1989 - Turning Point

[unmerged(171402)]

Autocratic traits =/= fascists traits.

Totalitarian Socialist traits =/= Stalinist traits.

They're similar, that's right, but for a country to be totalitarian socialist it doesn't need to be stalinist. For a country to be stalinist, though, it needs to be totalitarian socialist. So, in the end, stalinism comes up subordinated to totalitarian socialism.

Outdated? You're joking, right? We are talking about terms commonly used nowadays. For example:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/northkorea/index.html

So, we should ignore how governments label among themselves but if a newspaper says that 1 country is Stalinist, then there's no other truth. Back in the Cold Era, news usually portrayed Stalinism as "Red Fascism". Does that means that it was a fascist ideology?

And even if North Korea was a purely Stalinist country, it is basically just 1 country out of... 190? Hardly a significant proportion to have Stalinism as an ideology.

Then, Mussolini's Italy is the only fascist state in History. Then, there's no Marxist state in the whole History. Etc.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that back then, the situation was very different. The much lesser number of countries (as a result of the still-around colonial empires) allowed for more specific ideologies to be used. Back then, which countries were fascist? Francoist Spain? Italy? Germany? Japan (though not really fascist)? And if by chance Britain had turned fascist or communist too, then a fourth of the world (the territory under her domination) would have mostly followed suit. Today, there are a so large number of countries with such a small land area that so specific ideologies become impossible to use to define all of them.

Stalinism isn't restrictive. It includes a wide range of ideologies with a lot of common traits.

It is restrictive. It was a common ideology back in Stalin's days, but not in the present day. Moreover, let's say that one country, for example, France, gets couped and turns into a totalitarian left-wing socialist state. Who says that Stalinism may apply to them, when they could have created their own ideology? Just because a state is totalitarian and socialist doesn't makes them to by dominanted by Stalinism. That term, is not wider enough to cover that kind of situations, Totalitarian Socialist is.

Ok. Then we must forget the following traits: liberal, conservative, autocrat, social, democrat, socialist, communist, fundamentalist, paternal and radical.

Why? Those terms are wide enough to be used to describe any kind of government and regime throughout more than 200 years of human history. Stalinism just applies to a specific period, and as of today, it is a word clearly in decline.

 

[JRHINDO]

So, McCarthy agrees with Lenin?

 

[son of liberty]

I like a lot of your ideas, but having actually lived through the period, I would have to say that 1979; more specifically the 1980 election of Reagan was the real "turning point" that you are seeking. I know others have already said as much. I hope you will add it in as a potential starting point.

 

[gll25]

I like a lot of your ideas, but having actually lived through the period, I would have to say that 1979; more specifically the 1980 election of Reagan was the real "turning point" that you are seeking. I know others have already said as much. I hope you will add it in as a potential starting point.

That's a possibility (1980 as a starting point), but not for the first release.

Also, Totalitarian Socialist has already been chosen to the Stalinist slot, you can continue your discussion, but it is somewhat meaningless

 

[unmerged(135926)]

You mean this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine

so maybe add event when WW starts ... in 80's this plan was still possible

 

[unmerged(135926)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhAf4hGlxHk

Sabaton has good war songs ...well they about WW1 and WW2 but they good


btw any screenshots or even any progress on mod ?

 

[Viden]

Totalitarian Socialist traits =/= Stalinist traits.

They're similar, that's right, but for a country to be totalitarian socialist it doesn't need to be stalinist. For a country to be stalinist, though, it needs to be totalitarian socialist. So, in the end, stalinism comes up subordinated to totalitarian socialism.

Stalinist traits is synonymous of what you call Totalitarian Socialist.

In fact, socialism is always totalitarian.

So, we should ignore how governments label among themselves but if a newspaper says that 1 country is Stalinist, then there's no other truth. Back in the Cold Era, news usually portrayed Stalinism as "Red Fascism". Does that means that it was a fascist ideology?

