Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Assuming real world events must happen in CI because economics.
Capto Iugulum Background Thread
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
No abstraction of economics works perfectly, but frankly, I've achieved my primary goal if no one else knows how it works. Mostly this is because I'm fairly certain that no one really knows how the whole modern system of economics work, and most of it is just guessing.
I will confess, that some of the recent yearly growth has actually been "catch-up" for a couple of years and bad notes which have caused me to fall behind on inflating values, a very important part of the rulest's balance. However, there is some other factors at play which have thrown off the OTL model and growth, which I will bring up now:
1. More consumer goods readily available and produced by more nations. Namely this is things like radios, automobiles, and refrigerators. OTL these took substantially more time to be prolific among households in America much less the larger world. Here, significantly more nations have emphasized industry and development. The large amount of these goods available on the global market has driven down the prices of the goods, and the lack of resource-emphasized nations is driving the price of raw materials up.
2. Wages have not kept up with the surplus of goods. In the OTL USA and most of the Western world, people became able to afford the products they produced, thus driving demand and value higher and higher. This hasn't happened here. Most nations still have a method of industry closer to 1880 than 1930. While this has maximized profits and production, the fact is, it can't work for everyone, making it harder to buy goods, even though they are devalued by many nations' mass production.
These are the two main factors at play that I care to disclose, and have been the driving themes of the past 30 years. It's actually the net result of the choices many players made at the end of the first stage of the NES, choosing industrial development over other approaches to the economy. Adding to that, EP does not equal GDP, it's a bit more convoluted and complex than a simple translation, so comparing the two does not quite work.
I will confess, that some of the recent yearly growth has actually been "catch-up" for a couple of years and bad notes which have caused me to fall behind on inflating values, a very important part of the rulest's balance. However, there is some other factors at play which have thrown off the OTL model and growth, which I will bring up now:
1. More consumer goods readily available and produced by more nations. Namely this is things like radios, automobiles, and refrigerators. OTL these took substantially more time to be prolific among households in America much less the larger world. Here, significantly more nations have emphasized industry and development. The large amount of these goods available on the global market has driven down the prices of the goods, and the lack of resource-emphasized nations is driving the price of raw materials up.
2. Wages have not kept up with the surplus of goods. In the OTL USA and most of the Western world, people became able to afford the products they produced, thus driving demand and value higher and higher. This hasn't happened here. Most nations still have a method of industry closer to 1880 than 1930. While this has maximized profits and production, the fact is, it can't work for everyone, making it harder to buy goods, even though they are devalued by many nations' mass production.
These are the two main factors at play that I care to disclose, and have been the driving themes of the past 30 years. It's actually the net result of the choices many players made at the end of the first stage of the NES, choosing industrial development over other approaches to the economy. Adding to that, EP does not equal GDP, it's a bit more convoluted and complex than a simple translation, so comparing the two does not quite work.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
That was my point. We don't know if they have to because CI runs on EQnomic principles, and we don't know how close they are to real ones.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
I chose industrial during the BT because Brazil has been, and still is, a massive resource and agricultural exporter. The way I see it, Brazil is still catching up domestically in industry to the massive amount of raw materials being extracted. It has taken decades to modernize Brazil's heavy industry, but the benefits of all these years will continue on for decades to come.
EDIT: I mean think about it. Brazil's largest sectors of growth in the last 20 years have been advanced heavy industries, producing ships, automobiles, airplanes, etc. Commercial flight and cars are still emerging industries for the average man.
EDIT: I mean think about it. Brazil's largest sectors of growth in the last 20 years have been advanced heavy industries, producing ships, automobiles, airplanes, etc. Commercial flight and cars are still emerging industries for the average man.
qoou
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,991
And the US went on to have an average of 3.8% GDP growth rate from 1946 (end of WWII) until 1973 (mid-70s recession). Not to mention that the US is far from some sort of extreme example.
