Let the ruling classes tremble – an Interactive Revolutionary AAR

[Seek75]

It is not that Africa is not ready. It is that Africa is already free, in the same way that the Ruhr is free and Wallonia is free. They live in a democratic, socialist state in which they control the means of production and freely elect their leaders. Why do they need to be split away? Because the people who live there look different to us?

I concur with Raph, also.

Well, the French, the Russians, the and former Austro-Hungarians do not even look different than us, and yet they are allowed a limited amount of independence. So, again, why is it that these people are allowed to rule themselves, while the Africans must look to oh-so-far Cologne?

((For the record, I know that Tommy didn't want a huge super-state, but that doesn't mean I can't use it as an arguement )

 

[Raph]

Machiavellian is right. Everyone points at Drexler's Very Merry Band of Drunken German Dwarves and shouts, "Racists, racists! Nationalists, capitalists, evil-doers!", and yet is it not the DAs and the Marxists who say that Africa is "not ready" for independence? Is it not they who apparently believe that the African is not yet smart enough or developed enough to rule himself? Oh yes, sure, the French, the Russians, the former Austro-Hungarians, and the like are all intelligent and developed enough to be somewhat independent, but the African is not? Is Africa not a great deal of the VSVR's industrial and manpower? Are they not even more industrialized and powerful than we were, when the VSVR was born?

Hypocrites, I say! Hypocrites!

It's not that we don't think the Africans are "ready" to have their own nation. We think that they're ready to turn away from the national concept, towards communism. We don't want to release Bohemia, Bavaria or Belgium either. That has nothing to do with the particular language workers in those area used to talk or any purported intelligence of their particular so-called culture. It's just that our ideology, socialism, is internationalist and seeks to abolish the concepts of nation, nationality and ultimately the state. That's why we don't want to create more of them.

 

[Communard]

Well, the French, the Russians, the and former Austro-Hungarians do not even look different than us, and yet they are allowed a limited amount of independence. So, again, why is it that these people are allowed to rule themselves, while the Africans must look to oh-so-far Cologne?

((For the record, I know that Tommy didn't want a huge super-state, but that doesn't mean I can't use it as an arguement )

Except that the Africans do not just "look to Cologne", do they? They participate in our political culture and elections, they stand candidates for the Assembly, they are equal members of our society in every way. One might as well ask why the Bavarians or Saxe-Coburg-Gothans should have to be ruled from Cologne. As to the French and Russians, the matter is one of practicality. Eventually they too must be dissolved, and the Comintern Assembly shall be the governing body of the entire world.

 

[BootOnFace]

Marxists
Even though the Nacis are putting forward my favorite economic policy EVAR!
The independence of Africa, though awesome, is counter-revolutionary in that it creates a new state when one is not needed. I just can't vote for a faction that separates people when I could vote for a faction that increases international integration. Sorry, Drexler, but you're just too short-sighted.

 

[TheArchMede]

Out of interest what has made the Marxists so good this time around? I though their platform was slightly weaker in comparison to the other factions than their previous ones. Do you just really like Trotsky? Do you feel everyone else is very weak?

The Party is strongly jingoistic. Their addiction to battle has not been fed for some time. They crave WAAR. Trotsky is the only warmonger of the three. If you wanted an even election, you had to give the other parties a war to fight.

 

[Raph]

The Party is strongly jingoistic. Their addiction to battle has not been fed for some time. They crave WAAR. Trotsky is the only warmonger of the three. If you wanted an even election, you had to give the other parties a war to fight.

The marxist platform doesn't even call for war in this election, just support of revolutionaries... Which, by the way, seems to be a sensible position, until the Red Navy is strong enough to blast anything that opposes it to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Seek75]

Except that the Africans do not just "look to Cologne", do they? They participate in our political culture and elections, they stand candidates for the Assembly, they are equal members of our society in every way. One might as well ask why the Bavarians or Saxe-Coburg-Gothans should have to be ruled from Cologne. As to the French and Russians, the matter is one of practicality. Eventually they too must be dissolved, and the Comintern Assembly shall be the governing body of the entire world.

And how is it a matter of practicality? Would it not be better to simply annex them into the VSVR, thus not only making it easier to dissolve the state when the whole world is red, but also eliminating the need for a Comintern?

