Terrance888
Discord Reigns
NO REVOLUTION IS IN FLORIDA.
Or at least, not any that will survive. Hehe. *slashersmile*
Or at least, not any that will survive. Hehe. *slashersmile*
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Capto Iugulum: 1920 - 1939
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
Blue Bacon 3
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 401
Battle of the Ligurian Coast, Treasure and Blood, University of Akarana
(obsolete ships counted at scrap value, Italy assumed to have suffered half (1/2) of it's year's bomber casualties in this battle)
Rhine-Rhone Pact: 415 EPs, 7 MPs
Italy: 119 EPs, 1 MP
Turns out 'most of which had no defense against an airborne assault' was almost an understatement, as the only ship in the Rhine-Rhone lineup that had AA was the Oporto.
Possibly the most lop-sided largescale naval battle since the beginning of the modern era of naval warfare.
(obsolete ships counted at scrap value, Italy assumed to have suffered half (1/2) of it's year's bomber casualties in this battle)
Rhine-Rhone Pact: 415 EPs, 7 MPs
Italy: 119 EPs, 1 MP
Turns out 'most of which had no defense against an airborne assault' was almost an understatement, as the only ship in the Rhine-Rhone lineup that had AA was the Oporto.
Possibly the most lop-sided largescale naval battle since the beginning of the modern era of naval warfare.
Blue Bacon 3
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 401
OOC: Sure! 
1923 Roman-Russian War of Roman Reunification, The Newspaper War, Treasure and Blood, University of Akarana
(Pontus was employing Persian 1910.)
Pontus: 123 EPs, 43 MP
Rome-Russia: 221 EPs, 44 MP (of which Russia suffered 2 EPs and 2 MPs), (+1 Roman Army Quality)
Turkey: 8 EPs, 4 MP, (-1 Stability)
Decent EP ratio and excellent MP ratio for an offensive operation (tank brigade makes up 27% of the EPs, but lowered MP losses no doubt). Assuming Pontus' population was 300 before the war (just guessing off that Pontus' 1919 pop was about 900, and Rome's was cut to one third the size) Pontus lost one seventh of its male population/families in the war (with Rome losing 3.25%). Also the first time the university team in Akarana (formerly operating in Lima) has collated for a bystander.
1923 Roman-Russian War of Roman Reunification, The Newspaper War, Treasure and Blood, University of Akarana
(Pontus was employing Persian 1910.)
Pontus: 123 EPs, 43 MP
Rome-Russia: 221 EPs, 44 MP (of which Russia suffered 2 EPs and 2 MPs), (+1 Roman Army Quality)
Turkey: 8 EPs, 4 MP, (-1 Stability)
Decent EP ratio and excellent MP ratio for an offensive operation (tank brigade makes up 27% of the EPs, but lowered MP losses no doubt). Assuming Pontus' population was 300 before the war (just guessing off that Pontus' 1919 pop was about 900, and Rome's was cut to one third the size) Pontus lost one seventh of its male population/families in the war (with Rome losing 3.25%). Also the first time the university team in Akarana (formerly operating in Lima) has collated for a bystander.
The Man
It was a warm summer day in Northern Michigan. The man enjoyed his time spent alone. In his recent years he had become quite the prolific author and his popularity had exploded. His vacation home was quite close to the childhood home of his friend and fellow author, Ernest Hemingway. He learned much of his method of writing from this great author, as they spent many evenings discussing old tales. Hemingway had actually served in the man's army during the Civil War. He was attracted to this region because it was his boyhood home, and he could be close to a great author. He also enjoyed the serene landscape of Walloon Lake. His wife away to Petoskey with one of the servants to conduct some business, so he had a peaceful house in which to do some writing.
The man already had one book published, a historical novel which became a hit throughout the United States from the renown of it's author alone. Now he was nearly completed with his second. Being so close to where he grew up gave him inspiration and brought back many memories that were perfect for a novel of this nature. This book would be about his childhood. He knew it was more a collection of short stories than anything, but each memory was intertwined such that it didn't matter.
