Communism

[Ped_Lord]

If there's something i love about Victoria 2 is revolution, especially Worker's Revolution, in Victoria 3 i hope there are some interesting mechanics in game for it, i know that in Vic3 other countries will try to stop communism by invading your country like what happened in russia after 1917, but after you've defeated them, what are the options? Can i support the international in overseas and neighboring countries and if so will other countries try to stop me again? and will my mere existence indirectly boost left radicalization across the world if i'm a great power or at least in the region my country is in? If i'm playing UK for example and turn communist, will i lose all my colonies? and can I still colonize as a communist nation to save africans workers from those opressive african monarchs and european imperialism?

Another thing is how equal my society can be, in real life, socialist regimes usually tried to supress racial and cultural discrimination, how effective will that be in a country like austria-Hungary (aka Danubian Socialist Republic)?

And for last if i'm playing in the american continent, will i still receive migration being communist ?

 

[Vernichtere]

What we know so far: in the event of a civil war, you can take the side of the rebels and other powers could interfere. We don't know any more.

In the event of interference, however, the intervention should have a retroactive effect on the intervening powers. The Russian Revolution also survived because workers in their home countries massively soboting the intervention

 

[SemirDahak]

And for last if i'm playing in the american continent, will i still receive migration being communist ?

Migration won't be directly tied to geography anymore. Immigration pull will be based mostly on living standards (social reforms will probably help with these) and political freedoms.

Can i support the international in overseas and neighboring countries and if so will other countries try to stop me again? and will my mere existence indirectly boost left radicalization across the world if i'm a great power or at least in the region my country is in?

I assume every country will be able to promote its values, especially through supporting/undermining foreign regimes (which is vaguely mentioned in "Everything we know"

Regarding other things (colonies, discrimination) I think nothing like that will be hardcoded and it should be possible to influence public opinion towards player's goals (even if these goals would be hypocritical)

 

[alanschu]

I know in one of the interviews they are hoping to have different/nuanced takes of various political ideologies. Martin talked about how he felt that V2 only really had the Soviet style Communism and wanted to make people have different paths to social change with some of their own flavours. Which felt pretty promising to me.

 

[J.V Stalin]

Communist mechanics can be greatly improved from Victoria 2. Mods helped a lot in this regard.

I'd be enthused to see:
A) "Counter-revolution" CB on countries that have undergone a communist revolution, simply to restore it to the previous form
B) "Spread revolution" CB, a Trotskyist dream where the communist nation spreads to another country - who they too can then use this CB.

This would make Communism far more interesting especially as it starts to grow in force later in the game - almost like a disease the imperialist nations need to stop, lest it grow out of control and consume them too.

Yours,
J.V Stalin

 

[Bradley Hutson]

Yeah I do hope to see some good mechanics for socialism and communism. There are a few issues though that could make it difficult to realistically represent in the game:

• Should a country be able to reform its way to socialism, or should it only come through revolution?
• How authoritarian should socialist polities be, and what factors should determine their authoritarian-ness? It might be fun to create a democratic anti-authoritarian socialist paradise, but we should be realistic about when and how such a paradise can come about.
• How do you depict forms of socialism that have had limited real life implementation (e.g. anarchism)?
• How do you represent different socialist organizational models (vanguardism, syndicalism, centralization, decentralization, etc.)?
• How will the devs' own personal views of socialism affect how socialism is portrayed? For example, libertarians may want to portray socialism as a totalitarian hellhole, while socialists may want to portray it as a prosperous, egalitarian paradise. Additionally, even different types of socialists may have differing views towards how socialism should be portrayed. Anarchists might want to portray Marxist polities as brutal authoritarian regimes, while Marxists might want to portray anarchist polities as weak and unable to defend themselves.

