-
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
"Anarchism" and "libertarian socialism" are close enough in meaning to be synonymous, just like "Marxism" and "revolutionary socialism". The Spartacus League was both libertarian (through their Luxemburgism) and revolutionary (through their actions). Thus they were both, Marxist and Anarchist.
Furthermore, it would be the greatest disgrace to Marx's name if it was permanently attached to the authoritarian actions of Blanqui and his ilk, the same ilk who now populate the Militarist faction. The swords of the Red Guard should always be pointed at our enemies the capitalists and aristocrats, never at ourselves.
Nations existed in ancient times. Look at the Trojan War. The "nation" of Greece went to war. Not a single kingdom.
Greece was never united in ancient times. The first time it was ever united in any way was under Philip of Macedon (and they still would never have called themselves the nation of Greece at that point). During the Trojan War, it seems as if the Mycenaean Greeks did invade Asia Minor, but it was not a Greek nation. It was probably a coalition of greater and lesser kings, all of whom brought men with them. If you trust Homer (and that's debatable, as he is probably portraying later Dark Age society) if one king wanted to leave, he could, and then his men would leave with him; there was no loyalty to a Greek cause. There were also many cultural and linguistic differences between Greek peoples at this time. That's not a nation.
Either way, the Mycenaeans never would have used the term "Greek Nation" or even thought of Greeks who spoke different Greek dialects from them as being all that similar to them. The first major event that solidified a Hellenic/Greek identity was the Persian invasion. This was one of the first times the various Greek city-states started to distinguish themselves as similar to each other culturally/ethnically and different from the Persians. This was the point when they finally unified, as Greeks, to resist an outside influence, and even then, I would not call it a nation, as they were still 100's of independent and often infighting city-states who led very different ways of life and often had many cultural differences.
But the major point is that the Mycenaean Greeks were definitely NOT a nation. And this is off-topic anyways, but I cannot condone the word nation being used to describe Mycenaean Greece.
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree, while Mycenaean Greece definitely saw the foundations for the nation laid (e.g. religion, art, language) I wouldn't count that as the birth of the Hellenistic nation. I'd place it sometime before the reign of Megos Alexandros and sometime after the first invasions by Persia.
I'd like to point out the division of the Greek people into multiple independent city-states does/did not prevent them from forming a nation. I believe France is universally acknowledged as the first nation-state.
But yeah this is off-topic ^ ^.
Yes, I'm aware, which is why I pointed out they spoke different dialects, had different cultures, and most importantly, didn't view themselves as a unified Greek nation.
But that's the last I'll say of it on it in this thread, so as not to derail.
Well, IRL he did lead the party that wanted to forge an alliance between the workers and peasants. All that hammer and sickle and so on.
SwiftRosenthal makes a very good point here. Left Communism is pretty unique its its commitment to both liberty and equality whilst from the Bolsheviks onwards most communists focused on the equality and forgot the liberty. However it is my belief that Luxemburg merely kept the spirit of ture Marxism alivve at a time when many were abandoning it rather than embraced Anarchist beliefs.
Anyways, lets try to bring our discussions of RL history to a close and focus on the AAR story again ....
POLLS!
45 votes
Marxist-Leninists: 24 votes - OMFG!
Anarchists: 10 votes
Militarists: 8 votes
United Front: 2 votes
Moderates: 1 vote
So, the Marxist-Leninists look certain to take the lion's share of any seats awarded by the party. But will that be enough to take them over to 50 seat requirement for forming a government without coalition?
Well, I don't think you should lump the Old Bolsheviks together with the Stalinists, but as you say, that's not really on topic.
That's a huge loss for the UF, to go from biggest faction to only having two out of 45 votes! And it will be interesting to see what shares of the worker's vote the Marxists-Leninists will get. If they get around 37% as in the last election, they'll have a really strong position in the Assembly. I'm guessing though that the marxist vote will be split with some voters going to the Moderates and the Militarists.
It's because of the former United Front people going over to a party that fits their needs better.
The Bolsheviks gave women, homosexuals, etc rights. They obviously cared about liberty, and the old Bolsheviks were always for a "return to soviet democracy".
