Independent (if they have so little workers' vote, this merely means they need our support more!), hoping to end up in a coalition with Marxists-Leninists.
-
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
Where do you find statistics like that?
Also, it's looking like it'll be a tight race between the factions in the party vote. What if the Marxists-Leninists, Independents and Anarchists all get about as many votes (say around 30%)? We have the assembly and coalitions now after all.
POLLS!
58 votes. Very Impressive, with 3 days to go we're one vote off the best turnout yet. I would be pretty shocked if this doesn't break that record.
Independents: 19
Anarchists: 14
Marxist-Leninsts: 11
Militarists: 5
Moderates: 3
Neither the Militarists and Moderates are doing very well. However at the top things are tight. I've already told you that the Independents aren't going to succeed at the Worker's Vote so that should bring down their lead. We could be looking at a pretty close finish between the 3 leading factions.
Coalitions could be very interesting. I've seen as many Independents calling for an alliance with the Marxist-Leninsts as calling for an alliance with the Anarchsits. All that is certain is that alliance are going to be needed.
58 votes. Very Impressive, with 3 days to go we're one vote off the best turnout yet. I would be pretty shocked if this doesn't break that record.
Independents: 19
Anarchists: 14
Marxist-Leninsts: 11
Militarists: 5
Moderates: 3
Neither the Militarists and Moderates are doing very well. However at the top things are tight. I've already told you that the Independents aren't going to succeed at the Worker's Vote so that should bring down their lead. We could be looking at a pretty close finish between the 3 leading factions.
Coalitions could be very interesting. I've seen as many Independents calling for an alliance with the Marxist-Leninsts as calling for an alliance with the Anarchsits. All that is certain is that alliance are going to be needed.
I've had it on a near constant loop since I found it. I hope to be able to sing it by heart pretty soon.
Congrats.
I suspect a few people are judging VSVR Lenin too much by USSR Lenin. I hope atleast the anarchist poison has not seeped into the general proletariat.
I suspect a few people are judging VSVR Lenin too much by USSR Lenin. I hope atleast the anarchist poison has not seeped into the general proletariat.
I suspect a lot of them are judging him because he allied with the Militarists, a faction generally hated by right-thinking socialists, he crushed all criticism of himself in the presses, he fired on innocent civilians and wasted proletarian money on grandiose prestige games with foreign powers.
Lenin will have tried very well to force the proletarians to support him by suppressing any view that is not his own and not allowing them to read even the mildest criticism of him. He sees the proletariat as mere underlings, not his equals, who need to be blinkered, propagandised and ruled over, not consulted or allowed to hold him to account. I would be surprised if an average proletarian was even allowed to get his hands on a copy of a non-Marxist faction manifesto!
Give credit where it's due. Destructive Criticism might I remind you. Those citizens were attacking local law enforcement and it was believed a potential coup was in the works. How is showing off the grandeur of this Revolution a waste of money? Realistically quite a few of these "grandiose presitge games" can be put to practical use by the People. Further, showing this world the power of Socialism is but greater incentive for the oppressed to rise up in order to join in such prosperity, and the oppressors to repent their ways.
EDIT: Looking back. Few of the Gigantomania projects were actually that wasteful. Modernizing and Expanding the army, the canal, the Elbe dam, the Cologne Metro. All serve practical uses. The statue and Opera house were the only arguable wastes of money and that depends if you're into art or not.
Last edited:
Oh how easily they forget. Do you not remember how even when the moderate Marxists criticised him he flew into a rage and had their press shut down? The man is a megalomaniac. I do not deny that great things were achieved under his rule, but that is due to the last residue of Marxism in the so-called Marxist-Leninists, not anything Lenin contributed. This bastardization of Marxism must be allowed to tarnish the good name of Marx no more! I am a Marxist, and to adhere to Marxist principles is to be an anti-Leninist.
Really? All of those killed were actively attacking? Or was it a policy of "shoot first and ask questions later"? A man who needlessly spills the blood of one innocent worker is an enemy of mine from that day forth.
Showing off! The peoples of the world do not rise up because of a large statue or grandiose arcitecture! They rise because of their economic conditions and class consciousness. We should be directing our funds at improving the lives of the workers, that would be a true example to the proletarians of the world! No, the statues are designed to impress the bourgeoisie of foreign nations, a pointless task as they will be consigned to the ash heap of history soon enough.
I do, however, support the funding of innovations which provide actual benefit to the workers, such as the excellent metro system, a true marvel of socialist engineering.
