Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

98 years ago the SocDems murdered Rosa Luxemburg

Rosa's death was pretty violent. But it can't beat the horrific way that Noe Ito went out.

While it's sad what happened to the child, if Ito did not want to die, perhaps she should not have been a traitor?

[Kubra]

Rosa's death was pretty violent. But it can't beat the horrific way that Noe Ito went out.

While it's sad what happened to the child, if Ito did not want to die, perhaps she should not have been a traitor?

apparently having different politics or associating with those who do is a form of treason. Or perhaps it's having too great a relation to mostly circumstantial evidence?

[Yoshida (Ancient)]

While it's sad what happened to the child, if Ito did not want to die, perhaps she should not have been a traitor?

apparently having different politics or associating with those who do is a form of treason. Or perhaps it's having too great a relation to mostly circumstantial evidence?

The goal of the anarchist movement was the eventual destruction of the state, Ito consciously associated with a violent political group which had previously conspired to assassinate the Emperor Meiji. If she didn't want to die as a traitor, she could have just not been one.

[Kubra]

apparently having different politics or associating with those who do is a form of treason. Or perhaps it's having too great a relation to mostly circumstantial evidence?

The goal of the anarchist movement was the eventual destruction of the state, Ito consciously associated with a violent political group which had previously conspired to assassinate the Emperor Meiji. If she didn't want to die as a traitor, she could have just not been one.

Ah, so one does not need to conspire to assassinate the emperor, just maybe have said hi to one a party. Which, of course, is enough to merit one as a traitor. Though, given the form of punishment administered, it's does not seem that the kempeitai thought this line of reasoning would hold much ground in a formal trial.

[Gatito]

apparently having different politics or associating with those who do is a form of treason. Or perhaps it's having too great a relation to mostly circumstantial evidence?

The goal of the anarchist movement was the eventual destruction of the state, Ito consciously associated with a violent political group which had previously conspired to assassinate the Emperor Meiji. If she didn't want to die as a traitor, she could have just not been one.

Many anarchist revolutionaries come to terms with the fact that they'll be killed fighting for what they believe in during the process of being educated. Her death may have been treasonous to the state, but in my eyes, she's an honorable martyr.

[Pandeeria]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

[Gatito]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

They should have made North Korea a puppet state so that we won't have to deal with Juche and all of its fanboys.

[The Conez Imperium]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

That sounds like a very fun game. Personally, I would start to invest into China and export communism into Asia with the end goal being subverting American production by cheap Asian labour. It would be very hard to do anything in Europe and you already have a communist Austria which is amazing. I don't think its possible to win against the US economically or militarily, so proxy wars are the best bet until China starts to grow (perhaps tell Mao not to undergo his 5 year plan so you don't have to waste 5 years of cultural revolution).

[The Hammerfall Empire]

Viva la Trump

Viva la Pence

[Gatito]

Viva la Trump

Viva la Pence

Havin' fun, buddy?

[Pandeeria]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

That sounds like a very fun game. Personally, I would start to invest into China and export communism into Asia with the end goal being subverting American production by cheap Asian labour. It would be very hard to do anything in Europe and you already have a communist Austria which is amazing. I don't think its possible to win against the US economically or militarily, so proxy wars are the best bet until China starts to grow (perhaps tell Mao not to undergo his 5 year plan so you don't have to waste 5 years of cultural revolution).

I already gave the Communist Chinese a metric fuck ton of money and goods. I also dicked over Nationalist China by using my veto power as one of the head five nations on the UN security council. I veto'd any official resolution to try and give material or diplomatic aid to the Nationalists. Same for the Indonesian Revolution (the Dutch have to deal with it purely on their own without official aid). The Communists in China are slowly winning, but not by much.

Maybe I can try influencing the elections in Italy, or try something in Turkey. Who knows?

I was considering invading Afghanistan and from there Pakistan. The issue is that would piss off the rest of the world sooooo badly. I guarantee you the US would step in directly then.

[United Marxist Nations]

[...]

*sees new name*

What's with all these people choosing to exploit the re-name feature to mess up the capitalisation in their names?

Oh, thank God I'm not the only one noticing it.

