• 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.
Well, this is different, the Independents are clearly not fascist, whereas you have to admit the Militarists have certain...tendencies that make them look that way. Of course you could just edit the ideologies to make, say, the Socialists able to enact both.

And huh, fascists can enact political reforms? That's a little...odd. (I've never played a fascist nation in the game)

They oppose everything when in opposition, but when they're in power, you can enact or retract any reform you want.
 
Well, this is different, the Independents are clearly not fascist, whereas you have to admit the Militarists have certain...tendencies that make them look that way. Of course you could just edit the ideologies to make, say, the Socialists able to enact both.

And huh, fascists can enact political reforms? That's a little...odd. (I've never played a fascist nation in the game)

Yeah, I'll think I make them fascist then.

In V2 fascists are truly incredible. They can do anything they like with any reforms. Increase or decrease both social and political.
 
Yeah, I'll think I make them fascist then.

In V2 fascists are truly incredible. They can do anything they like with any reforms. Increase or decrease both social and political.

I wonder what the rationale is...I mean have you ever heard of a fascist dictatorship abolishing itself voluntarily?
 
I wonder what the rationale is...I mean have you ever heard of a fascist dictatorship abolishing itself voluntarily?

I'm guessing it might be something on the line of the fascists being the ultimate opportunists. They do everything to make people pissed off until they can get into power, and then do anything to stay in power.
 
Fascism's roots in socialism should definitely support its ability to make social reforms (look at both Italy and Germany in the 30's). As for political reforms, they generally moved toward repression, though not all at once, that may be the rationale for the ability to reform politically. There were also odd instances of them increasing equality (they liked to view themselves as meritocratic, and in some instances were. Also they are quite literally nationalist-socialists, so their existence within the party makes sense, the old German socialists really weren't that different. One troubling feature is they tend not to like dissent.

Basically we should probably try to judge fascists in game based on their own merits since the movement hasn't evolved into its 30's era self and hence connections to real life examples are not necessarily perfect.
 
Basically we should probably try to judge fascists in game based on their own merits since the movement hasn't evolved into its 30's era self and hence connections to real life examples are not necessarily perfect.

Yes, but the more important point is that the Independents are not actually Fascists in ideology, Tommy may make them Fascists in game terms simply because it gives them the ability to support both social and political reforms. However, he is worried (as am I) that some people will use the fact that the Independents are technically Fascists in game terms as a weapon against them and go around bad-mouthing them simply based on a gameplay mechanic. All this despite the fact that their platform won't be remotely Fascist and they aren't Fascists in AAR terms.
 
Fascism's roots in socialism should definitely support its ability to make social reforms (look at both Italy and Germany in the 30's). As for political reforms, they generally moved toward repression, though not all at once, that may be the rationale for the ability to reform politically. There were also odd instances of them increasing equality (they liked to view themselves as meritocratic, and in some instances were. Also they are quite literally nationalist-socialists, so their existence within the party makes sense, the old German socialists really weren't that different. One troubling feature is they tend not to like dissent.

Basically we should probably try to judge fascists in game based on their own merits since the movement hasn't evolved into its 30's era self and hence connections to real life examples are not necessarily perfect.

Well, I would question fascism's roots in socialism. It uses a lot of the same rhetoric, sure, and often includes elements of state capitalism, but rooted in socialism? Fascism is about corporatism, the smooth integration of the nation (in theory, that didn't work so well in practice) and the outright merging of the state and the capitalist class. Oh, and war and violence as fundamental goods which bring a nation together and strengthen it. The workers got precisely no say in how anything was run, not even in theory. At least even the Stalinists pretended to be for workers rights. It's also highly Xenophobic, which leads to racism. Compare this to the inherent internationalism of Socialism. I'm talking about Italian Fascism here by the way, National Socialism is another kettle of fish, I'm not even sure it's a coherent ideology. It's based on batshit racial theories and whatever economics seemed to work at the time, from what I can gather.

EDIT: Sorry for going a bit off topic there. Winsington, I think that as long as people don't make it an issue then we can treat them as if they're socialist in-game. If someone who hasn't read this part of the thread notices the black dot next to the name and gets the wrong idea they can be swiftly corrected by those who have.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking more of the kind of syndicalist-fascist ideology that sprung up in Italy at the end of and in the aftermath of WWI. This far left portion of Italian fascism still had an economic model that was recognizably syndicalist even as it had become more corporate. A large part of what defined it was that it tried to transcend class (they were also opposed to the alliances made with conservative by other factions in the movement). In other words it turned its back on socialism and in some sense tried to skip forward to a different form of communism. It was also definitely pro-violence and expansion and had strong nationalistic and irredentist tendencies. Despite this, even into the 30's left leaning members of Italian fascism had some sense of internationalism. Not in the sense of creating a eventual stateless society but rather spreading the ideology to many states (how this coexited with expansion and irredentism I don't know), which is not dislike what the USSR did with Eastern Europe after WWII and what the VSVR is doing now. As far as I know this is the earliest, or among the earliest forms of fascism, before it further defined itself and absorbed more conservative elements. It is a fusion of nationalism and militarism with a syndicalist branch of socialism such that it seeks instead to transcend class, and to replaces socialism as its "religion" with nationalism and subservience to the nation and its state (though to a lesser degree than national socialism). In fact, national-socialism is arguably the diametric opposite of this type of fascism within the movement.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have too much information on this myself. The early Italian fascists as far as I know did not write much on the definition of their movement until later as it gained more substance and a greater following. Olivetti (sp?) is the main socialist turned fascist that I have been thinking of, and Rossoni also comes to mind. Looking at Wikipedia Panunzio is thrown in with them, but from what I remember of his view he swung much farther to the right particularly on economic issues and ended up more aligned with Mussolini as a less flexible player in the fascist center.
 