Marxist-Leninism
I vote for the faction that gets the job done and Lenin has done it without the unnecessary methods Blanqui employed. He and the Militarists have spread the revolution outside our borders better than anyone before. The outrage in the party reeks of jealousy and revenge. The anarchists have still given no reason why they should be trusted, how the private press made the republic a better place, or why fully enfranchising the farmers would further the ideals of this republic. The anarchists continue to be blinded by their ideals, unable to accept the effectiveness of the Marxist faction.
These Independents are seeking the ego bruised United Front. Comrades, do not be swayed by this golden calf. As I predicted, the UF did nothing but delayed the fight over the press. The Independents will be as ineffectual and historically insignificant if they gain power now. A free press is a tainted press, one which gives the capitalists sway over the opinions of those unready for Communism. We in this Socialist Republic must safeguard those uneducated in the revolution by preventing the spread of the counter-revolutionary rhetoric. It has no place in our society and will lead us to ruin. Restore the free press and wait for the bourgeois rebellion to build. The Independents are but Anarchists in sheeps clothing, and without the leadership of Engels they can not be trusted even as much as the United Front.
The moderates continue to disappoint me. How can we move towards Communism if we won't encourage the revolution abroad? These level headed socialists would earn my vote in times of triumph. But we are still in the time of revolutions and must move to encourage more to join the ranks of the Comintern. Only when the bourgeoisie fear the worker from the North Sea to the China can cooler heads lead us. While there is a worker without voice, a laborer without bread, or a soldier without conscience we must press on for the Good of the Common Man!
I vote for the faction that gets the job done and Lenin has done it without the unnecessary methods Blanqui employed. He and the Militarists have spread the revolution outside our borders better than anyone before. The outrage in the party reeks of jealousy and revenge. The anarchists have still given no reason why they should be trusted, how the private press made the republic a better place, or why fully enfranchising the farmers would further the ideals of this republic. The anarchists continue to be blinded by their ideals, unable to accept the effectiveness of the Marxist faction.
These Independents are seeking the ego bruised United Front. Comrades, do not be swayed by this golden calf. As I predicted, the UF did nothing but delayed the fight over the press. The Independents will be as ineffectual and historically insignificant if they gain power now. A free press is a tainted press, one which gives the capitalists sway over the opinions of those unready for Communism. We in this Socialist Republic must safeguard those uneducated in the revolution by preventing the spread of the counter-revolutionary rhetoric. It has no place in our society and will lead us to ruin. Restore the free press and wait for the bourgeois rebellion to build. The Independents are but Anarchists in sheeps clothing, and without the leadership of Engels they can not be trusted even as much as the United Front.
The moderates continue to disappoint me. How can we move towards Communism if we won't encourage the revolution abroad? These level headed socialists would earn my vote in times of triumph. But we are still in the time of revolutions and must move to encourage more to join the ranks of the Comintern. Only when the bourgeoisie fear the worker from the North Sea to the China can cooler heads lead us. While there is a worker without voice, a laborer without bread, or a soldier without conscience we must press on for the Good of the Common Man!
Have you even read the Independent proposals on the press? They are specifically designed to prevent bourgeois influence on the press and establish democratic ownership! How does a free press benefit, well, without it how are we to hold our government to account? How are we to know what is truth and what is fiction? If Lenin had his way the massacres in Brussels would have been covered up, and in place of the vibrant debate which has kept this country on the cutting edge of ideology and allowing new ideas to surface, the press would be reduced to a bland, censored garbage full of articles about how great the glorious Comrade Lenin is. This would rapidly lead to political stagnation. With no other faction able to state its case the Leninists would win every "election" if it could even be called one, Lenin would rule as dictator for life, regardless of whether he was still fit for the job, and appoint his successor. Gone would be the revolutionary energy, the meeting-halls which once teemed with life would ring with silence, and our nation would have taken a step backwards, away from the true revolution and away from Marxism. That is why I oppose Lenin, and propose instead to restore Marxism to its former ideals. Its true ideals.
I don't see how this is true... When the UF enacted freedom of the press, nobody really objected (except the Militarists), and the Marxists-Leninists did not run on a platform of censorship, they led people to think that they would leave the press free. It was only the decision of the ML's to censor the press (without giving any indication that they would do so during the campaign) that reopened the debate on the press. Had they not done so, nobody but the Militarists would even care about the issue right now, so I don't feel it is fair to blame the UF for this debate.
Oh please with the sensationalism.
"Massacre in Brussels"? Two police officers were killed and a building was firebombed, a coup was believed to be in progress. You tell me what the "proper" response is in that case comrade. Innocent civilians died that day, namely the brave officers and soldiers who died such that peace might be restored and violence not be used as a tool of persuasion on the fate of this Revolution. I find it funny that in a civilized country where a system is in place such that the opposition might PEACEFULLY take power it is always certain parties that first resort to violence as a means to acquire their goals.
