[Draft] From the Fief's Foe

[Electrum]

It is apparently possible to have a combination of these policies.

From the Fief's Foe

[validity]socialist and feudal

[text]The Director for Ideological Purity is complaining that the country's feudal system is contrary to socialist principles.

[choice] "Dear leader, having a system of landed party members and serfs goes against everything we should be fighting for," lectures Director @@RANDOMNAME@@, handing you a flier despite your hands being in your pockets. "The socialist revolution was founded on the promise of equality for all -- not a system of indentured servitude where party members appropriate their workers' surplus value. Get rid of this system or you will have a class struggle on your hands."
[desc]the government considers the feudal system to be bad praxis

[choice] "My liege, I don't see what's wrong with feudalism," says Politburo member @@RANDOMNAME@@, scrunching up a flyer and throwing it into the wastebasket with just a flick. "Think of it as socialism with @@DEMONYM@@ characteristics. Without party members overseeing these serfdoms, sorry, communes, there would be no proles left to work the fields. If anything, you should be rewarding us more for meeting our agricultural quotas."
[desc] proles find it hard to distinguish between party members and capitalists

[choice] "I say, this whole socialism business is rather gauche," opines party official Lady Puffleworth, as she takes off her evening gloves to nibble on some finger sandwiches. "We can't punish the unproductive slackers because it's all about 'from each according to his ability'. Thanks to socialism, we are trapped with an unproductive workforce tending to the communes. You must simply bring back capitalism so that us new landowners can properly whip these peasants back in shape and make them earn their keep."
[desc]recollections of socialism have gone down the memory hole

[Daarwyrth]

The Director for Ideological Purity is complaining that the country's feudal system is contrary to socialist principles.

While short and sweet (so definitely keep it this way if you prefer), perhaps you could add like a funny precursor event that led to the Director voicing his/her complaints.

I think it would be worthwhile to have an issue that targets nations with this particular policy combination, as we see far too few of them. The same goes for socialism and monarchies, which is a combination that's also possible. Very nicely written, and clever title! Consider me a fan of this draft

[Sensorland]

Oh, hey! Neat to see someone taking this on. Conceptually, I think addressing potentially contradictory policies is great (that was the basis of the only issue I've gotten published), and I was considering drafting something along these lines myself. I think this draft is well-structured: one anti-feudal option; one status quo choice; and one pro-feudal, anti-socialist option. All good stuff! The fallout descriptions are pretty good, although I think the one for choice 3 isn't quite up to par. I don't see why socialism would be "memory-holed".

[Soviet Catgirls]

the government considers the feudal system to be bad praxis

This is single-handedly my new favorite effect line. LMAO

[Drew Durrnil]

perfect issue
epic gamer moment

[Trotterdam]

Really, the problem here is the game's assumption that "planned economy" automatically means "socialism". A nation with this combination of policies most likely banned private enterprise for reasons that have nothing to do with worker emancipation.

[Sensorland]

Really, the problem here is the game's assumption that "planned economy" automatically means "socialism". A nation with this combination of policies most likely banned private enterprise for reasons that have nothing to do with worker emancipation.

It's an unfortunate reality of this game that it treats things that way, and it honestly runs into quite a few problems in how it makes ideological assumptions and so forth. I think the best thing we can do is just run with it, though, because it's too ingrained to fix.

[Daarwyrth]

Really, the problem here is the game's assumption that "planned economy" automatically means "socialism". A nation with this combination of policies most likely banned private enterprise for reasons that have nothing to do with worker emancipation.

Very true. Initially it was my idea for Daarwyrth, to have a kingdom where the economy was under state-control because of the autarky and the nature of the monarchy, not because of communist ideals. It's a pity the game mechanics assume only one variant of state-controlled economy, it would have been nice to have more, but of course we just have to work with what we have

It still led to a very interesting interpretation, namely that party members are treated as landed nobles and the serfs working in communes. I find it a really intriguing interpretation of the policy combination! I'm tempted to create an alt and make it a socialist/feudal nation xD

[Australian rePublic]

Option 2 effect- feudalism is not capitalism. Also, do you wanna explain how it works? Are all serfs equal in income?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Really, the problem here is the game's assumption that "planned economy" automatically means "socialism". A nation with this combination of policies most likely banned private enterprise for reasons that have nothing to do with worker emancipation.

This should be a position in the issue, of a speaker.

"Planned economy doesn't mean socialism, it means order," etc.

[Trotterdam]

In a nation that has a planned economy for non-socialist reasons, you could still have agitators who want you to become properly socialist, but "the nation isn't socialist enough" isn't by itself a problem that would motivate @@LEADER@@ to act. There'd need to be a better reason why the details of @@NAME@@'s planned economy are coming under scrutiny.

[Electrum]

In a nation that has a planned economy for non-socialist reasons, you could still have agitators who want you to become properly socialist, but "the nation isn't socialist enough" isn't by itself a problem that would motivate @@LEADER@@ to act. There'd need to be a better reason why the details of @@NAME@@'s planned economy are coming under scrutiny.

Totally forgot I had this draft.

I think the problem is that NS views socialism (the economic system) and being left wing as inextricably linked even if you fell into socialism by say, enabling AI planning. If that's the case, does it really matter that the premise is as milquetoast as someone complaining that it doesn't make sense in the context of the game's logic? I mean I suppose I could have protesters as the premise instead.

[Trotterdam]

I think the problem is that NS views socialism (the economic system) and being left wing as inextricably linked even if you fell into socialism by say, enabling AI planning.

Even if past issues do that, it doesn't mean that you should when the entire point of this issue is to break from the mold and show alternative forms of planned economy that haven't been previously acknowledged in issues.