the concentration of power in one individual. Democracy is the concentration of power in the people.

As for Napoleon, he was a prime example of a bourgeois militarist imperialist. Would you support imperialism so openly?

Oh please. Stop trying to feed some "White Scare" paranoia and make a rational argument.

 

[Ryke]

Explain. What special feature divides the two? Autocracy is the concentration of power in one individual. Democracy is the concentration of power in the people.

Democracy is a process that must be continually carried out for a country to be continually democratic. Elections every five years means democracy every five years, and the less power those elections give to the people, the less this occasional democracy is relevant at all. A state can maintain democratic structures but cease making use of them. An autocracy is autocratic for so long as a single person is in charge, no matter what he does, or if he does anything at all. An autocracy cannot cease being autocratic without changing its structures. A democratic society can cease to be democratic through no longer carrying out a process, even if all its institutions remain and none are added. Bourgeois democracy is not often democracy at all, while bourgeois autocracy is exactly as much an autocracy as any we can institute.

As for Napoleon, I'm not feeding any White Scare paranoia. If there's a White Scare to speak of, it started during the Republic, before Napoleon, and the wars against Napoleon were merely a continuation of the anti-republican wars, when they weren't caused by Napoleon himself. Napoleon's ideas were in no way linked to his authoritarianism (again, those ideas first came to the fore in France during the Republic, not the Empire), and he was certainly not a shining example of those values anyway. Need I remind you Napoleon reinstated slavery in French colonies after it was abolished? That his soldiers stole valuable art pieces from across Europe, which were then exposed at the Louvre? In Germany, he created Kingdoms under his indirect control and placed his brothers and other relatives on the throne. His son was known from birth as the King of Rome. His Civil Code forms the basis of the Bourgeois state we wish to end, and though it's obvious that not all of it is bad, its application is as you'd expect.

 

[unmerged(140907)]

Democracy is a process that must be continually carried out for a country to be continually democratic. Elections every five years means democracy every five years, and the less power those elections give to the people, the less this occasional democracy is relevant at all. A state can maintain democratic structures but cease making use of them. An autocracy is autocratic for so long as a single person is in charge, no matter what he does, or if he does anything at all. An autocracy cannot cease being autocratic without changing its structures. A democratic society can cease to be democratic through no longer carrying out a process, even if all its institutions remain and none are added. Bourgeois democracy is not often democracy at all, while bourgeois autocracy is exactly as much an autocracy as any we can institute.

I don't understand. You seem to base your assertion that democracy is a process on the claim that a democracy can be named such but not actually be democratic. You then seem to claim an autocracy cannot simulate this, that an autocracy cannot be named such but actually be democratic. I'll give you an example in which this could occur, it'd be ridiculous if it happened but it is by no means impossible.

Country A has a king. Citizens are asked to submit suggestions for how the king should direct the country every two years. On the outside these suggestions are declared as just that, suggestions. The king does not have to heed them, they are presented as a simple gauge of public opinion. In reality the king is a figurehead, a shadow cabinet (or maybe even the king himself) only make policies based on the majority suggestion. The country operates under a facade of authoritarianism.
Your argument breaks apart in this case.

As for Napoleon, I'm not feeding any White Scare paranoia. If there's a White Scare to speak of, it started during the Republic, before Napoleon, and the wars against Napoleon were merely a continuation of the anti-republican wars, when they weren't caused by Napoleon himself. Napoleon's ideas were in no way linked to his authoritarianism (again, those ideas first came to the fore in France during the Republic, not the Empire), and he was certainly not a shining example of those values anyway. Need I remind you Napoleon reinstated slavery in French colonies after it was abolished? That his soldiers stole valuable art pieces from across Europe, which were then exposed at the Louvre? In Germany, he created Kingdoms under his indirect control and placed his brothers and other relatives on the throne. His son was known from birth as the King of Rome. His Civil Code forms the basis of the Bourgeois state we wish to end, and though it's obvious that not all of it is bad, its application is as you'd expect.

I claimed you were feeding a "White Scare" by slyly suggesting I might be a "counterrevolutionary dog" or "imperialist sympathizer" or some other such nonsense because I cited the good he did.
Considering all the bad things that he did, does that outweigh the good he did? I see stealing art and reinstating slavery versus laying down the law which as I reiterate forms the basis for this Republic's legal system.
I'm not arguing Napoleon was a shining example of the true Socialist. Obviously he wasn't. I'm arguing that he accomplished a lot of good with authoritarian measures, good that likely would have been near impossible in a democratic environment.
I'm arguing that he shouldn't be labelled as some freedom destroying demagogue that Lenin could potentially become as Xanthippus seemed keen to make him out to be.