Or are these simply excuses to avoid the truth, that Trotsky is simply a jingoistic racist who is little better than those slave-holding, bourgeousie American Confederate pigs?

 

[Raph]

And how is it a matter of practicality? Would it not be better to simply annex them into the VSVR, thus not only making it easier to dissolve the state when the whole world is red, but also eliminating the need for a Comintern?

Or are these simply excuses to avoid the truth, that Trotsky is simply a jingoistic racist who is little better than those slave-holding, bourgeousie American Confederate pigs?

Surely you can see a difference between areas that have been integrated in our socialist society for half a century, and territories that have just barely broken the shackles of feudalism?

 

[Seek75]

Surely you can see a difference between areas that have been integrated in our socialist society for half a century, and territories that have just barely broken the shackles of feudalism?

Belgium had just barely broken the shackles of feudalism when we annexed them, and yet it was the Marxists who supported integration. West Africa had barely broken the shackles of tribalism when we began colonizing there, and yet it was the Marxists who supported continuing work there. It was the Polish provinces under Russian despotism that had just barely broken the shackles of tsardom when we had annexed them, and yet it was the Marxists who shouted "Keep going!"

Why now do you shy away?

 

[Syber]

For International Revolution, we must spread the joy and glory of the worker's state, with unprecedented levels of economic progress and social security to the whole world!
Although the platform of the Marxists is not bold enough (not jingoism) they are the most courageous and willing to stand up to the class enemy face to face!

I vote in the MARXISTS

 

[Konnigratz]

There is no reason to grant Africa independence. They are content, participating, fully equal citizens of the VSVR. Many speak German. What qualifies them for independence, their geographic location?
Or is it simply because of the colour of their skin, and the National Communists, with the obvious, sickening racism inherent in the faction, find them utterly detestable?

 

[Seek75]

There is no reason to grant Africa independence. They are content, participating, fully equal citizens of the VSVR. Many speak German. What qualifies them for independence, their geographic location?
Or is it simply because of the colour of their skin, and the National Communists, with the obvious, sickening racism inherent in the faction, find them utterly detestable?

As I have said before, is it not the color of their skin that keeps the Marxists from letting them go? I have argued about the limited independence of France, Russia, and the former Austro-Hungarian states, and am even willing to argue about all Comintern countries, and yet the only answer I have been provided is that "they have barely broken the shackles of feudalism", an excuse that utterly contradicts Marxist foreign policy for almost all of the VSVR's existance: after all, did they not support the integration of feudalistic Belgium/Wallonia, colonization of tribal West Africa, and annexation of tsar-dominated Poland?

 

[Konnigratz]

Why on earth would the colour of their skin prevent them from being let go? Because of the desire to oppress them? But that reasoning would only work if our African brothers were actually being oppressed. However, they are not. They are wealthy, increasingly literate, and have access to everything they could ever desire. Accept the fact that you only wish to see them gone because you detest anyone who is not a white-skinned German.

 

[BeardedHoplite]

Why, Marxist-Leninist of course.

Trotsky for the liberation of the proles.

(Great AAR, read it all in 3 hours)

 

[Communard]

As I have said before, is it not the color of their skin that keeps the Marxists from letting them go? I have argued about the limited independence of France, Russia, and the former Austro-Hungarian states, and am even willing to argue about all Comintern countries, and yet the only answer I have been provided is that "they have barely broken the shackles of feudalism", an excuse that utterly contradicts Marxist foreign policy for almost all of the VSVR's existance: after all, did they not support the integration of feudalistic Belgium/Wallonia, colonization of tribal West Africa, and annexation of tsar-dominated Poland?

((This is very unfair, you know ))

Comrade, if I were Chairman I would seek the integration of the Comintern into a single state. However, the Chairman is not God. He cannot say "And France shall be part of the VSVR" and it was so. Trying to forcibly annex them would lead to the first ever war between two socialist states. We must be patient and seek to grant the Comintern more powers as and when the diplomatic realities allow it.

 

[Seek75]

Why on earth would the colour of their skin prevent them from being let go? Because of the desire to oppress them? But that reasoning would only work if our African brothers were actually being oppressed. However, they are not. They are wealthy, increasingly literate, and have access to everything they could ever desire. Accept the fact that you only wish to see them gone because you detest anyone who is not a white-skinned German.