I know Internet tends to create obsessive–compulsive disorder, but I think you can see the difference between "an example" (my words) and "the rule" (what you say I said).

And even if North Korea was a purely Stalinist country, it is basically just 1 country out of... 190? Hardly a significant proportion to have Stalinism as an ideology.

You have Soviet Union under Stalin, PRC under Mao, Democratic Kampuchea, etc...

BTW, I didn't know there's 190 communist countries in the world. :unsure:

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that back then, the situation was very different. The much lesser number of countries (as a result of the still-around colonial empires) allowed for more specific ideologies to be used. Back then, which countries were fascist? Francoist Spain? Italy? Germany? Japan (though not really fascist)? And if by chance Britain had turned fascist or communist too, then a fourth of the world (the territory under her domination) would have mostly followed suit. Today, there are a so large number of countries with such a small land area that so specific ideologies become impossible to use to define all of them.

So what? More countries doesn't change the meaning of words. Stalinism is nowadays what it was in the 50s and in the 80s.

It is restrictive. It was a common ideology back in Stalin's days, but not in the present day. Moreover, let's say that one country, for example, France, gets couped and turns into a totalitarian left-wing socialist state. Who says that Stalinism may apply to them, when they could have created their own ideology? Just because a state is totalitarian and socialist doesn't makes them to by dominanted by Stalinism. That term, is not wider enough to cover that kind of situations, Totalitarian Socialist is.

So, socialism is a common ideology nowadays? Obviously not. But I repeat: Common or uncommon, it doesn't have any relevance.

Why? Those terms are wide enough to be used to describe any kind of government and regime throughout more than 200 years of human history. Stalinism just applies to a specific period, and as of today, it is a word clearly in decline.

Because those terms have a radical different meaning in the 30s than in the 80s.

BTW, decline? You must be joking. Stalinism describes perfectly any "Totalitarian Socialist" (BTW, a KR neologism) of Cold War era.

 

[unmerged(171402)]

Stalinist traits is synonymous of what you call Totalitarian Socialist.

In fact, socialism is always totalitarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Where does it say in the definition that socialism is a totalitarian system?

I know Internet tends to create obsessive–compulsive disorder, but I think you can see the difference between "an example" (my words) and "the rule" (what you say I said).

Does this even have something to do with what I said?

You have Soviet Union under Stalin, PRC under Mao, Democratic Kampuchea, etc...

BTW, I didn't know there's 190 communist countries in the world. :unsure:

Stalin died in 1953. Mao 1976. Democratic Kampuchea ended in 1979. All of them out of the mod's time-span, so hardly relevant as examples here. Moreover, I said countries, not communist countries. And I think there's a difference between a world with 70-90 nations and a world with nearly 200. The spectrum of different systems of government available is much wider.

So what? More countries doesn't change the meaning of words. Stalinism is nowadays what it was in the 50s and in the 80s.

Stalinism as it was pretty much died with Stalin in 1953. His successor, our friend Nikita Khrushchev, did make sure of it with his de-Stalinization policies. Maoism in China and Jucheism in North Korea were already undergoing some changes from Stalinism. Whatever kind of Stalinism may have arisen after Nikita Khrushchev's ousting was not Stalin's Stalinism anymore.

So, socialism is a common ideology nowadays? Obviously not. But I repeat: Common or uncommon, it doesn't have any relevance.

Not nowadays, but it was in the 1980s.

Because those terms have a radical different meaning in the 30s than in the 80s.

BTW, decline? You must be joking. Stalinism describes perfectly any "Totalitarian Socialist" (BTW, a KR neologism) of Cold War era.

But I repeat, it doesn't sound well for this era. As you can see, most people choose TS over ST for use in the mod, so this is representative of how most people here think that it's not an appropiate word.

As I said, Totalitarian Socialism was chosen as a better word than Stalinism, so I think it is pointless to continue the discussion.

 

[gll25]

In fact, socialism is always totalitarian.

aAs omega20 also said there are several types of socialism and the vast majority IS NOT totalitarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

So, socialism is a common ideology nowadays? Obviously not. But I repeat: Common or uncommon, it doesn't have any relevance.