As the man sat at his writing desk, he looked up out the window and over the lake, and saw a bear on the shoreline. The dark heavy body of the bear stood in wonderful contrast to the light sand of the shoreline and the deep greens of the forest behind. Seeing the beast brought another memory to his recollection, and he pulled out a piece of paper and jotted it down. The clearness of the day made the lake especially beautiful, after completing his notes he stepped outside to enjoy a bit of nature. There were several deer drinking from the water, he smiled as he watched them. Their brown bodies looked so frail, but he knew from firsthand experience that they contained a lot of power. He looked forward to the fall when he could spend a week at his northern home and go hunting.
The man returned to his desk, and he reviewed some of his work. He had spent several months at his northern retreat just working quietly on his second book. The proceeds from his first had already made him a rich man, but he had a use for all his wealth. Just then, he heard a car pull into the driveway. The door slammed, and he made his way to the door to greet his wife. "Hello dear, how was your trip?" The servant was carrying several bags into the house, the mans wife did enjoy her time in town shopping. She hugged him.
"Dear, we had a wonderful time. Would you care to see my new dress?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Patrick Morris Neff
From: Zachary Jacobs
My administration gives you it's full support in your gallant effort to restore democracy and order to the Grand Republic of Florida and bring the madman Joseph Johnston to justice.
It was a warm summer day in Northern Michigan. The man enjoyed his time spent alone. In his recent years he had become quite the prolific author and his popularity had exploded. His vacation home was quite close to the childhood home of his friend and fellow author, Ernest Hemingway. He learned much of his method of writing from this great author, as they spent many evenings discussing old tales. Hemingway had actually served in the man's army during the Civil War. He was attracted to this region because it was his boyhood home, and he could be close to a great author. He also enjoyed the serene landscape of Walloon Lake. His wife away to Petoskey with one of the servants to conduct some business, so he had a peaceful house in which to do some writing.
The man already had one book published, a historical novel which became a hit throughout the United States from the renown of it's author alone. Now he was nearly completed with his second. Being so close to where he grew up gave him inspiration and brought back many memories that were perfect for a novel of this nature. This book would be about his childhood. He knew it was more a collection of short stories than anything, but each memory was intertwined such that it didn't matter.
As the man sat at his writing desk, he looked up out the window and over the lake, and saw a bear on the shoreline. The dark heavy body of the bear stood in wonderful contrast to the light sand of the shoreline and the deep greens of the forest behind. Seeing the beast brought another memory to his recollection, and he pulled out a piece of paper and jotted it down. The clearness of the day made the lake especially beautiful, after completing his notes he stepped outside to enjoy a bit of nature. There were several deer drinking from the water, he smiled as he watched them. Their brown bodies looked so frail, but he knew from firsthand experience that they contained a lot of power. He looked forward to the fall when he could spend a week at his northern home and go hunting.
The man returned to his desk, and he reviewed some of his work. He had spent several months at his northern retreat just working quietly on his second book. The proceeds from his first had already made him a rich man, but he had a use for all his wealth. Just then, he heard a car pull into the driveway. The door slammed, and he made his way to the door to greet his wife. "Hello dear, how was your trip?" The servant was carrying several bags into the house, the mans wife did enjoy her time in town shopping. She hugged him.
"Dear, we had a wonderful time. Would you care to see my new dress?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Patrick Morris Neff
From: Zachary Jacobs
My administration gives you it's full support in your gallant effort to restore democracy and order to the Grand Republic of Florida and bring the madman Joseph Johnston to justice.
Walloon Lake isn't one of the Great Lakes. Look up Ernest Hemingway's early life, or just read some early Nick Adams stories.I like how neither Vinlanders nor Americans can agree on the names of the Great Lakes.
Circuit
Writing Letters
On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
from Prime Minister Reginald Smith
The spectre of proletarism has appeared across the world, in America, Scandinavia, and now in Denmark. The proletarists claim Charles Mathis as their ideological inspiration, and claim to represent the interests of the working class. They have an interesting connection with the Labour Party, also a party that represents the interests of the working class. One may ask who better serves the working class; is it the proletarists, or is it Labour? Charlse Mathis is revered amongst both, and yet they represent two very different parties. I'd therefore like to take a moment to draw a distinction between the Labour Party and the proletarists who have shaken the globe.
First, I'd like to discuss the role of Charles Mathis. Does Mathis represent the interests of the working people? Many in my party believe so, including myself. But Labour approaches Mathis very differently than the proletarists. The proletarists believe Mathis is infallible. Everything Mathis wrote in The Proletarist Manifesto, Capital, and Critique of the Troyes Program is perfect, and they aim to follow his words to the letter. Labour respects Mathis and admires him, but like all intellectuals, Mathis is not perfect.
