Johan, read the following leads me to conclude that all I have to do to become a socialist nation is deny consumer goods to the masses for a long period. Am I correct? If so, what are the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a socialist nation?
-
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.
Unless I miss my guess, it looks to me like socialist/communist isn't something you can voluntarily change your government to. It has to come through revoultion.
Hmm, this whole thing is wrong. Looking at history and observing my friends nowadays, I'm sure that the most fanatic socialists are people who are wealthy enough (have lots of "consumer goods") to have money to play revolutionaires. Whoever earns his money hard and by his own hands, knows that there's nothing for free and that common means no one's
While it is true that communists nowadays are usually from the upper stratas of society (as were they back in Marx's days) in order for the revolution to succeed they would need alot of support in society. This would probably only be possible with VERY high levels of discontent among alot of groups in society. I guess Victoria actually models the new kind of government that comes out of the revolution based on the composition of the population. For example if the government falls because of a coup caused by the lack of support for liberal reforms with the population being too concervative it wouldn't make much sense if the new government was hardline communist.Originally posted by kristoff
Hmm, this whole thing is wrong. Looking at history and observing my friends nowadays, I'm sure that the most fanatic socialists are people who are wealthy enough (have lots of "consumer goods") to have money to play revolutionaires. Whoever earns his money hard and by his own hands, knows that there's nothing for free and that common means no one's
Originally posted by kristoff
Hmm, this whole thing is wrong. Looking at history and observing my friends nowadays, I'm sure that the most fanatic socialists are people who are wealthy enough (have lots of "consumer goods") to have money to play revolutionaires. Whoever earns his money hard and by his own hands, knows that there's nothing for free and that common means no one's
actually, what your saying is proving this method correct. the reason for communist movements (russia and china) is that those people were working thier butts off, dying from overwork, and yet still didnt recieve anything remotely close to what could be called a "consumer good"
russian serfs had no rights, made no money, and lived only by their lords will and mercy. most of the people who started and sponsored revolutionaires had a millitary background and were fed up with the abosultism of the monarchy.
think of all those people who didnt have enough money to even buy food, and when they came to the palace for aid soldiers openned fire on them without any warning. these are people who surely not wealthy, but with events like that its easy to see why they would become fanatic socialist.
the only problem with socialism/communism is that the few people at the top have the ability to rip off the rest of the nation as much as they want because they control everything since the whole idea of communism is that nobody owns anything because everything is shared by the state. that is why the wealthy top class is so fanatic about their goverment, they are not concerned with idealism , but their own personal gain.
so, it is very correct that if you make a craftsman work in the unhealthy conditions of early factories with little benefit his belief might turn towards socialist. Same goes for the soldier who risks death with little reward and the farmer who cant even afford the food he grows.
If you read Pipes in the "Russian Revolution", the fact that Russia was made communist was more chance than anything else.
The revolution was created by a small group of political fanatics who intrigued their way to absolute power, and won the civil war with the help of German gold and by holding the families of officers hostage.
Having read the book, the fact that Russia became communist seems more like a complete but tragic fluke.
I hope that Russia won't become communist by an event.
The revolution was created by a small group of political fanatics who intrigued their way to absolute power, and won the civil war with the help of German gold and by holding the families of officers hostage.
Having read the book, the fact that Russia became communist seems more like a complete but tragic fluke.
I hope that Russia won't become communist by an event.
never read the book , but i also think dangling the prize of "everyones equal" and "working class rules" were a major part in getting the popular support for the revolution, which without it would of been easily crushed. so it might be a chance that greedy, self-centered people where at the head of the revolution, but not by chance was it communist.
At the turn of the century, and even in the wake of the February Revolution 1917, Lenin's Bolsheviks were by no means the only, or even the largest, socialist/revolutionary movement in Russia.
In fact, in the first (and only) somewhat free elections, the Social Revolutionists (AFAIK Anarchists, not sure) and the Mensheviks (i.e. Social Democrats) were the most successful.
So you could easily have an anarchist or other kind of socialist movement creating a "Worker's Paradise" in Russia at the time...
Originally posted by kristoff
Hmm, this whole thing is wrong. Looking at history and observing my friends nowadays, I'm sure that the most fanatic socialists are people who are wealthy enough (have lots of "consumer goods") to have money to play revolutionaires. Whoever earns his money hard and by his own hands, knows that there's nothing for free and that common means no one's
This is half-bullshit. Socialism has two great traditions. That of the rich and that of the poor. What was the class composition of the CNT and its leadership? Who made up the IWW? How did the AFL form? Why was the CIO successful? Tell me that the working people who built those unions under the threat of the sack and the eye of the boss didn't do so because they /knew nothing's for free/ and the only way to get it, get it good, and stop the government or boss taking it back was to tear it, and the entire productive system, from the bosses' grip.