The Stalinism is I would argue an evolution of Bolshevism, potentially an inevitable one. This is in fact why I oppose the Marxists, Centrists, Leninists, and Militarists in the AAR. Bolshevism is defined greatly by its view that it was not only the vanguard party for the revolution in Russia, but the vangaurd against any of the other parties. Its unwillingness to compromise and a strong desire for conformity and unanimity along with a well armed followers committed specifically to it helped it to eventually dominate the USSR. Stalin's great accomplishment was to use the bureaucracy to complete the centralization of power.
The key ingredients are radicalism, legitimacy, arms, a large powerful government, and a savvy player. The Marxist-Centralist alliance was a bit light on radicalism but still far left, Blanqui brought arms and himself, and was empowered by the Marxists sponsorship of the AKVD, Marx had also expanded the bureaucracy and lent legitimacy.
Look at the Marxist-Leninists. Is Lenin not Blanqui but more populist? He is certainly more radical, he showed in the South that he has the means to force the monarchs to deal with us, and like Blanqui, he does so on his own apart from the government. He has a strong personal following potentially loyal to him before the state and Party. He is certainly a savvy player. The Marxist state has not been dismantled at all and still has dangerous potential. Yet Lenin wishes to expand it further. The Marxists have lent him additional legitimacy, and if elected, any question of arms would be quickly resolved. The Marxists have a great deal to contribute, but if they rule alone they threaten the revolution. What it more Lenin like Kadon and Blanqui before is a loose canon, he is himself a danger to the revolution he fights for.
The key ingredients are radicalism, legitimacy, arms, a large powerful government, and a savvy player. The Marxist-Centralist alliance was a bit light on radicalism but still far left, Blanqui brought arms and himself, and was empowered by the Marxists sponsorship of the AKVD, Marx had also expanded the bureaucracy and lent legitimacy.
Look at the Marxist-Leninists. Is Lenin not Blanqui but more populist? He is certainly more radical, he showed in the South that he has the means to force the monarchs to deal with us, and like Blanqui, he does so on his own apart from the government. He has a strong personal following potentially loyal to him before the state and Party. He is certainly a savvy player. The Marxist state has not been dismantled at all and still has dangerous potential. Yet Lenin wishes to expand it further. The Marxists have lent him additional legitimacy, and if elected, any question of arms would be quickly resolved. The Marxists have a great deal to contribute, but if they rule alone they threaten the revolution. What it more Lenin like Kadon and Blanqui before is a loose canon, he is himself a danger to the revolution he fights for.
Pah, ganz falsch Genosse! Frag mal den einfachen Genossen Bauern vom Lande, der wird dir schon erzählen was man mit Gülle alles tolles machen kann.
Wir sollten überhaupt mehr Düngerfabriken bauen um unsere Landwirtschaft zu unterstützen. Mit dem Dünnschiss von deinem Genossen Kropotkin kann man ja nicht mal Unkraut düngen.
Vote United Front!
Die Herrschenden reden sowieso genug Scheiße, d.h. wir brauchen keine neue solche Fabriken.
Die Einfachen Bauern sind dumm, die wissen nicht was für ein Scheiße sie kriegen.
Einen Tag, werden wir Frei sein von allerlei Marxistischer Schisse.
Marx wird bald sterben, und einem Tag so wird auch sein Kult.
Aber unser Drang nach Freiheit, es ist Ewig.
Vote Anarchists!
I vote for the Moderates. The United Front has done well, but its time has passed and it is once more time for social reforms. I actually support the Marxist platform on most things, but I want a coalition to be required so that Lenin does not centralise power in his own hands. Tactical voting, if you will. On Africa, I believe that it is not possible for socialism to occur before capitalism indigenously, but with a true socialist state to lead the way perhaps it could.
The militarists are worse than Blanqui, a vile, authoritarian, twisted version of socialism. They have no place in the republic. If Lenin forms a coalition with them then I might even vote Anarchist next time, as he will have shown that he cares for his own power, not for the workers.
The militarists are worse than Blanqui, a vile, authoritarian, twisted version of socialism. They have no place in the republic. If Lenin forms a coalition with them then I might even vote Anarchist next time, as he will have shown that he cares for his own power, not for the workers.