 

[TheArchMede]

Country A has a king. Citizens are asked to submit suggestions for how the king should direct the country every two years. On the outside these suggestions are declared as just that, suggestions. The king does not have to heed them, they are presented as a simple gauge of public opinion. In reality the king is a figurehead, a shadow cabinet (or maybe even the king himself) only make policies based on the majority suggestion. The country operates under a facade of authoritarianism.

This is a constitutional monarchy, not an autocracy.

I think Cromwell provides a better model for Lenin than Napoleon. Kropotkin is organising a French invasion and when it fails he will be executed. Lenin will get fed up with the other parties obstructing him and even the democratic Rump he has kept so far will be abolished. Lenin will put his major generals in command of forcing the peasants into factories in the currently undeveloped shires. Eventually, he will die of natural causes and the people will summon an anarchist from foreign exile to replace the major generals. Agricultural workers in general and orange sellers in particular will rejoice at being able to frolic in the fields once more and all will live happily ever afterwards.

 

[unmerged(140907)]

This is a constitutional monarchy, not an autocracy.

Close but not really. Being a Constitutional Monarchy acknowledges restraints on the power of the autocrat. My example does not openly acknowledge these, though it does in reality function like a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Necazian]

The unnecessary imprisonment of myself into my own house by Lenin seems entirely unnecessary. I have only thought for the good of the people, their freedoms and liberties, and voted against any reactionary movement to these liberties. If Lenin himself is personally offended that I voted against his party the previous election, he should think objectively on the house-arrest and grant the ones in it amnesty as well.

- Comrade Necazian, from his house.

 

[unmerged(140907)]

Actually that wasn't Lenin. The Committee on Faction Membership within the People's Party of the VSVR (CFMPPV) made a personal appeal that you be placed under house-arrest so you don't try to jump ship again. They're apparently very angry with all the paperwork you've put on them. Something like 30 forms in triplicate every time you changed membership.

 

[Necazian]

Haha, I see we have an unneccesary state department. DOWN WITH THE CFMPPV!

 

[yourworstnightm]

I think we need a Young Socialist Faction, that consider the old Party corrupt, and favor a new revolution. With the Anarchists gone I just might vote for some really radical shit.

 

[LordTempest]

The unnecessary imprisonment of myself into my own house by Lenin seems entirely unnecessary. I have only thought for the good of the people, their freedoms and liberties, and voted against any reactionary movement to these liberties. If Lenin himself is personally offended that I voted against his party the previous election, he should think objectively on the house-arrest and grant the ones in it amnesty as well.

- Comrade Necazian, from his house.

It's not so much that you voted against Lenin (after all, I do believe I have not been placed under house arrest) but that you were the leading light of the Indepenent Party which duly betrayed the people's trust and led our great republic down the path of ruin that you have been placed under house arrest.

 

[Necazian]

It's not so much that you voted against Lenin (after all, I do believe I have not been placed under house arrest) but that you were the leading light of the Indepenent Party which duly betrayed the people's trust and led our great republic down the path of ruin that you have been placed under house arrest.

I was a leading light during the voting, though I did not stand for what the party leader did, he was quite silly.

 

[LordTempest]

I was a leading light during the voting, though I did not stand for what the party leader did, he was quite silly.

Yes, but you still were technically an Independent Party member of the CC.

 

[winsingtonIII]

Yes, but you still were technically an Independent Party member of the CC.

There's only one party, you mean faction, and I don't think it's fair to place the blame of the civil war on one man who happened to vote for the Independents. I voted for the Independents because I expected them to be less beholden to the Unions (I'm not sure why I thought that, but I did), and when they turned out to care about nothing else other than the Unions, I was disgusted by them.

There's no reason to keep Necazian under house arrest. All he did was happen to vote for the Independents, as did I and many others. We had nothing to do with what they did once elected, and I think almost all of us are disgusted by what happened after they were elected. Imprisoning Necazian for happening to vote for a party that betrayed its own voters is utterly unnecessary and ridiculous.

 

[Lenin Cat]

What percent of the population is proletariat, and what percentage is peasants?


Also, luxemburgist faction.

 

[LordTempest]

There's only one party, you mean faction,

Yes, thank you.

and I don't think it's fair to place the blame of the civil war on one man who happened to vote for the Independents. I voted for the Independents because I expected them to be less beholden to the Unions (I'm not sure why I thought that, but I did), and when they turned out to care about nothing else other than the Unions, I was disgusted by them.

There's no reason to keep Necazian under house arrest. All he did was happen to vote for the Independents, as did I and many others. We had nothing to do with what they did once elected, and I think almost all of us are disgusted by what happened after they were elected. Imprisoning Necazian for happening to vote for a party that betrayed its own voters is utterly unnecessary and ridiculous.

Agreed, I'm not saying Necazian should be punished or put under house arrest for what happened, I'm just trying to explain why he's been put under house arrest in the first place. The difference between me and Necazian is that I'm just a party member whereas Necazian is a member of the Central Committee.

Oh, and don't you mean faction not party?