 

[Vernichtere]

Yeah I do hope to see some good mechanics for socialism and communism. There are a few issues though that could make it difficult to realistically represent in the game:

• Should a country be able to reform its way to socialism, or should it only come through revolution?
• How authoritarian should socialist polities be, and what factors should determine their authoritarian-ness? It might be fun to create a democratic anti-authoritarian socialist paradise, but we should be realistic about when and how such a paradise can come about.
• How do you depict forms of socialism that have had limited real life implementation (e.g. anarchism)?
• How do you represent different socialist organizational models (vanguardism, syndicalism, centralization, decentralization, etc.)?
• How will the devs' own personal views of socialism affect how socialism is portrayed? For example, libertarians may want to portray socialism as a totalitarian hellhole, while socialists may want to portray it as a prosperous, egalitarian paradise. Additionally, even different types of socialists may have differing views towards how socialism should be portrayed. Anarchists might want to portray Marxist polities as brutal authoritarian regimes, while Marxists might want to portray anarchist polities as weak and unable to defend themselves.

In any case, I would make the likelihood of civil war high, even in the event of a democratic solution. There are some examples of the Reds' democratic takeover. But there is no example without a violent response to it. This followed at the latest after the real danger of nationalization

 

[VineFynn]

• How will the devs' own personal views of socialism affect how socialism is portrayed? For example, libertarians may want to portray socialism as a totalitarian hellhole, while socialists may want to portray it as a prosperous, egalitarian paradise. Additionally, even different types of socialists may have differing views towards how socialism should be portrayed. Anarchists might want to portray Marxist polities as brutal authoritarian regimes, while Marxists might want to portray anarchist polities as weak and unable to defend themselves.

I think that, even if this isn't how the devs resolve this matter, you *can* reason out plausible consequences for certain policies by looking at how people have responded to various policies in real life. After a while you get a feel for the usual suspects vis-a-vis unintended consequences. That's my experience, at least.

You don't have to rely on your opinion of something as broad as "Marxism" or "Anarchism" to fairly determine what the effects of specific Marxist or Anarchist policies might be, although you do have to enjoy/be invested in being impartial (not everyone's cup of tea). It also helps that we have plenty of examples w.r.t. Marxist policies.

 

[Bradley Hutson]

I think that, even if this isn't how the devs resolve this matter, you *can* reason out plausible consequences for certain policies by looking at how people have responded to various policies in real life. After a while you get a feel for the usual suspects vis-a-vis unintended consequences. That's my experience, at least.

You don't have to rely on your opinion of something as broad as "Marxism" or "Anarchism" to fairly determine what the effects of specific Marxist or Anarchist policies might be, although you do have to enjoy/be invested in being impartial (not everyone's cup of tea). It also helps that we have plenty of examples w.r.t. Marxist policies.

Well the thing is that, especially when discussing political ideologies, "facts" can not necessarily be easily divorced from "opinions". One's own personal views on a topic are going to 1) influence what sources and information about a topic they believe and 2) how they interpret said sources and information. Even if someone is making a conscious effort to be "objective" and "impartial" in their research, their own preconceived ideas are inevitably going to influence the outcome of said research. That's even mentioning the fact that, even if they somehow managed to be objective and impartial, their sources for their research will likely not be.

I think a good example of this sort of issue in real life is the field of economics. Economics is an objective science, completely divorced from politics, right? Every well-educated economist ultimately comes to the same conclusions, right? Not so fast. There are economists all across the political spectrum, from libertarians to social democrats to Marxists and everything in between. Many are also politically active, so you can't say their work is divorced from politics.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

I think a good example of this sort of issue in real life is the field of economics. Economics is an objective science, completely divorced from politics, right?

Economics is more akin to Haruspicy than Science.

 

[VineFynn]

Well the thing is that, especially when discussing political ideologies, "facts" can not necessarily be easily divorced from "opinions". One's own personal views on a topic are going to 1) influence what sources and information about a topic they believe and 2) how they interpret said sources and information. Even if someone is making a conscious effort to be "objective" and "impartial" in their research, their own preconceived ideas are inevitably going to influence the outcome of said research. That's even mentioning the fact that, even if they somehow managed to be objective and impartial, their sources for their research will likely not be.

