I was under the impression that every time you "set as ruling party" a political party without an election there was an increase in the revolt risk for all POPs.
-
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.
Not to derail the topic but I just wanted to mention a couple things about Anarchism:
Anarchists coined the term Libertarian to describe their own movement, they're libertarians, just not in the sense that most Americans think of libertarianism (as in the politics of the Libertarian Party.) Social Anarchists will often refer to themselves as Libertarian Socialists. They're libertarian in the sense that they're anti-authoritarian.
The mainstream tendencies of Anarchism (of the non-individualist flavor, I'm talking Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism) advocate the overthrow of the state, not the abolition of all forms of government. What I mean by that is they're against hierarchical systems of governance with a monopoly on legitimate use of force (pretty much what Max Weber defined as the state) that imposes its will on a populace without consent. In practice the actual form of government most anarchists advocate is direct, participatory democracy based on independent, locally based government and independent institutions working in parallel. They're against 'archons', leaders, not any and all forms of government.
Aside from all that, it just doesn't make any sense to lump the Anarcho-Liberals in with the rest of the Anarchist movement, aside from the Anarcho-Capitalist fringe, Anarchists are overwhelming Socialist and anti-liberal.
I think of Anarcho-Liberals as the Anti-Federalists, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, or Thomas Paine, or the Jacobins.
Last edited:
Indeed.
People confused with the vicky "anarcho-liberal" thing can think of "radical-liberal" or "extreme-liberal". Where liberal are (in Vicky early to mid timespan in most country) people asking and promoting for representative government, bourgeois state and so, anarcho-liberal are guillotine-addicts, anti-church and religion, etc etc... The same sort of mad men we got as the Jacobins, liberals without limits and totaly upset.
People confused with the vicky "anarcho-liberal" thing can think of "radical-liberal" or "extreme-liberal". Where liberal are (in Vicky early to mid timespan in most country) people asking and promoting for representative government, bourgeois state and so, anarcho-liberal are guillotine-addicts, anti-church and religion, etc etc... The same sort of mad men we got as the Jacobins, liberals without limits and totaly upset.
Exactly as the Jacobins were; a hardcore Radical edge of Liberalism. Of course, that tends to assume that they're all filled with revolutionary zeal, when IRL the Radicals generally worked within the constitution, in Britain the Radical Party being the left-wing of the Liberal Party and all... (you know, the one that dominated British politics that century
). Also something like Chartism wasn't 'revolutionary' (as in violent overthrow the state) - though there were some early musings about the concept of a pacifistic General Strike.
I'm surprised no one tasseled the man who equated anarchists with libertarians. Our Prime Minister was a member of a number of Libertarian organizations and committees. And, Ron Paul certainty does not associate himself with anarchists nor does he incite violence.
Most Libertarians will sometimes address themselves as ''Paleo-Liberals''. Libertarians do not see inspiration from the anarchist movement. In fact Anarchists and Libertarians would probably rip each other if given the chance. Rather they see themselves as being the contemporary descendants of old liberalism (the kind featured in this game - Laissez faire economics and all) and admire the Authors of the Articles of Confederation (Canada) and the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Most Libertarians will sometimes address themselves as ''Paleo-Liberals''. Libertarians do not see inspiration from the anarchist movement. In fact Anarchists and Libertarians would probably rip each other if given the chance. Rather they see themselves as being the contemporary descendants of old liberalism (the kind featured in this game - Laissez faire economics and all) and admire the Authors of the Articles of Confederation (Canada) and the Founding Fathers of the United States.
Last edited:
History my dear MTJ. In the ABC of Anarchism (Alexander Berkman, 1928) he discusses the two main strands of Anarchist thought. On the one hand: Communist Anarchism - collectivised, commune-based anarchism that places the emphasis on voluntary co-operation, and on the other hand; Laissez-Faire or Libertarian Anarchists - individualistic, laissez-faire in the sense of really just 'let it be', obviously also opposed to large economic interests. It's basically the ideal of people actually being able to establish their own small-scale business in a free market.
I'd say it takes a leaf out of Adam Smith's conception, in that Smith believed commercial society would level the distribution of wealth (he kinda hoped everyone would become freeholders - independent, self-reliant and skilled, and therefore capable of reason). There are also various strands of libertarian Socialism, immediately G.D.H. Cole springs to mind. Libertarianism can be said to be the counterpoint to authoritarianism. Economically it would be opposed to interventionism by a central authority (i.e. central government), but that doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be collectivist, or based on free association to co-operatives, mutuals etc.