But you're right. There's a large number of rich bastards attracted to socialism because of guilt, or the sexy Hegelian-ness of Marx's world system.
They called themselves the "Bolsheviks" (The Majority) as a sort of publicity statement. They definately weren't in majority for a long time, in fact when many of the rich Socialists went into the country to try and spread their cause, the peasants didn't understand what they were talking about, in some cases turning them into the police. It was only when they turned to the industrial workers in the cities that they had any success, and these were in many cases misled by the Bolsheviks into joining their cause.
Bolsheviks, "Big ones". A revolutionary social democratic Marxist party. Also known as "Leninists."
Mensheviks, "Little ones". A revolutionary social democratic Marxist party. Pro-parliamentary, more Kautskian. Walked out of the Soviet over October.
International Mensheviks, Left Mensheviks. Revolutionary social democratic Marxist factions. Involved Trotsky. Fused with the Bolsheviks.
Social Revolutionaries. Populist agrarian revolutionaries. Pro-parliamentary. Walked out of the Soviet over October.
Left Social Revolutionaries. Populist agrarian revolutionaries. Anti-parliamentary. Joined the October Soviet. Attempted to shoot Lenin over Brest-Litovsk.
Anarchists (St. Petersberg). Revolutionaries. Disorganised. Tried to kick the Bolsheviks out during the Krondstat revolt.
Anarchists (Ukraine). Revolutionaries. Mahknovists. Organised. Ran a large autonomous zone in the Ukraine. Destroyed by Red Army perfidy.
* * *
While there were other revolutionary parties, the other parties were Liberal revolutionaries.
This would be my guess too
I'd think the downside to having a more socialist population would be loss of production due to strikes and the like and in the long run it will lead to revoultion like the other posters have said. Which I'd guess would be a bad thing for the rulers of that nation but a lot of fun for a gamers like us
Clearly, I have to fund massive education programs and send them all to learn free market capitalism. They can get consumer goods, like The Wealth of Nations
Right, but...
1) I was a bit joking. I didn't mean they should change game mechanics. It's impossible to catch life as it is and put in a game. Surely, it needs a lot of simplification.
2) Seriously speaking, even great anger and deep frustration in Russia after 1905 plus WWI, didn't lead to full-scale revolution. October 1917 was not a revolution, but a coup! Bunch of "professional revolutionaires" and their imported from Germany leader just used to their advantage disastrous weakness of Kierenski's goverment and tsar together with unseen before brutality and terror and took power. Thousands of revoliting people stormed Winter Palace only in Einsenstein movie...
Last edited:
AFAIK, there was a revolt in 1905 in Russia, which forced the Czar to set up a parliament.Originally posted by kristoff
2) Seriously speaking, even great anger and deep frustration in Russia after 1905 plus WWI, didn't lead to full-scale revolution. October 1917 was not a revolution, but a coup! Bunch of "professional revolutionaires" and their imported from Germany leader just used to their advantage disastrous weakness of Kierenski's goverment and tsar together with unseen before brutality and terror and took power. Thousands of revoliting people stormed Winter Palace only in Einsenstein movie...
Of course 1905 didn't change a lot, voting right was AFAIK restricted to nobles and the wealthy, and even then the Duma didn't have any real political power.
And there is of course the lesser mentioned February Revolution, (or Burgeois Revolution in Marxist terms) which ended with Kerensky taking power, followed by Lenin's Red October...
Russia was not exactly quiet in the 20th century, it seems...
Originally posted by kristoff
October 1917 was not a revolution, but a coup! Bunch of "professional revolutionaires" and their imported from Germany leader just used to their advantage disastrous weakness of Kierenski's goverment and tsar together with unseen before brutality and terror and took power. Thousands of revoliting people stormed Winter Palace only in Einsenstein movie...
True enough for St. Petersburg in October 1917: a coup lead by the RSDLP(b)'s Military Organisation. However, consider July 1917 when the revolutionary masses /forced/ the Bolsheviks' to support an insurrection in St. Petersburg.
But consider also Moscow in October 1917 where an all-party Soviet force had to eject the capitalist government there, much more evidence of a /revolutionary/ take over.
And consider that the Soviets (often all-party Soviets) in the other cities and rural areas were responsible for co-ordinating the civil war. That sounds more revolutionary to me.
Can't just look at St. Petersburg's October, look at the entire revolution from February through until the NEP.