• 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
Not open for further replies.
Damn, again so close.

Btw, our economy is based on exports?
That means we are abusing the poor importing-countries and their proletariats!
Stop the trade! Expand the domestic market!
 
Phew, that was a(nother) close one!

It's clearly the people's fault, how could so many of them vote against Engels after such a successful first term?
 
Damn, again so close.

Btw, our economy is based on exports?
That means we are abusing the poor importing-countries and their proletariats!
Stop the trade! Expand the domestic market!

Of course our economy is based on exports. How else did you think we were funding industrialisation? Panning the Rhine for gold?

I'm now going to go write the update on the election. However first I still need to settle on a new Central Committee member (currently reading up on a couple of candidates). ;)
 
Of course our economy is based on exports. How else did you think we were funding industrialisation? Panning the Rhine for gold?

I'm now going to go write the update on the election. However first I still need to settle on a new Central Committee member (currently reading up on a couple of candidates). ;)

But that is wrong.
Our society can not be funded by poor foreign slaves.
That makes us capitalists!
Kill the ones who planned this economy!
We demand a new revolution!
Purge those that harvest the money!
How dare we blame others of capitalism, when we are one of the worst states!?
 
But that is wrong.
Our society can not be funded by poor foreign slaves.
That makes us capitalists!
Kill the ones who planned this economy!
We demand a new revolution!
Purge those that harvest the money!
How dare we blame others of capitalism, when we are one of the worst states!?

So you would give away our produce freely to the bourgeiosie dogs of Paris and London? Leave our own people to starve and the capitalists to make unthinkable profits? I assure you there is not a single serious faction that believes we you simply give away goods to our neighbours. Sure within the Republic and the two other socialist Republics goods are exchanged in a much fairer, non-capitalist system. But we are just a tiny portion of the world and the Rhineland alone produces more industrial goods than the free peoples of the world could ever consume.
 
So you would give away our produce freely to the bourgeiosie dogs of Paris and London? Leave our own people to starve and the capitalists to make unthinkable profits? I assure you there is not a single serious faction that believes we you simply give away goods to our neighbours. Sure within the Republic and the two other socialist Republics goods are exchanged in a much fairer, non-capitalist system. But we are just a tiny portion of the world and the Rhineland alone produces more industrial goods than the free peoples of the world could ever consume.

Conquer Paris and London, destroy their Empires!
Conquer the world and stop money from enslaving people!
Produce what is needed, let the nature rest!
 
Conquer Paris and London, destroy their Empires!
Conquer the world and stop money from enslaving people!
Produce what is needed, let the nature rest!

That is what we aim to do. But it will need to wait; Paris and London will not fall, not yet. Attempting to destroy either empire will result in our own destruction, and the revolution will have been for naught.

Anyways, damn, the Anarchists just BARELY lost! Again! :(

Ah, well. The farmers will gain the vote soon enough!
 
The Election of 1870

The election of 1870 is most notable for its extreme serenity. Engels had been highly successful during the previous 5 years whilst most Marxists and Anarchists had both taken a clear shift away from the extremes. This left votes with a choice between 3, comparatively harmonious, factions none of whom promised anything particularly harmful to the others (with the exception of the Anarchists whose call for votes for farmers risked totally re-shaping the political scene).

PartyVote1870.jpg


The first round of votes, the Party votes, gave Engels’ United Front a decided advantage with over 40% of votes going to his faction. Whilst enjoying a small recovery from their electoral failure in 1865 the Marxists could only attract a disappointingly small portion of the Party vote, indeed they again finished in third place. The Anarchists expanded their share of the Party vote by around 5% but were still left far behind the dominant Engelsite camp.

WorkersVote1870.jpg


Amongst the workers it was a very different story. The old calls of Anarchist freedom and Marxist equality resonated throughout the Republic’s factories, mines, offices and barracks as strongly as ever. The United Front’s call for moderation and Anarchism mixed with Marxism were quite simply unpopular with the common Workers. Those who wanted freedom for their rural Comrades and a more worldwide revolution voted Anarchist, those who wanted further social reforms and a more rapid revolution in Europe voted Marxist. With the threat of Civil War gone there was little reason to side with the champions of cooperation and the United Front’s share of the Worker’s Vote noticeable plummeted.

