I am playing Portugal in 1855 (Revolutions) and I have noticed that the socialists are growing fast among my population. Dont know what I did to promote that. Is it normal? Almost all of my POP's have a decreasing MIL. How can I stop those reds?
-
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.
The following tends to turn people into socialists in the game:
High taxes, or generaly speaking, their needs outstripping their income
High consciousness (in Revolutions. I think.)
Issues (I think an Atheist/State Capitalism issue pop tends to turn into a socialist...)
The last one, I'm not sure about it, but I noticed this in a game as Belgium. It's a small country and for the laughs I went with the typical "socialist" options in the election issue events. To my suprise the amount of Socialist pops in Wallonia double from the 12% it had been before.
The issue vs ideologies invention hadn't fired yet though.
High taxes, or generaly speaking, their needs outstripping their income
High consciousness (in Revolutions. I think.)
Issues (I think an Atheist/State Capitalism issue pop tends to turn into a socialist...)
The last one, I'm not sure about it, but I noticed this in a game as Belgium. It's a small country and for the laughs I went with the typical "socialist" options in the election issue events. To my suprise the amount of Socialist pops in Wallonia double from the 12% it had been before.
The issue vs ideologies invention hadn't fired yet though.
Ironicaly, when your government is already socialist, or commie, higher taxes will still turn them to vote for your party :rofl:
Yeah. It's kind of silly, really. Content citizens revert to conservatives and liberals even when under a socialists rule. :wacko:Kagernaut said:
I've seen some nations with very, very low consciousness and a Reactionary party to have 0 mil 0 con reactionary citizens and a lot of them though. Notably Korea.
I want, them - can´t get them...
... all I get is this worthless liberals - I could stand with laissez-faire, IF I at least got full citizenship, but no...
I think the game is to anti-socialist. In VR it is good that craftmen and labours are "natural" socialists, but it doesn´t help that much. I mean it is rediculous that, if you have a socialist goverment and people are satisfied - then they become liberals?
Also strange. If I put a full citizenship (e.g. Socialists) to power and then install a democrazy and election, then a non- full citizenship party can still winn the election?!?! Hallo- germans, russians and other minorites- are you out of your mind? Vote for the party that gives you the right to vote, damit!
I think the paradox guys are liberals... The liberals are just to good in the game. For example they are to good at building railroads. In a swedish context that is not really the way the majority of the railroads where built. And also- as soon as universal suffrage where introduced people turned socialist, not liberal. At least in the end of the game, socialist schould be the "normal" for the poor strata (soldiers, craftmen, labourers). Unhappy farmers could also be socialists, while happy farmers schould be conservative, never liberal. Clerks and some capitalists are the only "natural" liberals in my opinion. Officers, priests, aristocrats, happy farmers and some capitalists are "natural" conservatives.
But, i might be to much locked to a swedish context?
So, to conclude: I never understand thoose who write that they want to avoid the socialists- that is really not my problem!
________________
Me want full citizenship! Me want to industrialize!
... all I get is this worthless liberals - I could stand with laissez-faire, IF I at least got full citizenship, but no...
I think the game is to anti-socialist. In VR it is good that craftmen and labours are "natural" socialists, but it doesn´t help that much. I mean it is rediculous that, if you have a socialist goverment and people are satisfied - then they become liberals?
Also strange. If I put a full citizenship (e.g. Socialists) to power and then install a democrazy and election, then a non- full citizenship party can still winn the election?!?! Hallo- germans, russians and other minorites- are you out of your mind? Vote for the party that gives you the right to vote, damit!
I think the paradox guys are liberals... The liberals are just to good in the game. For example they are to good at building railroads. In a swedish context that is not really the way the majority of the railroads where built. And also- as soon as universal suffrage where introduced people turned socialist, not liberal. At least in the end of the game, socialist schould be the "normal" for the poor strata (soldiers, craftmen, labourers). Unhappy farmers could also be socialists, while happy farmers schould be conservative, never liberal. Clerks and some capitalists are the only "natural" liberals in my opinion. Officers, priests, aristocrats, happy farmers and some capitalists are "natural" conservatives.
But, i might be to much locked to a swedish context?
So, to conclude: I never understand thoose who write that they want to avoid the socialists- that is really not my problem!