Libertarianism in the context of socialism, or communism, i.e. in general anarchism, means opposition to statism - which using the state as the means to effect change (whether revolutionary or reformist). It's also tied to debates on whether to use political or economic means to try and change society. Syndicalism is also a libertarian ideology (based around the economic agitation of Trade Unions, e.g. the war-time (1916-1918) Shop Steward's Movement's leadership was bolstered by a number of syndicalists).
What calls itself 'Libertarianism' in the US has emphasised the laissez-faire capitalist elements of their particular libertarian platform. Think of it like the word conservative - you don't equate it directly with the Conservative (Tory) party. Doubtless they've also tried to distance themselves from both Anarchism and Radicalism - the latter being a, and the former a potential, fringe of Liberalism. I'd guess this may have something to do with Liberal generally meaning lefty in the US. As far as I know, Libertarians in the US style themselves as conservative, because of their opposition to 'big government' (i.e. statism) which is generally associated more with the Democrats than with the Republicans. It's also tied and coloured by the American debate on States' rights - opposition to federal government.
In this it is similar to conservativism, and doubtless this relationship is stressed as it's politically preferable to being associated with the spectre of 'communism' (read as a shorthand for anything that seems anti-capitalist). But this really just goes to show that some forms of conservativism begin to bear resemblence to anarchistic ideas - the most prominent examples I can think of is idea that people should be self-reliant, i.e. they are individualist, or as I said, opposition to government interference.
The short story - history my boy. Modern American Libertarianism is rooted in capitalist anarchism (and in my humble opinion it would do well to remember those roots).
I'd say it takes a leaf out of Adam Smith's conception, in that Smith believed commercial society would level the distribution of wealth (he kinda hoped everyone would become freeholders - independent, self-reliant and skilled, and therefore capable of reason). There are also various strands of libertarian Socialism, immediately G.D.H. Cole springs to mind. Libertarianism can be said to be the counterpoint to authoritarianism. Economically it would be opposed to interventionism by a central authority (i.e. central government), but that doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be collectivist, or based on free association to co-operatives, mutuals etc.
Libertarianism in the context of socialism, or communism, i.e. in general anarchism, means opposition to statism - which using the state as the means to effect change (whether revolutionary or reformist). It's also tied to debates on whether to use political or economic means to try and change society. Syndicalism is also a libertarian ideology (based around the economic agitation of Trade Unions, e.g. the war-time (1916-1918) Shop Steward's Movement's leadership was bolstered by a number of syndicalists).
What calls itself 'Libertarianism' in the US has emphasised the laissez-faire capitalist elements of their particular libertarian platform. Think of it like the word conservative - you don't equate it directly with the Conservative (Tory) party. Doubtless they've also tried to distance themselves from both Anarchism and Radicalism - the latter being a, and the former a potential, fringe of Liberalism. I'd guess this may have something to do with Liberal generally meaning lefty in the US. As far as I know, Libertarians in the US style themselves as conservative, because of their opposition to 'big government' (i.e. statism) which is generally associated more with the Democrats than with the Republicans. It's also tied and coloured by the American debate on States' rights - opposition to federal government.
In this it is similar to conservativism, and doubtless this relationship is stressed as it's politically preferable to being associated with the spectre of 'communism' (read as a shorthand for anything that seems anti-capitalist). But this really just goes to show that some forms of conservativism begin to bear resemblence to anarchistic ideas - the most prominent examples I can think of is idea that people should be self-reliant, i.e. they are individualist, or as I said, opposition to government interference.
The short story - history my boy. Modern American Libertarianism is rooted in capitalist anarchism (and in my humble opinion it would do well to remember those roots).
P.S.
Just reread your post and how you said about old liberalism, and realised I didn't address that aspect. Basically (to save you the word count!) as you know 'old' Liberalism was reborn as Conservativism in the 1980s. Thus we have Libertarianism's association with Conservativism. You're quite right that in fact (as I alluded to in the post above) Libertarianism is actually a 'radical' form of Liberalism - it could be defined as the anarchistic edge of Liberalism, as distinct from Radicalism which is a more 'socialistic' edge of Liberalism. Radicalism is also related to New Liberalism (never said this wasn't a complicated interaction), which in turn is basically Liberalism that is more willing to intervene with the state, and was specifically motivated by the insistence of widespread poverty to remain in laissez-faire Victorian Britain). However, libertarianism with a small l simply means opposition to statism/authoritarianism. You mentioned the Founding Fathers, which ties us back to States' Rights - Thomas Jefferson anyone?