I think a good example of this sort of issue in real life is economics. Economics is an objective science, completely divorced from politics, right? Every well-educated economist ultimately comes to the same conclusions, right? Not so fast. There are economists all across the political spectrum, from libertarians to social democrats to Marxists and everything in between. Many are also politically active, so you can't say their work is divorced from politics.

I think you're taking me as a little more naive than I am, haha. I was just highlighting that you can do better than priors, not that you can be perfectly impartial. I mentioned it because I find that a lot of people treat responding to certain (already answered) questions as if all they have available to them is their priors.

Econ is, at least in my opinion, actually a good example of what I'm taking about- even though there is substantial political diversity in economists, most are capable of not letting their normative views corrupt the positive (i.e. empirical) parts of their work. It might affect what you choose to work on, but it doesn't have to affect the empirical results of that work- that's how you can get people like Friedman, who despite being politically radical still made very valuable contributions to the field.

Economics is more akin to Haruspicy than Science.

Broad brush to paint such a massive field with, friend. People stopped using entails after the lucas critique ;P

 

[MagnusDux]

in real life, socialist regimes usually tried to supress racial and cultural discrimination

lmao

 

[balmung60]

and will my mere existence indirectly boost left radicalization across the world if i'm a great power or at least in the region my country is in?

I would also kind of hope that it boosts the appeal of your particular policies with those other radical movements. Like that very broadly, radicals should gravitate their demands or agenda towards what already seems to be working in placers where similar radicals hold power and attempt to take that as a model. For example if syndicalists take power in Prussia/Germany (and especially if that's the first radical left-wing government in a great power), then syndicalist policies should become more popular vs vanguardist or strictly anarchist policies as the example of, to borrow a term, "actually existing socialism".

Obviously it shouldn't make other left-wing policies impossible, but more act as a general guiding trend.

 

[alanschu]

Yeah I do hope to see some good mechanics for socialism and communism. There are a few issues though that could make it difficult to realistically represent in the game:

• Should a country be able to reform its way to socialism, or should it only come through revolution?
• How authoritarian should socialist polities be, and what factors should determine their authoritarian-ness? It might be fun to create a democratic anti-authoritarian socialist paradise, but we should be realistic about when and how such a paradise can come about.
• How do you depict forms of socialism that have had limited real life implementation (e.g. anarchism)?
• How do you represent different socialist organizational models (vanguardism, syndicalism, centralization, decentralization, etc.)?
• How will the devs' own personal views of socialism affect how socialism is portrayed? For example, libertarians may want to portray socialism as a totalitarian hellhole, while socialists may want to portray it as a prosperous, egalitarian paradise. Additionally, even different types of socialists may have differing views towards how socialism should be portrayed. Anarchists might want to portray Marxist polities as brutal authoritarian regimes, while Marxists might want to portray anarchist polities as weak and unable to defend themselves.

I'll have to dig up the video I think because there was discussion between "does it need a revolution, or not." The "not" case talked about how it could be possible peacefully, but doing so would require appropriate growth in power among the interest groups that would be most in support, which might not be easy and would certainly be a much slower process.

I suspect (for better or worse) that they want to be able to frame most things as at least somewhat plausible and positive (probably depending on various definitions of "positive" haha). I think it was in the Vickynomics panel that they talked about how they wanted to make it relatively open for which economic ideology would become dominant rather than just force things to just follow history.

I'm not sure how they'd go about that, but I do think it's reasonable if a more communal/socialist (but not so explicitly oppressive) system was really good for the wealth and well being of others that it'd be more likely to spread and take root would be interesting. One way I think might be interesting is for POPs, particularly conscious ones, to be more aware of what is going on in other states (especially with inventions/technology that make communication easier). So if I am struggling to get my staple and daily needs, but I know people of my class in the next door country are doing awesome, some political shift to that economic framework would probably make some sense. Could make for interesting politicking between classes who agitate for change and the status quo who might want to take down neighbor just to keep local masses in line or something like that!