"The press would be reduced to a bland, censored garbage" Tell me. Why did Lenin censor the Zeal? Inflammatory messages that have no place in civilized debate, that's why. Lenin has shown no intentions of using censorship to maintain power. I don't agree that Zeal's actions were bad enough to warrant its censorship (Some exceptions must be made for lax judgement), but stop acting as if you have plausibility in claiming that Lenin is trying to run a security state conspiracy.
Debate on the facts, don't bring in fearmongering fantasies that only serve your ends.
As the new member of this ever glorious committee, I put my vote in for....
Marxist-Leninists!
Marxist-Leninists!
I make no defense of the terrorists who killed two police officers. I also cannot defend or condone a state which reacts to a minority violence by murdering 600 people and forcing those who did not come for violence to fight or die.
How are the Anarchists to peacefully take power if they cannot publish their platform or criticize Lenin? Calling for revolution against Lenin was unacceptable at that time, it has not yet evolved into a dictatorship and there is still hope for a democratic solution. But shutting down the entire paper of his major factional rival in the Party? How can you not interpret that as an attempt to hold on to power?
I might ask you a similar question. Why did Lenin suppress a moderate Marxist newspaper which disagreed with him about a relatively minor geopolitical strategy? Because Lenin cannot tolerate criticism of himself. It was that act that made me see that Lenin was not just misguided in censoring the press, he actually believes that the only views that can legitimately be expressed are his own.
I will try and debate on the facts, comrade, but in these days when a man cannot tell an inconvenient truth, who is to say what is fact and what is fiction?
Last edited:
You ignore the facts of my argument. As far as the government in Cologne knew, the "greatest hotbed of Anarchists and Radicals" was experiencing an attempted coup. This was no "minority violence". For all intents and purposes the government may have viewed it as but the first event in a civil war. How would you have responded differently? Please tell me what there is to fix before you try to lampoon the government for its actions.
Once again facts are ignored comrade. The Anarchists did not peacefully push their platform or peacefully mark out the faults of Lenin. They portrayed him in a negative fashion for no other reason than to damage his image. I reassert, their actions were not severe enough to warrant the reaction in my mind but you can hardly argue what they were doing was something that should be encouraged. So if a British government agency somehow funds a newspaper that spouts "Socialism is a lie! Rise up against your oppressors and join Britannia!!" and the government replies with censorship, that's "an attempt to hold on to power"? If the Zeal had done nothing but rationally pushed its message I could see some sense in your argument but as it stands it looks like a poorly made excuse to fabricate some proof that Lenin yearns to be a dictator.
Same situation, different party. I really don't see how it differs. Moderate Marxists post "Scathing attack" (Obviously having no place in rational debate). Government responds with censor, I don't agree the offence is serious enough. Same exact story.
What they should have done is made themselves aware of the facts before overreacting. Instead, without thinking about whether their assumptions might be wrong, they deployed the army of the republic against their own comrades and brothers in arms. The fact remains that the death of two men is appalling, but it was hardly indicative of having enough forces to capture Brussels, let alone march to Cologne and attempt a coup. It was an overreaction and points to the paranoia of Lenin. He sees conspiracies everywhere, every criticism in the press is not just a comradely disagreement, to him it is treason.
They criticised his platform, they criticised him as a man. That is their right. It is my right to say that Lenin is a donkey. I would not, because I know it is not true, but it is my right nonetheless. And play fair, propaganda funded by foreign bourgeois powers is hardly comparable to comrades in the Party getting carried away with their rhetoric.
Are you perhaps not aware of the definition of the word "scathing"? It may have used the odd rhetorical flourish, but I can assure you it was an entirely rational criticism of the government's geopolitical strategy. They did not call for violence. They did not call for Lenin's overthrow. They criticised one policy of Lenin's. In response our budding Kaiser threw a temper tantrum and sent his goons masquerading as guards to shut down one more paper which does not slavishly flatter him at every turn.
Bitter much? What Lenin did may not have been right. The right thing may not always be what is necessary. However, it was necessary. The Zeal was nothing more than a pamphlet to incite revolution, and you cannot argue that it wasn't because it is.
What of censoring the Moderates? Was that too "neccessary"? Perhaps to you the ends justify the means, but some of us have ideals.
I am not bitter, Comrade, I am angry. A great number of my friends and comrades died to create this republic, died for the ideals and freedoms on which it stands. And I will not stand for their memory to be tarnished, for the liberties to be destroyed, for this republic of the workers to become a tyranny, simply because the tyrant carries a red banner and sings the Internationale. He has shown his true colours.
- Status