Just reread your post and how you said about old liberalism, and realised I didn't address that aspect. Basically (to save you the word count!) as you know 'old' Liberalism was reborn as Conservativism in the 1980s. Thus we have Libertarianism's association with Conservativism. You're quite right that in fact (as I alluded to in the post above) Libertarianism is actually a 'radical' form of Liberalism - it could be defined as the anarchistic edge of Liberalism, as distinct from Radicalism which is a more 'socialistic' edge of Liberalism. Radicalism is also related to New Liberalism (never said this wasn't a complicated interaction), which in turn is basically Liberalism that is more willing to intervene with the state, and was specifically motivated by the insistence of widespread poverty to remain in laissez-faire Victorian Britain). However, libertarianism with a small l simply means opposition to statism/authoritarianism. You mentioned the Founding Fathers, which ties us back to States' Rights - Thomas Jefferson anyone?
Last edited:
Someone posted that it is possible to survive as an absolute monarchy (receives the same militancy increase as dictatorships due to plurality) and do quite well. Can't find the threads right now... it was a little while back. But yeah, it's sure possible!
Also, with both forms of dictatorship you can negate the militancy increase caused by plurality if your POPs are of the same ideology as your ruling party. I haven't tried this technique, but it may be worthwhile in the future!
Also, with both forms of dictatorship you can negate the militancy increase caused by plurality if your POPs are of the same ideology as your ruling party. I haven't tried this technique, but it may be worthwhile in the future!
Someone posted that it is possible to survive as an absolute monarchy (receives the same militancy increase as dictatorships due to plurality) and do quite well. Can't find the threads right now... it was a little while back. But yeah, it's sure possible!
Also, with both forms of dictatorship you can negate the militancy increase caused by plurality if your POPs are of the same ideology as your ruling party. I haven't tried this technique, but it may be worthwhile in the future!
The problem is keeping them in that ideology - I had a VIP game as the Ottoman Empire once where all hell broke loose - there were reactionary revolutions, and eventually a communist revolution. The problem is keeping the population in favour of your radical government after militancy dies down. That reminds me I never finished that game (I got obsessed with trying to make a stable communist regime and the actual gaming got postponed)
Just keep consciousness low (at 0) - POPs are more susceptible to taking up your ideology that way, I find.
How to lower consciousness when you're RPing that the Communists destroy the clergy?!
How to lower consciousness when you're RPing that the Communists destroy the clergy?!
Zero taxes - which the planned ecnomists can´t do, unfortunately.
Events lowering consciousness would be your best bet then haha! Damn commies!How to lower consciousness when you're RPing that the Communists destroy the clergy?!
That is correct. Playing musical government chairs over a short period will cause your population to become very feisty.
I have a question tangental to this--how can you have a successful communist dictatorship? It seems like I need to ban all of the parties to get a commie party into power, and all of my workers are staying liberal or anarcho-liberal.
Lower the POP's consciousness in order to make them more susceptible to following your ruling party's ideology. After they all become commie the POPs are not affected by the effect of plurality on militancy as they agree with the ideology.
The problem is that it's impossible to lower the consciousness of workers and clerks. The Proletarian Dictatorship has a minimal of 50% taxation... Proletarian Dictatorship in the game isn't designed to reflect a true communist society but in the instability and civil war in 1920's Russia
You can lower their consciousness depending on their issues, events, etc...
Don't get me wrong, it's very hard to do - I'm yet to see someone do it - and ultimately is impractical (unless that was your sole aim in the game), but nevertheless, the feature is still there...
Don't get me wrong, it's very hard to do - I'm yet to see someone do it - and ultimately is impractical (unless that was your sole aim in the game), but nevertheless, the feature is still there...
I didn't know that was possible. I figured Clergyman was the primary way and then taxation, but even with 0% taxation, it's like -.06 for Workers and Clerks.
I know there ARE events for the Soviet Union in Vanilla, but not in VIP or anything. In fact, VIP probably won't add in a communist civil war chain till .4...
A division in every province is probably your best bet, in all honestly. Costly for countries such as Russia, obviously.