That's sound reasoning, I hope the Marxist-Leninists form a coalition with the Moderates if anyone. Even though I favour a strong military to defend us against the capitaist empires, I don't think that political power within the VSVR should come from the barrel of a gun.
If this newcomer may cast a ballot;
It would be for the Marxist-Leninist faction. The lot of the people both within the Volksrepublik and especially beyond must improved. Would one stand idly by while their brother is beaten and enslaved or about to be? Of course not! Why would you do so therefore merely because some of your brothers are behind a line on a map? Or because they are in ignorance of their peril?
It would be for the Marxist-Leninist faction. The lot of the people both within the Volksrepublik and especially beyond must improved. Would one stand idly by while their brother is beaten and enslaved or about to be? Of course not! Why would you do so therefore merely because some of your brothers are behind a line on a map? Or because they are in ignorance of their peril?
Last edited:
Spark
The Only Way Forward
January 5th 1876
Marxist-Leninist Economics
The two decades of socialist planning in our People’s Republic have produced truly remarkable advances in terms of productivity. The old Workshop of the World pays homage to our Republic’s dignitaries, backed as they are not only by the socialist spirit but also by the free labor of our people. The levee Armies of Kings and Emperors, as we have seen, quail before the might of a popular army backed by modern arms production. However, we have been able to ascend so far in the eyes of the bourgeoisies of the world because they recognize in us the fulfillment of their ideals. The production of ever more means of production, the organization of the productive machine into a military machine, these are the economic and political aims of the bourgeoisie, hampered though they are by their own exploitative productive relations. Mighty as our society has become, it has grown on bourgeoisie terrain. The aim of the Marxist-Leninist faction in its economic policy is to establish a fundamentally new paradigm for the Republic, a really socialist mode of production.
This is not to disparage the work of our faction’s historical forbears. In our thought we continue to draw much from Marx, and from Engels. And the work they have done, accumulating capital in the Republic, was perhaps necessary. The old half-feudal states of Germany, kept in subjugation by nearly totally-feudal Prussia and liberated only recently, could not be the industrial and social center needed by a socialist republic. But the period has changed. What is needed now in Germany is not the eternal expansion of production—expansion which, as Marx himself pointed out, can only lead to just the sort of crisis of overproduction we see brewing today.
What is needed is the subordination of production to the needs of social revolution, within and outside the current borders of the Republic. Make no mistake: our faction is for the continued expansion of production, but not expansion for its own sake. No, we favor expansion of production because such expansion, if carried out in the ways Comrade Lenin has identified, will help bolster the international revolution and the birth of a truly socialist society in the Republic. We favor diversification of the economy in all regions of the country, not only to protect from slipping into the capitalist business cycle, but also to encourage eclectic work experiences. We want, to paraphrase Marx, our worker comrades to be able to fish in the morning and sole shoes in the afternoon. We also want worker comrades who are conscious of their central role in building the socialist society, by becoming conscious actors in politics. Therefore, we not only want eclectic work experiences in the working day, but also a shorter working day so that worker comrades may be free to organize political discussions and prepare for them with full minds. A shorter working day will also decrease the number of workers unable to engage in productive labor.
The shorter working day must also be accompanied by increases in the standard of living: we are not capitalists who say workers can spend their free time how they wish when in reality they are free only to starve. This is yet another reason to favor economic diversification. By making a wide variety of consumer goods available to the people, we free them from a hand to mouth existence. By allowing them to organize for their own consciousness-raising, we encourage the deepening of real revolutionary consciousness, consciousness that can spread over the border into capitalist states. Our class-conscious brothers abroad will then be more likely to call for our aid or rise up on their own. Finally, where even a shorter working day and a larger production of cheaper consumer goods will not suffice, our faction will expand state aid to our brothers to accomplish the same aim.
A vote for the Marxist-Leninists is a vote for less work that is also freer and happier, that provides great material benefit and opportunities for ideological development. With our faction heading up the Republic, a life, a real, human life, shared in solidarity with all citizens of the Republic, will be guaranteed for all. Vote Marxist-Leninist.
- Comrade Zimmerwald
- Status