Last edited:
Some terminology and even methods might be similar, but the very essense of socialism is class and class struggle, while fascism primarily deals with nations, races or ethnicity and the struggle between them. I'd say that those are the roots of the respective ideologies and thus makes them very, very different.
 
Some terminology and even methods might be similar, but the very essense of socialism is class and class struggle, while fascism primarily deals with nations, races or ethnicity and the struggle between them. I'd say that those are the roots of the respective ideologies and thus makes them very, very different.

This is a good point. If you asked a Fascist and a Socialist what differentiates people more, their race/nationality or their class? The Fascist would say race/nationality and the Socialist would say class. It's a very different world view, and the Socialist idea (which, obviously not all socialists hold) of a stateless, classless world is clearly opposed to the Fascist idea of strong states defined by nationality.
 
The Anarchist Zeal

To the Citizens of the Republic​

Comrades,

The actions of Chairman Lenin are intolerable. By censoring the press of the VSVR, this Party’s ruling coalition has reopened the wounds of 1865. I, along with my Young Anarchist brethren, will not tolerate the growing authoritarian nature of this governing coalition. We have stood by, largely silent, as the VSVR continued expansionist policies, but we cannot accept Lenin’s usurpation of power and this new attack on the free press.

I fear that, in the past, I was too verbose and idealistic in my language. This left too much room for debate. I will change my tone to suit those who wish to question our motives; In order to safeguard the liberties we have secured in the VSVR, the Young Anarchists are willing to use violence against any member of this government. We will not wage a civil war; we will not promote civil violence. We will only target the guilty that hold power. If you do not oppose our freedoms, you will be untouched – if you stand against them, you are fair game. These are dangerous times to be a tyrant in the VSVR.

As was the case in the past, I expect that the anarchists will be labeled enemies of the People's Republic. I do beg of you all, please remember the anarchists who stood to defend this government during the Crisis of 1865. We were not your enemies then and we are not your enemies now.

I call upon supporters of the Moderates, the Independents and the Anarchists factions to join together and oppose this government’s actions. More importantly, though, I call upon reasonable Marxists to come to our aid. Though we often disagree with the Marxists, they accept us as partners in the People’s Republic – unlike the Militarists, of the former Prussian elite, and the cult of Lenin, the modern-day Blanquists. Aid our fight and remember to vote for Anarchists in the next party election… It may well be the last.

Comrade Kadon
Leader of the Young Anarchists
Party Secretary for the Ruhr
Former Commissar for Military Affairs
 
To sum up.

If Lenin wins the next election the likes of Kadon and Malatesta are going to rise up alongside the Young Anarchists and wage a violent campaign against the state.

ps Thanks Kadon - I actually requested that he make this for me so I am especially grateful. :)
 
I just don't understand why the Anarchists think that calls to violence will bring the moderates over to their side... If there was going to be one election that I would consider voting Anarchist, it would be this one, but I'm not going to vote for them if they keep up the violence. The way to woo moderates is to behave with moderation, not violent extremism and ultimatums.
 
I just don't understand why the Anarchists think that calls to violence will bring the moderates over to their side... If there was going to be one election that I would consider voting Anarchist, it would be this one, but I'm not going to vote for them if they keep up the violence. The way to woo moderates is to behave with moderation, not violent extremism and ultimatums.

This is just the view of the Young Anarchist extremists. The mainstream (like the leader Kropotkin) are against such violence. However with these YAs feeling under threat due you really think they'd lie down?
 
This is just the view of the Young Anarchist extremists. The mainstream (like the leader Kropotkin) are against such violence. However with these YAs feeling under threat due you really think they'd lie down?

No, I can understand why they would want to rise up, my issue is with the fact that they think they can convince the moderates to come over to their side (they call for Independents, Moderates, and reasonable Marxists to aid them) in doing so. It's not a very practical viewpoint.
 
No, I can understand why they would want to rise up, my issue is with the fact that they think they can convince the moderates to come over to their side (they call for Independents, Moderates, and reasonable Marxists to aid them) in doing so. It's not a very practical viewpoint.

Sides?
It is not about sides, it is about whether we can allow Lenin to remove our rights, whether we can allow his tyranny to continue!
None of us shall survive unless we stop Lenin.
 
No, I can understand why they would want to rise up, my issue is with the fact that they think they can convince the moderates to come over to their side (they call for Independents, Moderates, and reasonable Marxists to aid them) in doing so. It's not a very practical viewpoint.

When is politics ever practical?
 
...You do realize that there are going to be people with opposing views on the issue, right Enewald? And that, therefore, there are different SIDES to this conflict?

I really like how you're really into the whole poetic Anarchist thing, but it doesn't convince people very well when you're not smart about it.
 
...You do realize that there are going to be people with opposing views on the issue, right Enewald? And that, therefore, there are different SIDES to this conflict?

I really like how you're really into the whole poetic Anarchist thing, but it doesn't convince people very well when you're not smart about it.

Enewald is our jester. He is here soley for entertainment purposes. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.