[United Marxist Nations]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

They did a good job with what they had, I think.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

That sounds like a very fun game. Personally, I would start to invest into China and export communism into Asia with the end goal being subverting American production by cheap Asian labour. It would be very hard to do anything in Europe and you already have a communist Austria which is amazing. I don't think its possible to win against the US economically or militarily, so proxy wars are the best bet until China starts to grow (perhaps tell Mao not to undergo his 5 year plan so you don't have to waste 5 years of cultural revolution).

I already gave the Communist Chinese a metric fuck ton of money and goods. I also dicked over Nationalist China by using my veto power as one of the head five nations on the UN security council. I veto'd any official resolution to try and give material or diplomatic aid to the Nationalists. Same for the Indonesian Revolution (the Dutch have to deal with it purely on their own without official aid). The Communists in China are slowly winning, but not by much.

Maybe I can try influencing the elections in Italy, or try something in Turkey. Who knows?

I was considering invading Afghanistan and from there Pakistan. The issue is that would piss off the rest of the world sooooo badly. I guarantee you the US would step in directly then.

Who the fuck is gonna back you in South Asia? The hot thing in Pakistan in '49 was the Muslim League, unless this scenario has India coming to freedom and partition by alternate means.

*sees new name*

What's with all these people choosing to exploit the re-name feature to mess up the capitalisation in their names?

Oh, thank God I'm not the only one noticing it.

I find it rather annoying.

[Kubra]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

It's my firm believe that the USSR should have declared war on the US and exploited the AI's poor ability to conduct naval invasions.

[The Hammerfall Empire]

Viva la Trump

Viva la Pence

Havin' fun, buddy?

yep. I enjoy angry communists.

[The Hammerfall Empire]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

It's my firm believe that the USSR should have declared war on the US and exploited the AI's poor ability to conduct naval invasions.

I believe the US should do the same. CAPITALISM TO RUSSIA!!!!

[Mattopilos]

The anarchist crime and punishment thread was getting off topic, and I think the discussion should pick up from here. The topic seems to be as such:
- In the short term, how do you get the revolution off the ground, and how do you stop a person coming into power, such as it was in Cuba and the USSR and China?
- In the long term, how do you deal with counter-revolution and the organization of the communes/localized groupings? Does intervention on other communes due to human rights violations require a government?

I think this discussion belongs here, given the leftist leaning that anarchism has to it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The anarchist crime and punishment thread was getting off topic, and I think the discussion should pick up from here. The topic seems to be as such:
- In the short term, how do you get the revolution off the ground, and how do you stop a person coming into power, such as it was in Cuba and the USSR and China?
- In the long term, how do you deal with counter-revolution and the organization of the communes/localized groupings? Does intervention on other communes due to human rights violations require a government?

I think this discussion belongs here, given the leftist leaning that anarchism has to it.

I sincerely cannot see how anarchism can result in anything but a state. I'll admit I've not seen an anarchist society, but I've soent enough time in Africa to know what appears when the state can't do much

[Pandeeria]

So I'm playing Victoria 2, NWO mod (adds the Cold War and post-Cold War times) and as the USSR I've been completely and brutally ruthless foreign-policy wise. I've forcefully kept the occupation of North Korea going and turn them into a puppet state, I directly militarily intervened in the Greek Civil War (on the side of the Communists of course) even though the US threatened to step in on the side of the Greek Reactionaries (I called the US out on their bluff, they back down; guess Greece just isn't worth a World War 3), I refused to cooperate with NATO and create a neutral Austria (eastern Austria is Communist, the west was given to West Germany), and now I'm invading Yugoslavia to oust Tito and create a loyal puppet state there. About the only thing I let go so far was not continuing war with Finland. Things so far seem to be tipping in my favor, granted it's only the year 1949, but I'm not sure if I can keep being this hyper aggressive without sparking WW3.

So LWDT this begs the question, what do you think would've been the best policy for the USSR regarding the Cold War? Specifically from January 1st, 1946 onward what do you think the Soviets should've done to "win" the Cold War or come as close as they possibly could to winning? Should they have just kept marching and taken all of mainland Europe? Should the USSR have been super cooperative with the west? Should they have been isolationist and hostile?

They did a good job with what they had, I think.

I agree. Obviously the Soviets at the time did not have historical hindsight. But I think what they managed to pull off was pretty good, considering they had most of the world against them.

I already gave the Communist Chinese a metric fuck ton of money and goods. I also dicked over Nationalist China by using my veto power as one of the head five nations on the UN security council. I veto'd any official resolution to try and give material or diplomatic aid to the Nationalists. Same for the Indonesian Revolution (the Dutch have to deal with it purely on their own without official aid). The Communists in China are slowly winning, but not by much.