I never said anything about Marixst opression: infact, I said before that Marxists believe that black-skinned men cannot take care of themselves, so they must do it for them. Why else would they not allow them to be independent? It cannot be because they do not want to create more states, since they have allowed other socialist countries to remain independent, despite conflict with the same foreign policy that Marxists have held for nearly a century, thus not only making it harder to dissolve all states when the whole world is red, but also creating a rather redundant need for a Comintern. Truely, if they believe they can dissolve all states with as many as the Comintern has now (and that's a lot), then why do they not believe they can do it with an independent Africa?

 

[Derdiedas]

Out of interest what has made the Marxists so good this time around? I though their platform was slightly weaker in comparison to the other factions than their previous ones. Do you just really like Trotsky? Do you feel everyone else is very weak?

Probably their Comintern policy and the fact that they gave lip service to the councils. Oh, and lot of people just want WAR!

 

[Seek75]

((This is very unfair, you know ))

Comrade, if I were Chairman I would seek the integration of the Comintern into a single state. However, the Chairman is not God. He cannot say "And France shall be part of the VSVR" and it was so. Trying to forcibly annex them would lead to the first ever war between two socialist states. We must be patient and seek to grant the Comintern more powers as and when the diplomatic realities allow it.

He could have annexed France when the Great War was over, however. After all, was it not defeated? Or was the glorious victory over one of the strongest capitalist powers of the world a lie?

((Yes, I know it is, I just love being tricky like this ))

 

[Konnigratz]

I never said anything about Marixst opression: infact, I said before that Marxists believe that black-skinned men cannot take care of themselves, so they must do it for them. Why else would they not allow them to be independent? It cannot be because they do not want to create more states, since they have allowed other socialist countries to remain independent, despite conflict with the same foreign policy that Marxists have held for nearly a century, thus not only making it harder to dissolve all states when the whole world is red, but also creating a rather redundant need for a Comintern. Truely, if they believe they can dissolve all states with as many as the Comintern has now (and that's a lot), then why do they not believe they can do it with an independent Africa?

Or perhaps both Marxist and Anarchist do not wish to grant Africa independence because there is no need whatsoever to? The idea of it even stranger than granting independence to, for example, the Poles, since "Africa" has only been a geographical term. There was no concept of pan-Africanism before the arrival of the VSVR. There was not even a concept of nationalism in the tribal states that existed beforehand. The movement is supported my a small minority, and the corruption of nationalism is being stirred by the National Communists.
Give me one good reason why Africa should be granted independence? And try not to resort to saying "But the Marxists will not because".

 

[Seek75]

Zimmerwald: Victory over a capitalist power is not victory over bourgeois ideology here at home, comrade. After the Great War, we witnessed the formation of a political group with no agenda other than to demand Trotsky's head. Do you really think that if France had been annexed, there would not the day after have been assassins with ice axes in the homes of every important Marxist leader, and a purge of the 'tyrranical imperialists' from the Party? If the choice is between integrating France into a Republic run by ingrates or saving the Republic from these same ingrates, I would choose the latter. Trotsky did.

Me: Well, we already have people like that, do we not? The Young Anarchists were consistently reported to be such. The True German and Revolutionary thugs were consistently reported to be such. A man even assassinated Luxemburg and injured Lenin.

Zimmerwald: And they did not strike only because they were appeased, time and again. The Young Anarchists are still with us today in the form of the Anarcho-Kadonists, whose entire platform in 1905 was "elect us or we'll assassinate Trotsky". The True Germans are still with us today as well, though their leadership has changed. The rank and file of the True Germans morphed into the rank and file of the National Communists, twisting their German chauvinism into across the board ethnic segregationism. The rank and file of the Revolutionaries has by and large moved to a sensible faction or gone over to the National Communists. The 1905-1910 political scene was not simply about Drexler being the great statesman: it was about his repressing his own faction in order to play the part.
Annexing France is too big an action for any possible appeasement to work. The Great War would have become a civil war, not between Frenchmen and the older citizens of the VSVR, but among those older citizens themselves. That was not acceptable.

My and Zimmerwald's conversation over our profiles, due to him not being able to post here (for whatever reason). He asked me to transcribe it here, so I did.