Socialism is a common ideology nowadays, if you count in Social Democracy. Also, this mod starts in the 80's, and socialism was common back then.

BTW, decline? You must be joking. Stalinism describes perfectly any "Totalitarian Socialist" (BTW, a KR neologism) of Cold War era.

Totalism is a KR political term, Totalitarian is not.
Also,

TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST HAS ALREADY BEEN CHOSEN, all this discussion is completely pointless.

 

[unmerged(304740)]

aAs omega20 also said there are several types of socialism and the vast majority IS NOT totalitarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Socialism is a common ideology nowadays, if you count in Social Democracy. Also, this mod starts in the 80's, and socialism was common back then.

Also,

TOTALITARIAN SOCIALIST HAS ALREADY BEEN CHOSEN, all this discussion is completely pointless.

Also, if you Viden start really reading something, you'll find out that socialism isn't totalitarian after all. In fact, if you think it is, probably will come someday with the tought that democracy is the real dictatorship of the majority... Well, and all that (with all the f****** respect) crap some libertarians think.

Stalinist is gone cuz Stalin's time have passed. So goes the name. Maoism is for '60s. We decided to go on Totalitarin Socialist because it is the better choose for the time the game rolls.

It's decided, so whatever.

 

[Viden]

Ok, if you want Socialism isn't totalitarian. If you assume that the fact that Lenin, Marx and Engels say exactly the opposite is worthless.

Yes, the discussion is pointless since ideologies are easy to fix and I have no time to waste in endless discussions.

PS: Obviously, Social democracy isn't Socialism.
PPS: Totalist is "Totalitarian Socialism".

 

[JRHINDO]

I just think he^ is irrationally biased against Socialism.
Just go forward.

 

[gll25]

Ok, if you want Socialism isn't totalitarian. If you assume that the fact that Lenin, Marx and Engels say exactly the opposite is worthless.

Yes, the discussion is pointless since ideologies are easy to fix and I have no time to waste in endless discussions.

PS: Obviously, Social democracy isn't Socialism.
PPS: Totalist is "Totalitarian Socialism".

If you assume that Lenin, Marx and Engels are the only socialism theorists in history, then this discussion is even more pointless. And please, dont waste your time.

 

[unmerged(304740)]

I just think he^ is irrationally biased against Socialism.
Just go forward.

Thinking just the same.

 

[Trophy_Wench]

Moving on.... gll25, can you give us a preview of how the techtrees are set up and what sort of changes are being made? I'm really interested in seeing how you manage the complexities of modern(ish) warfare advancements.

Also, this is something I once brought up in the AoD forums but got nowhere with mainly because it was unfeasible for that engine to handle (at least without changing the hardcode) but maybe it can be made to work with DH? Do you plan on implementing some sort of arms purchasing and/or licensed unit production features to this mod?

 

[gll25]

Moving on.... gll25, can you give us a preview of how the techtrees are set up and what sort of changes are being made? I'm really interested in seeing how you manage the complexities of modern(ish) warfare advancements.

Also, this is something I once brought up in the AoD forums but got nowhere with mainly because it was unfeasible for that engine to handle (at least without changing the hardcode) but maybe it can be made to work with DH? Do you plan on implementing some sort of arms purchasing and/or licensed unit production features to this mod?

Techtree is hansnery's job. As soon as he show me something I'll release it here for you, or maybe he will show you. Also, this is a great idea, but not sure it its implementable, we could try.

 

[unmerged(135926)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_big_7.jpg

 

[nsr433]

what is going in PA as gll25 said that it has not been chosen. Is it staying that same???

 

[gll25]

what is going in PA as gll25 said that it has not been chosen. Is it staying that same???

We'll use something like National Populist or Authoritarian Populist, or maybe just keep the Paternal Autocrat. If you think about it, it is not that important

 

[nsr433]

True