________________
Me want full citizenship! Me want to industrialize!
So umm guys. If we look at history which this game is supposed to resemble. Exactly HOW many socialist governments were elected during the Vanilla Vicky time period?.
...
Thought so.
...
Thought so.
Socialism evolved out of the economic failings of 19th C capitalism to provide a standard of living that the working classes felt should be theirs given the wealth generated by their production in factories. As such, if you are running your country in Victoria successfully, with lower-class POPs not just surviving at subsistence level but thriving, building reserve incomes, purchasing luxury goods, then they are content and have no interest in reforming the system - it's already making them wealthy and filling their needs and more. Social reforms might bring some additional happiness, but social reforms were demands made out of frustration with low standards of living. If the standard of living is very comfortable, then the population will not perceive the need for social reforms, or their perceived need will be balanced by the material comfort they have from rising incomes and low taxes that successful players very often reach when playing their games well.
as for the shifting of POPs back to liberalism or conservativism once a socialist government is in power, well look at the history of Western politics in the past thirty years. The middle class of today, evolved in large part from a working class that got the short end of the socioeconomic stick pre-1945 and thus supported socialism to get a better deal for themselves and benefitted from socialist reforms in the immediate postwar period. This same middle class, now a majority in most Western societies, are now materially much more comfortable in their own lives and see the continuing tax demands as more of a burden than a benefit to themselves, and thus have increasingly turned away from socialism - see the Swedish elections last year. Does not mean that the POPs want any social reforms made to be reversed, but it does mean that content POPs no longer feel the need to support an ideological position based out of the discontent of those who were getting the short end of the stick in terms of enjoying the benefits of the wealth generated by industrialization.
as for the shifting of POPs back to liberalism or conservativism once a socialist government is in power, well look at the history of Western politics in the past thirty years. The middle class of today, evolved in large part from a working class that got the short end of the socioeconomic stick pre-1945 and thus supported socialism to get a better deal for themselves and benefitted from socialist reforms in the immediate postwar period. This same middle class, now a majority in most Western societies, are now materially much more comfortable in their own lives and see the continuing tax demands as more of a burden than a benefit to themselves, and thus have increasingly turned away from socialism - see the Swedish elections last year. Does not mean that the POPs want any social reforms made to be reversed, but it does mean that content POPs no longer feel the need to support an ideological position based out of the discontent of those who were getting the short end of the stick in terms of enjoying the benefits of the wealth generated by industrialization.
How many democratic states where there?
... during the period? VR continues until 1935, but anyway.
Well, my knowledge in the subject is quite limited. Sweden didn´t get universal suffrage until 1921/22, and the first socialist was elected as primeminister.
Norway had also radical, but liberal, goverment. The socialist didn´t get to power before 1935.
The republic of Weimars (germany) first precident was a socialist (Friedrich Ebert, 1919-1925)
United kingdom had quite big political fights in the twenties with a good election in 1922 for the labour party and mr David Lloyd George.
In the 30-ies did Spain get socialist to power.
But the major issue is not that the socialists did get power, but that they had great influence and was a major part of the politic scale. You can also discuss how many countries that where democratic at the time. In greece and finland the red where many, but didn´t get to power, the same in belgium.
In Vicky I almost always turn to be democratic, and if you look at the historic- no european democratic country had socialist at a 10-15% level... They were bigger...
... during the period? VR continues until 1935, but anyway.
Well, my knowledge in the subject is quite limited. Sweden didn´t get universal suffrage until 1921/22, and the first socialist was elected as primeminister.
Norway had also radical, but liberal, goverment. The socialist didn´t get to power before 1935.
The republic of Weimars (germany) first precident was a socialist (Friedrich Ebert, 1919-1925)
United kingdom had quite big political fights in the twenties with a good election in 1922 for the labour party and mr David Lloyd George.
In the 30-ies did Spain get socialist to power.
But the major issue is not that the socialists did get power, but that they had great influence and was a major part of the politic scale. You can also discuss how many countries that where democratic at the time. In greece and finland the red where many, but didn´t get to power, the same in belgium.
In Vicky I almost always turn to be democratic, and if you look at the historic- no european democratic country had socialist at a 10-15% level... They were bigger...