Final1870.jpg


Yet in the end their domination of the Party vote secured the United Front a second consecutive election victory as for the second time they relied on a strong showing within the Party to make up for a lack of popular support. Once again victory came by the finest of margins. The United Front’s margin of victory over the Anarchists was increased from just 0.08% in 1865 to 0.256%. Even the Marxists came close to victory as they finished just 2.404% behind the United Front.

Another 5 years of Engels as Chairman awaited.

imagesCA5NT1FO.jpg


However for the Anarchist faction this marked not a continuation of things but the end of an era as Bakunin retired from politics. With him went the last major figure of the early Anarchist movement still active in the VSVR. He had played a highly important role in the initial Rhineland Revolution – organising the Anarchist mob into a strong fighting force and thus ensuring that the Anarchists were not left out when the pan-factional People’s Party was founded. However after both he and Proudhon failed to secure an electoral victory in two decades of trying (despite coming within a whisker of doing so) Bakunin decided to pass the torch on to the next generation.

The new leader was the Anarcho-Communist Kropotkin. His ascension to the faction’s leadership traditionally marks the end of the Collectivist-Anarchist era as without Bakunin’s force driving the idea forward it faded away in favour of the Anarcho-Communist model advocated by the younger figures of the faction.

23_Errico_Malatesta-4.jpg


Another figure to benefit from the withdrawal of Bakunin was the young Italian 22 year old Errico Malatesta. At just 16 he had joined Garibaldi’s Republican war machine in Italy but after his General compromised with the Pope and Sardinian King – founding a Kingdom of Italy rather than a Republic – Malatesta turned against the state he had fought to construct. For the next two years (between the ages of 18 and 20) he fought against the Kingdom of Italy in a movement called the United Anarchists of Italy. The bomb throwing, riotous, revolutionary actions of the UAI made them the single most dangerous force to the Italian state and the Kingdom’s powerful police and army cracked down on them hard. As the UAI’s leaders had a very short life expectancy Malatesta actually became leader of the faction in 1868, however he was forced to flee across the Northern Italian border (through Italian Switzerland) and into the South German states before eventually making his way to the VSVR. From there he joined the People’s Party with a formidable reputation and an army of Anarchist admirers. Malatesta himself was of the Anarcho-Communist persuasion but came from the more extreme of the spectrum of Anarcho-Communist. He was against Trade-Unions, political parties and organisations of any kind. He claimed that one should only associate with a body if one was actively going to participate in it; there was no point in merely calling oneself an Anarchist if one was not going to actively do something to promote the Anarchist cause. However he was amongst the staunchest supporters of freedoms and believed that even in the VSVR, the freest nation on earth, the people were not totally free – in particular the peasantry. He was now a part of the Central Committee of the United Socialist People's Republic.
 
Well, that new Anarchist looks promising.
Maybe he can achieve something, unalike our old faces.

I thought you'd like him. :)

I've now started playing the next 5 years BTW. *Spoiler Alert* I've just seen a Communist rebellion in Austria-Hungary. Whilst most rebels are 3k on my border alone there is one stack of 48k rebels and another of 30k. NICE!

I hope they win, another socialist GP would be very interesting.
 
I thought you'd like him. :)

I've now started playing the next 5 years BTW. *Spoiler Alert* I've just seen a Communist rebellion in Austria-Hungary. Whilst most rebels are 3k on my border alone there is one stack of 48k rebels and another of 30k. NICE!

I hope they win, another socialist GP would be very interesting.

And if they don't, I'm guessing you'll intervene?
 