 

[Arknav555]

socialist regimes usually tried to supress racial and cultural discrimination

Finns, Ukrainians, Tibetans, and Bulgarian Turks didn't like that. The reality is, that with every ideology, what happens on paper is not what should be in the game. Socialism should certainly be supported by the poorer class, as well as by ethnic minorities, but should only have a slight boost in support when it comes to anti-discrimination when in power. When out of power, they should always support reforms to reflect how the political backtracking that occurs with a lot of revolutionaries.

 

[Belph]

I really think that the kind of "Stalinist" (annoyingly vague term) socialism that we saw in real life should only arise if a Socialist country ends up isolated on the world stage like the Soviet Union in our timeline. The plan was never "Stalinism", but rather a more democratic system supported by aid from successful revolutions further west, which almost happened in 1917-23. "Socialism in one country" was a reaction to being isolated and having to defend itself from literally every other country on the planet, and I think more successful revolutions would have prevented the worst excesses of "Stalinism". No one should be aiming for that as a starting point, as historically no pre-1924 revolutionary group was.

 

[galkowskit]

in real life, socialist regimes usually tried to supress racial and cultural discrimination

Yeah... that's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. Which had no persecution based on the nationality at all. /s And I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just think like those two things: socialism and racial/national discrimination are just separate.

 

[Arknav555]

I really think that the kind of "Stalinist" (annoyingly vague term) socialism that we saw in real life should only arise if a Socialist country ends up isolated on the world stage like the Soviet Union in our timeline. The plan was never "Stalinism", but rather a more democratic system supported by aid from successful revolutions further west, which almost happened in 1917-23. "Socialism in one country" was a reaction to being isolated and having to defend itself form literally every other country on the planet, and I think more successful revolutions would have prevented the worst excesses of "Stalinism". No one should be aiming for that as a starting point, as historically no pre-1924 revolutionary group was.

I agree that Stalinism shouldn't be the default, but also disagree that it should be so democratic. Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin all supported democracy but would have most certainly suppressed the bourgeoisie from speaking against it as well. It might be hard to implement such a system (censored press as a default would be a start), but if the Devs pull it off, then I commend them.

 

[Limbojack]

God, I can't wait to slaugther the filthy communist rebels... that being said, I would love to see something like what you're describing implemented in the game. Who knows, perhaps "spread revolution" will be diplomatic option?

 

[Ped_Lord]

lmao

Finns, Ukrainians, Tibetans, and Bulgarian Turks didn't like that. The reality is, that with every ideology, what happens on paper is not what should be in the game. Socialism should certainly be supported by the poorer class, as well as by ethnic minorities, but should only have a slight boost in support when it comes to anti-discrimination when in power. When out of power, they should always support reforms to reflect how the political backtracking that occurs with a lot of revolutionaries.

I know about the USSR and it's attempt to wipe out every nationality that wasn't russian, but i was thinking more about Tito's regime in Yugoslavia that tried to supress those differences and the USSR's Korenization under lenin administration, i know that communists are still humans who will discriminate no matter the ideology, but considering that communism main goal is to achieve the ideals of international revolution and equality and Victoria 3 timeline is before those things happened, i wanted to know how effective i would be in actively trying to supress discrimination

Yeah... that's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. Which had no persecution based on the nationality at all. /s And I'm not trying to be snarky here, I just think like those two things: socialism and racial/national discrimination are just separate.

They're not, socialism is the ideal that everyone is equal, racial and national discrimination are against that ideal, that's why officially the Soviet Union condemn it, in reality that's not what happened, but reality is often disappointing, that's why we have games like Victoria 3 that maybe will allow us to build our socialist utopia