Maybe I can try influencing the elections in Italy, or try something in Turkey. Who knows?

I was considering invading Afghanistan and from there Pakistan. The issue is that would piss off the rest of the world sooooo badly. I guarantee you the US would step in directly then.

Who the fuck is gonna back you in South Asia? The hot thing in Pakistan in '49 was the Muslim League, unless this scenario has India coming to freedom and partition by alternate means.

No one really. And India is already free (I chose to remain rather neutral in India getting their independence, I had other things such as the Greek Civil War to deal with). I mean I guess I could just try to slug it out with the occupation but that would divert valuable resources from my militarization in Eastern German occupation zone.

Also, another important question is coming up. Should I give the North Koreans the go-ahead to launch the Korean war? In order to prevent WW3 from breaking out, I'd officially have to cut my connections from North Korea, which would mean they're no longer my puppet. This makes me lose valuable influence over them. However, if they can win the Korean war, then all of the Korean peninsula will be under Communist control. At the same time if they fuck up horribly, all of the peninsula may be taken under Imperialist control!

What should I do? Let them go through with the war?

[Kubra]

It's my firm believe that the USSR should have declared war on the US and exploited the AI's poor ability to conduct naval invasions.

I believe the US should do the same. CAPITALISM TO RUSSIA!!!!

But the USSR is the player character. The player can sometimes handle naval invasions decently enough. The AI cannot.

[The Hammerfall Empire]

The anarchist crime and punishment thread was getting off topic, and I think the discussion should pick up from here. The topic seems to be as such:
- In the short term, how do you get the revolution off the ground, and how do you stop a person coming into power, such as it was in Cuba and the USSR and China?
- In the long term, how do you deal with counter-revolution and the organization of the communes/localized groupings? Does intervention on other communes due to human rights violations require a government?

I think this discussion belongs here, given the leftist leaning that anarchism has to it.

there is no way to stop organization. Only organization can stop organization.

And can you people stop talking about your damn "revolution?" It's not happening. Ever. EVER.

[Mattopilos]

The anarchist crime and punishment thread was getting off topic, and I think the discussion should pick up from here. The topic seems to be as such:
- In the short term, how do you get the revolution off the ground, and how do you stop a person coming into power, such as it was in Cuba and the USSR and China?
- In the long term, how do you deal with counter-revolution and the organization of the communes/localized groupings? Does intervention on other communes due to human rights violations require a government?

I think this discussion belongs here, given the leftist leaning that anarchism has to it.

I sincerely cannot see how anarchism can result in anything but a state. I'll admit I've not seen an anarchist society, but I've soent enough time in Africa to know what appears when the state can't do much

I can see why you think so, but I think a lot of the discussion on what can result after a revolution has been muddied by uprisings like Cuba, China and Russia, which based their ideas on the "Dictatorship of the proletariat". Anarchists despise the use of it, because we don't think it will work and it will become corrupt ("Power corrupts" is a common saying in anarchist circles for such a topic), and have qualms in calling it 'communist' in what followed the revolution (what power did the workers have over production, really? Not much).

[Pandeeria]

I believe the US should do the same. CAPITALISM TO RUSSIA!!!!

But the USSR is the player character. The player can sometimes handle naval invasions decently enough. The AI cannot.

Perhaps in HOI4. In Vicky2 the AI can actually kind of kick your ass. The Americans are putting a crazy amount of soldiers on our mutual German borders and it's honestly scaring me a little. I kind of want to be backing down on certain issues just because.

[Mattopilos]

The anarchist crime and punishment thread was getting off topic, and I think the discussion should pick up from here. The topic seems to be as such:
- In the short term, how do you get the revolution off the ground, and how do you stop a person coming into power, such as it was in Cuba and the USSR and China?
- In the long term, how do you deal with counter-revolution and the organization of the communes/localized groupings? Does intervention on other communes due to human rights violations require a government?

I think this discussion belongs here, given the leftist leaning that anarchism has to it.

there is no way to stop organization. Only organization can stop organization.

And can you people stop talking about your damn "revolution?" It's not happening. Ever. EVER.

I am sure people in history said the same thing. Hand-waving the topic with essentially 'nuh-uh' isn't adding anything of worth.