Many in Labour believe that Mathis, while brilliant in economics and sociology, did not have sound political theory in arguing for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Critique of the Troyes Program. We see it as nonsensical for Mathis to argue in the Proletarist Manifesto for the eventual dissolution of the State while at the same time arguing that despotism is the best means for the State's eventual destruction. Revolution after revolution throughout history, which began as a revolt of the people, has ended in perpetual tyrrany, from Rome to Stockholme. Even the Americans eventually succumbed to tyranny, and now the Grand Republic of Florida, after having freed themselves from the Scottite dictatorship of the United States are once again falling to martial dictatorship, even after Governor Jeeter had disolved it. Suggesting that popular tyrrany is an effective means for popular freedom and prosperity and the end of exploitation is only valid after ignoring mounds of historical evidence. In this respect, Labour disagrees with the proletarists.
That having been said, many in Labour feel that Mathis was mostly correct in Capital, and not completely wrong in The Proletarist Manifesto. A major characteristic of the capitalist economic system, particularly in the nineteenth century, was exploitation by capital of laborers, as capital monopolized the means of production and deepend the division of labor in society and in the workplace, increasing the dependency of the workers on the means of production. Mathis ultimately argued that the workers must seize the means of production (which goes beyond machinery and really means taking control of the workers' own labor power and the division of labor) so they may end the exploitative relationship between capital and laborers.
But how does one go about seizing the means of production? Labour believes that the most effective and stable means of the workers seizing the means of production is via trade unions. The union movement does not challenge the division of labor or the capitalists' role in the division of labor, but merely represents the workers taking control of the most important means of production: their own labor, and the division of labor in industrial society. It was from the union movement (the TUC specifically) that the Labour Party emerged. Together, the Labour Party and the union movement seek to rectify the contradictory nature of the capitalist system described by Mathis and bring power back to the laborers, ensuring they gain their fair share of the social surplus product. This approach has proven to be effective. For example, my government has seen the introduction and implementation of a fully funded pension system that ensures a secure retirement for workers after a lifetime of work, which I am quite proud of.
The proletarists, however, only have tyranny and bloodshed to speak for, in seeking revolutionary change rather than progressive change. Admittedly, for some revolutions, such as the abortive one in Hungary and the negro slaves in America, revolution seemed the only option available against heavy handed despots. But the Ecuadorian, Scandinavian, and now the Dannish revolutions seem to represent unnecessary bloodshed, when a peaceful and democratic solution to the problem of industrial exploitation was available. The workers of those societies have replaced capitalist exploitation with exploitation by the state, which can be just as evil or moreso. I hope that someday the people of these societies see their mistake, and return to a model of stable yet effective change which Labour and the union movement in Britain has been championing since their inception.
OOC: Forgive my lack of British spelling.
from Prime Minister Reginald Smith
The spectre of proletarism has appeared across the world, in America, Scandinavia, and now in Denmark. The proletarists claim Charles Mathis as their ideological inspiration, and claim to represent the interests of the working class. They have an interesting connection with the Labour Party, also a party that represents the interests of the working class. One may ask who better serves the working class; is it the proletarists, or is it Labour? Charlse Mathis is revered amongst both, and yet they represent two very different parties. I'd therefore like to take a moment to draw a distinction between the Labour Party and the proletarists who have shaken the globe.
First, I'd like to discuss the role of Charles Mathis. Does Mathis represent the interests of the working people? Many in my party believe so, including myself. But Labour approaches Mathis very differently than the proletarists. The proletarists believe Mathis is infallible. Everything Mathis wrote in The Proletarist Manifesto, Capital, and Critique of the Troyes Program is perfect, and they aim to follow his words to the letter. Labour respects Mathis and admires him, but like all intellectuals, Mathis is not perfect.
