Politics perhaps? Any unusual government forms around the world, like bourgeois dictatorships, or as the Fascists are activated now, any fascist dictatorships?
-
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
Politics perhaps? Any unusual government forms around the world, like bourgeois dictatorships, or as the Fascists are activated now, any fascist dictatorships?
That would be cool. If you don't mind doing something outside the Republic itself can we see a world map? Maybe the top nations of the world?
As I brought up, and Tommy4Ever agreed, the left-right distinction used in this AAR is of statism vs. libertarianism, not of radical vs. reactionary. Anarchists are no more or less bourgeois than Marxists.
True that Xanthippus. Do not hate on the Anarchists for the sake of hatred my fellow Marxists.
I believe some large amount of blame is focused on them. I doubt they'll do good in the near future Scholar.
I believe some large amount of blame is focused on them. I doubt they'll do good in the near future Scholar.
Flat taxes are fair, the state should not tax more than what is needed.
Privatization? Would you prefer free economy or state capitalism, that is the question.
In small states state capitalism can succeed on some scale, but we are not small and free men should be allowed to compete and strive to make better livings.
We should have a more clear line between state-capitalistic parties and free economy-parties.
Instead of that we have anarchists and Marxists fighting civil wars.
I prefer the economy not to be in the hands of the wealthy few; it should be in the hands of the democratically elected. At this point in the evolution of the Republic, that means the state. Also, I think it's fair that those who can pay more taxes should do so, while the poor should pay less; that those taxes should then go towards helping those who need it the most. It's the classic Marxist principle of "From each according to ability, to each according to need".
But would you not agree that by having a free economy, more competition would arise and productivity increase, leading to more profit for everyone, including the state that can tax more.
No, I would not. Competition is not, as you liberals seem to believe, the only possible motivation for progress. Also, nothing says that a democratically controlled economy couldn't have competition - even though I'm not sure it should. Furthermore, profit itself has no value if those profits are made in ways that bleed the workers dry, and if those profits don't go towards bettering the life of the many.
But a democratic economy limits competition, those who want to achieve more cannot. Why bleed workers dry, that would be impossible in our state. Competition leads to a better living standard for many. Those who actively pursue a better life should not be hindered by government control or insane taxes. Are we not all equal to pursue our happiness? Economy is progress, growing economy is progress. And by having less state intervening, we get more growth.
Interesting you make this point against the Anarchists when Kropotkin was a leading figure in proposing that you are correct. From his zooilogical studies he concluded that cooperation is the most important factor in development rather than competition. Remember the Anarchists didn't want privitization so much as moving the control of industry from the state to the workers and farmers themselves through the Commune system. Sadly for them they were unable to do so out of the political neccissity of appeasing their allies - something that went horribly wrong.
Anyway I've added in a literacy graph (top 8 most literate countries), a world map, a look at the GPs and an interesting map showing the concentrations of workers around the Republic.
Look at China, before 1990s and today. What happened? More state control or less?
Living standards decreasing?
No, but it is an example.
When has democratic ecomony succeeded?
Making everyone equally poor?
Everyone should have the equal rights to compete. Then those are most successful are taxed to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor ones.
As what appears to be the sole person here who doesn't want to string the union leaders up high, I feel compelled to point out how naive you all seem to me on the union issue. You lot seem to think that the unions somehow caused the problems of overproduction. What exactly do you expect to be different now that the unions are broken? What underlying economic mechanic do you actually aim to change? And where will you find your next scapegoat?
Freer consumption, freer enterprise, cash moves around unhindered, demand defines production.
No subsidizing, we should be producing what the people demand, not what the party thinks people might need.
Next scapegoat is Lenin.
Tommy. any chance of you releasing this mod publicly? I'd really like to play as the VSVR.
In this timeline though, most Conservatives would be Protectionists and most Liberals (Left = Liberal back in the 19th century) would support Free Trade. If we assume that the Socialists are the Ultra-Left on the 19th century political spectrum then the Anarchists would be right of the socialists but still far left by 19th century political standards.
- Status