I think the relative unpopularity of the United Front among non-Party members is indicative of a real flaw in their program. While I admit that they had a welcome role in resisting Blanquist reactionary tyranny in a dangeous time for our republic, once the crisis is gone there is no real need for the sort of middle way they represent.

I also welcome Malatesta to our country. He has fought well in Italy and I think is a good new leader. I disagree with his method of arriving at his opinions but the opinions themselves are excellent.

It is also nice to hear about the proposed revolution in Austria Hungary. A multi-ethnic state is just the sort to quickly realise how the Ruling Classes can oppress the People, and the Habsburgs have been despots for far too long. I will be happy to see the murderers of Indians and proponents of religious strife and intolerance defenestrated onto a pike.
 
But that is wrong.
Our society can not be funded by poor foreign slaves.
That makes us capitalists!
Kill the ones who planned this economy!
We demand a new revolution!
Purge those that harvest the money!
How dare we blame others of capitalism, when we are one of the worst states!?
Here's an idea, comrade! Let's conquer the world and everyone will liberated under worldwide Socialism!!! :D
 
Damnit, I was ill and didn't get to vote! Ah well. With the coming of the Assembly the workers will be properly represented. The problem of the UF with the workers is probably one of visibility. Engels is probably a very popular man, but the UF is still a very young faction, while the others have been around since the revolution. Plus, I fear, witht he other factions moderating it is becoming less and less neccessary. For me, the UF was the party of political reform without the (in my view) damaging economics of the Anarchists. And of course the party of avoiding civil war. Now, though, I think political reforms have mostly been achieved. I would have voted UF this time, but I may be swayed back to the Marxists as I still believe in social reform.
 
Last edited:
I will be happy to see the murderers of Indians

Murderers of who?

I think the relative unpopularity of the United Front among non-Party members is indicative of a real flaw in their program. While I admit that they had a welcome role in resisting Blanquist reactionary tyranny in a dangeous time for our republic, once the crisis is gone there is no real need for the sort of middle way they represent.

On the contrary, I'd say that it's because of the Marxists and Anarchists becoming more moderate. When you have two extremist parties, more people seek moderation (like in the previous election). This time, there is less extremism and more moderation from the three main factions; the extremists still vote based on traditional party establishment (anarchists for the CA, Marxists for the Marxists) while the moderate vote is split between the three factions.
 
Murderers of who?

The American Indians. As you know the Habsburgs are the heirs of the rulers of Spain which had some nasty goings-on in the Americas.



On the contrary, I'd say that it's because of the Marxists and Anarchists becoming more moderate. When you have two extremist parties, more people seek moderation (like in the previous election). This time, there is less extremism and more moderation from the three main factions; the extremists still vote based on traditional party establishment (anarchists for the CA, Marxists for the Marxists) while the moderate vote is split between the three factions.

I think there is a mild flaw in this which is that I might be described as a moderate Anarchist by you (tell me if you don't view me that way) as I never supported many of the activities of the Young Anarchists since they departed from my pacifist ideals. But I still am staunchly in favour of Anarchist ideals, felt that the Young Anarchists were merely a response to the actions of people in the other factions, and was quite ready to see Kadon given a fair trial rather than being tossed in a dungeon.
 
The American Indians. As you know the Habsburgs are the heirs of the rulers of Spain which had some nasty goings-on in the Americas.
You can't blame the Austrians for that! It would be like blaming a German for the Boer War, or a Dutchman for Aparteid.

I think there is a mild flaw in this which is that I might be described as a moderate Anarchist by you (tell me if you don't view me that way) as I never supported many of the activities of the Young Anarchists since they departed from my pacifist ideals. But I still am staunchly in favour of Anarchist ideals, felt that the Young Anarchists were merely a response to the actions of people in the other factions, and was quite ready to see Kadon given a fair trial rather than being tossed in a dungeon.

I'd call you an establishment anarchist, as you may disagree with the direction the party is taking (or rather, took) and favour some of the more moderate policies of the UC/UF but you'd still vote anarchist anyway. So you would be a moderate who voted based on party loyalty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.