Many in Labour believe that Mathis, while brilliant in economics and sociology, did not have sound political theory in arguing for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Critique of the Troyes Program. We see it as nonsensical for Mathis to argue in the Proletarist Manifesto for the eventual dissolution of the State while at the same time arguing that despotism is the best means for the State's eventual destruction. Revolution after revolution throughout history, which began as a revolt of the people, has ended in perpetual tyrrany, from Rome to Stockholme. Even the Americans eventually succumbed to tyranny, and now the Grand Republic of Florida, after having freed themselves from the Scottite dictatorship of the United States are once again falling to martial dictatorship, even after Governor Jeeter had disolved it. Suggesting that popular tyrrany is an effective means for popular freedom and prosperity and the end of exploitation is only valid after ignoring mounds of historical evidence. In this respect, Labour disagrees with the proletarists.
That having been said, many in Labour feel that Mathis was mostly correct in Capital, and not completely wrong in The Proletarist Manifesto. A major characteristic of the capitalist economic system, particularly in the nineteenth century, was exploitation by capital of laborers, as capital monopolized the means of production and deepend the division of labor in society and in the workplace, increasing the dependency of the workers on the means of production. Mathis ultimately argued that the workers must seize the means of production (which goes beyond machinery and really means taking control of the workers' own labor power and the division of labor) so they may end the exploitative relationship between capital and laborers.
But how does one go about seizing the means of production? Labour believes that the most effective and stable means of the workers seizing the means of production is via trade unions. The union movement does not challenge the division of labor or the capitalists' role in the division of labor, but merely represents the workers taking control of the most important means of production: their own labor, and the division of labor in industrial society. It was from the union movement (the TUC specifically) that the Labour Party emerged. Together, the Labour Party and the union movement seek to rectify the contradictory nature of the capitalist system described by Mathis and bring power back to the laborers, ensuring they gain their fair share of the social surplus product. This approach has proven to be effective. For example, my government has seen the introduction and implementation of a fully funded pension system that ensures a secure retirement for workers after a lifetime of work, which I am quite proud of.
The proletarists, however, only have tyranny and bloodshed to speak for, in seeking revolutionary change rather than progressive change. Admittedly, for some revolutions, such as the abortive one in Hungary and the negro slaves in America, revolution seemed the only option available against heavy handed despots. But the Ecuadorian, Scandinavian, and now the Dannish revolutions seem to represent unnecessary bloodshed, when a peaceful and democratic solution to the problem of industrial exploitation was available. The workers of those societies have replaced capitalist exploitation with exploitation by the state, which can be just as evil or moreso. I hope that someday the people of these societies see their mistake, and return to a model of stable yet effective change which Labour and the union movement in Britain has been championing since their inception.
OOC: Forgive my lack of British spelling.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
OOC: Don't forget that Proletarism is less communists, more syndicalist.
Circuit
Writing Letters
OOC: I'm aware, but I think the letter still works. I never mentioned nationalization.
Circuit
Writing Letters
OOC: It makes it a lot easier for me to write about him. I took a class on Karl Marx last semester, so I'm motivated to make him the same so I can apply what I learned more easily, kinda become the Proletarian Jehoshua should Britain ever go Prole...
Yes, I'll follow what Lord Iggy said, it was a good story, but I never said at any point they wrote in the same books. In fact, I'm fairly sure I gave them diffeent titles ICly.
Circuit
Writing Letters
I tried to call Das Kapital something in French, but I don't trust Google translate, so I just called it Capital, and Capital wouldn't be Capital if it wasn't called Capital. Critique of the Troyes Program is Critique of the Gotha Program, and I suppose that name could be changed to something like Critique of the Social Proletarists or something along those lines. The Proletarist Manifesto is straight from the updates in CIEN, of course. I don't know if the books would be much different, but I could imagine different letters, and speculated referencing a letter from Mathis to President Vanderbilt of the gubernatorial faction in the War of the American Presidency.
Blue Bacon 3
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2012
- Messages
- 401
Nice stories both of ya.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
Well, the founding text was definitely called the Proletarist Manifesto, according to the 1844 update.
Re: the parallelism, based on the parts quoted in the update, Mathis' text decries Republicanism specifically as a cause of the worlds' ills due to its reliance on the Capitalist system.
" Mathis states that republicanism breeds nationalism and imperialism, which will continue to create and inflict more woes upon the worker class of society. This emerges due to the ease which corruption by business and industry arises in a republican or liberally influenced society. To support these claims, Mathis has pointed out the woes inflicted upon the people of China and Europe by the market-driven economies of the Netherlands, United States, Sweden, and especially Britain..."