None of those are within the original time period of Vicky. I assume that the political system did not get an enormous overhauling in the revolutions expansion (mostly the adding of fascist parties) and as such you are still seeing the party affiliations of a victoria game which lasted from 1836 to the end of WW1. Keep that in mind before you start screaming liberal bias.
As you well know the election system in vicky is not parliamentarical rather winner gets it all. Which I admit is a poor environment for socialists, as the time period mostly revolved around liberals vs conservatives. As a by-effect of that they are usually the primary parties. You could argue that it is too easy to take care of your people and that they as a result become liberal. I've personally tried lowering the production values of all factories and RGOs by 20% which has created the effect that my people are a lot less complacent. You should try it.
As you well know the election system in vicky is not parliamentarical rather winner gets it all. Which I admit is a poor environment for socialists, as the time period mostly revolved around liberals vs conservatives. As a by-effect of that they are usually the primary parties. You could argue that it is too easy to take care of your people and that they as a result become liberal. I've personally tried lowering the production values of all factories and RGOs by 20% which has created the effect that my people are a lot less complacent. You should try it.
Walle76 said:
but there was a good reason the socialists were more popular, the working classes were living a generally hand-to-mouth existence with low salaries, regressive taxes and especially tariffs that lay heavier on the lower classes than the upper classes, and governments that seemed unwilling to address their concerns while a small elite grew fabulously wealthy.
Now, if you are playing Victoria very well, the result is going to look very different than what Europe actually evolved along - a prosperous, continuously growing economy that grows faster than population growth means that the lower classes, far from being hand-to-mouth existence, actually can build reserves and purchase luxury goods, which means POP militancy drops, and the POPs become sedate and accept the status quo. They've got it good enough, so why change the system? If liberals or conservatives can produce a solid level of economic growth so that the lower classes are not on starvation levels, then the appeal of ideologies calling for transforming the system are going to fall on less than receptive ears.
Again, socialism arose as an ideology to empower those who got the short end of the economic stick in the 19th Century. If you make your society prosperous, and everyone is able to fill their desires, then there's no reason to rock the boat, but accept the status quo.
You got a point there...
... but the thing I like with Vicky is that you take the original historical context and then you have the opportunity to take a different road and make, for example, Belgium the worlds number one power. Right?
If you are able to take a very unhistorical road in being a warmonger and let Sweden control all of the baltic sea, not releasing Norway, etc. Then I think there schould be a path to turn the country socialistic that NOT means starve the people with taxes. With suffrage and a high cultral and economic development the objective base for a socialist movement is in place.
And it is not true that people need to be unhappy to be socialists. They can like the society as it is also. In Sweden the right wing parties has almost only get to power when people have been unhappy...
The last years election and it´s result is strange in a historic wiev. Never before have the right wing won when the economy is growing. But thats another question, won´t go in on how low rates they have now. It´s a bit of topic.
What I try to say is that Industrialization + democrazy = socialistic parties. And it is not only if people have it bad, it is also if people feel it is unjust. Like in my game- 50% taxes for everyone but the rich who don´t have any taxes at all. That would make people upset, in my opinion...
... but the thing I like with Vicky is that you take the original historical context and then you have the opportunity to take a different road and make, for example, Belgium the worlds number one power. Right?
If you are able to take a very unhistorical road in being a warmonger and let Sweden control all of the baltic sea, not releasing Norway, etc. Then I think there schould be a path to turn the country socialistic that NOT means starve the people with taxes. With suffrage and a high cultral and economic development the objective base for a socialist movement is in place.
And it is not true that people need to be unhappy to be socialists. They can like the society as it is also. In Sweden the right wing parties has almost only get to power when people have been unhappy...
The last years election and it´s result is strange in a historic wiev. Never before have the right wing won when the economy is growing. But thats another question, won´t go in on how low rates they have now. It´s a bit of topic.
What I try to say is that Industrialization + democrazy = socialistic parties. And it is not only if people have it bad, it is also if people feel it is unjust. Like in my game- 50% taxes for everyone but the rich who don´t have any taxes at all. That would make people upset, in my opinion...
OHgamer, you seem to have a good justification for the conversion of socialist pops to liberal/conservative in a democracy.
But what about the conversion of communists in a communist government? To me, the Soviet model supports the idea that people in a communist government would lose faith in communism during periods of relaxed censorship (because the people see how low their quality of life is compared to 'capitalist' nations)*. This example is quite removed from the Victoria time period, but I think it could still be relevant, similar to your example regarding Sweden post 1940.
However, in Victoria it is possible to create an economically prosperous communist state. If the people under a successful communist government see (through war, literature, etc) that their standard of living is much higher than the rest of the world, why would they revert to conservative/liberals with a desire to return to capitalism?
I can see why they would revert to socialism given that only one party for each ideology is the norm for Victoria. The conversion of pops to socialist as a result of economic prosperity could thus mirror a desire for peace rather than to forcibly spread communism throughout the world (ie. a shift from jingoism to pacifism).
*Disenchantment with communist ideology and the glorification of the working class can be seen as a result of relaxed censorship in 1988 with Little Vera. Similarly, disenchantment with Stalinism can be seen during Krushchev's Thaw in films such as The Cranes are Flying.
But what about the conversion of communists in a communist government? To me, the Soviet model supports the idea that people in a communist government would lose faith in communism during periods of relaxed censorship (because the people see how low their quality of life is compared to 'capitalist' nations)*. This example is quite removed from the Victoria time period, but I think it could still be relevant, similar to your example regarding Sweden post 1940.
However, in Victoria it is possible to create an economically prosperous communist state. If the people under a successful communist government see (through war, literature, etc) that their standard of living is much higher than the rest of the world, why would they revert to conservative/liberals with a desire to return to capitalism?
I can see why they would revert to socialism given that only one party for each ideology is the norm for Victoria. The conversion of pops to socialist as a result of economic prosperity could thus mirror a desire for peace rather than to forcibly spread communism throughout the world (ie. a shift from jingoism to pacifism).
*Disenchantment with communist ideology and the glorification of the working class can be seen as a result of relaxed censorship in 1988 with Little Vera. Similarly, disenchantment with Stalinism can be seen during Krushchev's Thaw in films such as The Cranes are Flying.
Sorry- connection problems...
....so I missed the last point. I sended my response without reading the earlier response, witch is a good one.
I´m still not saticfied but I do understand the thinking. Also I am a bit to nordic in my thinking, i believe...
....so I missed the last point. I sended my response without reading the earlier response, witch is a good one.
I´m still not saticfied but I do understand the thinking. Also I am a bit to nordic in my thinking, i believe...
Walle76 said:
Of course it leads to socialistic parties being formed. But directly correlating democracy to a Socialistic government is just dogmatic. . OHgamer explains this very well and personally I think the pops are voting pretty logically since they can usually afford a comfortable living in Vicky. Do instead as I suggested and lower the production efficiencies of all production areas and you'll see an increase in fringe parties. Or try to stay a monarchy/dictatorship for that matter.
Besides, if you put todays Socialdemokraterna into context they would look more social liberal than socialist.
Alright...
... I surrender for now. Mostly my fighting is because it´s so boring with laissez-faire COMBINED with no-full citizenship...
(why is the liberal not liberal? Angry!)
... I surrender for now. Mostly my fighting is because it´s so boring with laissez-faire COMBINED with no-full citizenship...
(why is the liberal not liberal? Angry!)
Walle76 said:
Because for the most part Western liberalism in the 19th C was not about extending full political rights to people of different ethnocultural backgrounds from those of the national majority. In fact it would be a long evolution of liberalism to get to a position where it would accept the idea that all national culture citizens should have equal access to the political system - think how long it took Sweden to pass universal manhood suffrage, and it wasn't the liberals that were in the vanguard to push universal suffrage in the 19th C.
Agreed. Not to mention that people are not (or should not be) like animals that all of their political thinking is related to their material demands and its availability.Marat said:
There is the event: Populism vs Establishment, I always go for the one that makes POPs vote according to their ideology and not their issues, but still I cant make a prosperous socialist/communist country. I almost always have liberals in late game and conservatives in early game (socialists below 10%, commies below 3%, even though I tax them to 80% and have a high tariff-rate. They go anarcholiberals and reactinaries, but not commies...).
What am I doing wrong, or is it impossible with Vic:R/VIP:R?