So to Mathis, Republicanism (or to be more specific, democracy) is bad. Furthermore, he goes on to say,
" Ultimately, according to Mathis, the oppression of the capitalist will result in the eruption of worker revolution, led by the vanguards of the people. The vanguard would take absolute means of control in order to guide the overarching purpose and aims of the revolution."
Absolute means of control implies, well, a dictatorship, which is specifically brought about by Revolution.
So to conclude, Charles Mathis basically is an exact Karl Marx expy, because he is written as one.
In other news, I just went through too much effort to argue about a fictional ideology and I need to go outside more.
Re: the parallelism, based on the parts quoted in the update, Mathis' text decries Republicanism specifically as a cause of the worlds' ills due to its reliance on the Capitalist system.
" Mathis states that republicanism breeds nationalism and imperialism, which will continue to create and inflict more woes upon the worker class of society. This emerges due to the ease which corruption by business and industry arises in a republican or liberally influenced society. To support these claims, Mathis has pointed out the woes inflicted upon the people of China and Europe by the market-driven economies of the Netherlands, United States, Sweden, and especially Britain..."
So to Mathis, Republicanism (or to be more specific, democracy) is bad. Furthermore, he goes on to say,
" Ultimately, according to Mathis, the oppression of the capitalist will result in the eruption of worker revolution, led by the vanguards of the people. The vanguard would take absolute means of control in order to guide the overarching purpose and aims of the revolution."
Absolute means of control implies, well, a dictatorship, which is specifically brought about by Revolution.
So to conclude, Charles Mathis basically is an exact Karl Marx expy, because he is written as one.
In other news, I just went through too much effort to argue about a fictional ideology and I need to go outside more.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Proletarism as it evolved is not at all Marxist Communism. Lord of Elves has defined it very clearly as a form of syndicalism. And as far as I'm concerned Lord of Elves is the master of Proletarist thought and should be recognized as such.
Well, yes, he did have a Manifesto, but who doesn't? Mathis was never intended just to be French Marx. Yes, there's similarities, but his own beliefs were closer to Stalin's than OTL Marx. The original form of proletarism, hence "Traditional" Proletarism, is a centralized government and unfailing obediance of the masses towards a common goal. There were no theories of collectivism or communes or anything like that. The idea was that a strong state would create the worker's paradise through any means, and then step aside when the classless society was formed, allowing a free utopia. LoE has taken it in a bit different direction, but that is the basis of Mathis' beliefs. He is not just Marx.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Thanks, Luckymoose. Luckymoose is correct that proletarism =/= Marxism. Mathis may have written about what is essentially Marxism, and I welcome any IC expounding upon exactly what Mathis said, largely because it is irrelevant to the present state and future of proletarism. Later theorists expanded upon uhh, Mathusian thought, by elucidating and expanding how to organize the proletariat into a cohesive unit and departed from Mathusian tendencies towards planned economies.
Scandinavian proletarists embrace the "Syndikalistika". Proletarian syndicalism doesn't propose in the strictest sense a Mathusian-style planned economy, but a controlled and legislated l'aissez faire of the workers. Other proletarist ideologies may not necessarily have embraced syndicalism in explicit, but the Scandinavian model of the "Workers' Trade Congress" and the use of labor unions as political and economic units is considered exemplary of contemporary proletarist thought.
Anyway, regardless of all of this, Mathis can have written basically anything. Contemporary proletarist scholars and their forebears in the 1880's and 1890's have moved in a direction which, like Luckymoose said, is more reminiscent of socialist syndicalism than Marxist communism.
EDIT: Scandinavian syndicalist proletarism also differs from Mathusian thought in that it embraces nationalist tendencies as a means of improving the workers' paradise and motivating all aspects of the classless society to a common goal. Scandinavian proletarists have the additional benefit in this regard that they see Scandinavia as a form of cultural and political vanguard, the first of the continental states to liberalize and throw of the chains of absolutism, the first of the continental states (that matter, anyway) to establish a comprehensive and modern rail network, essentially the godhead of all modernization in Europe (because Britain doesn't count!). Thus nationalism and pride in the Scandinavian state is integral to the belief in the righteousness and inevitable victory of the Scandinavian proletariat.
Similar threads
- Locked