Furthermore. Seriously. A global GDP growth rate of 0.9% is paltry; no, it's down-right pathetic. No actually, it's even worse than that: it's inconceivable. And that's from staring at data from the 60s onwards alone. This is the early 20th century after all. Most of the world doesn't even have central power grids yet.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
That is true, however we can presume (I hope) that it makes some attempt to simulate basic economic theory into game practice. Thus principles like supply and demand, the imperative of cheap labour, the reality that state or monopolistic domination of industry stifles entrepeneurship and innovation, are more likely to be valid than they are not. Indeed EQ's illumination on one small slice of economics in the game makes that suspicion more prominent in my mind. (although of course, EQ would know if Im totally wrong ofc
) Sure, once one goes into detailed economics EQnomics may be quite different, but on a basic level the safest assumption is that it approximates basic realities even while acknowledging it is not exactly aligned to reality.Ignoring the admitted catch-up. Such growth rates of course are not sustainable in the long run short of a perpetual population explosion. However as seen IRL with China, such growth rates can go on for a number of years, even decades in certain circumstances, such as namely the period of transition between levels of industry (an industrial or some other form of economic revolution), or when a nation can take advantage of hungry foreign markets that are rising in wealth.
In the end of course after the boom comes the bust, but the point is it would be erroneous to say the bust had to have reasonably been before the games present time, as compared to some future turn.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
I am willing to offer my pen, for what it is worth.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Since it is around 1930 in the game, heres a political analysis of Brazil as it stands from me.
-
Brazil: State of Politics
-
In 1926 the election was near anarchic, as the coalition of the Moralist Party along with the old-school militarist conservatives was weakened and eventually broke down, because of events in Angola and the Jamaican incident so soon after the Pacific war. This meant the election resulted in no party having a clear majority, with many special interest groups (id guess capitalist groups, gun lobby types and the rest) having a say in the commons, with the government being headed by Partido Liberal, a politically centrist party under First Minister Paulino Souza.
Since then, the political situation in Brazil has more or less clarified. Firstly, and this we see relatively clearly from government statements and policy and partilarly in international relations. The Partido Liberal is clearly in terms of social doctrine a moralist party, being moderate in Brazilian political terms in that it also upholds a strong party line support for the democratic electoral system, anti-colonialism in Africa and and a relatively dovish approach to combatting proletarism and foreign policy in general, and also because it is not so radical in desiring the restructuring of Brazilian society along moralist lines when compared to the moralist party itself, being more willing to allow a more organic development to moralism compared to say re-orienting the education system colombian style. The common ground with the moralist party however almost certainly allowed it to form a coalition with the moralist party, even as the moralist party urges more militant opposition to proletarists and advocates for more social reform than has occured in Brazil thus far in areas like education and liquer and gambling licensing. The Partido Liberals unwillingness to challenge the status quo too radically, and their continued support for a Brazil interested in playing a world role has likely also given them old conservative support as well, ensuring the stability of their government.
This coalition has due to its stability, been able to turn around the fortunes of Brazil since 1926, with Brazilian policy in Africa being wildly successful with increased Brazilian strategic and political influence being clearly established on the continent (to the approval of militarists, soft liberals and moralists alike). In the America's, Brazil has seen a significant expansion in the number of moralist governments occur, and a corresponding detente occuring between it and a number of states such as Cuba all increasing its influence and prestige. However tensions continue to exist with Argentina and Peru due to political conflict on ideological and geostrategic grounds. The threat of war, still somewhat remote, also raises its head anew due to the Brazilian governments guarantee on the defence of Nicaragua in light of the policies of PADA to that state. These negative aspects, and the embargo by much of Europe on Brazil of course, also likely impact on the Partido Liberal as leader of the coalition as a drag on their popularity preventing them from reaching great hights of popularity.
Domestically however, the break out of peace and strong economic growth and development is a positive, with peoples lives continuing to improve. This has seen peoples concerns shift to social factors, with events such as an episode of drunken license (in addition to tensions with liberal states and the seeming attack on Brazil by liberal Europe I note) along with the new forward momentum of moralism abroad seeing societies momentum move back once more to a moralist direction, particularly seeing as Partido Liberal itself has acted in government, socially moralist and been very clearly pro-moralist in its public dialogue with other states and policies.
Seeing this, I would say that the next election will likely be quite interesting, and almost certainly quite close. Partido Liberal has reason for popularity due to successes and yet the moralists and old-conservatives likely have a stake in that success due to the coalition (and thus will not suffer for being the opposition to successful policy). Meanwhile the Partido Liberal will take the responsibility for the European embargo (due to that parties anti-colonial policy not held historically by old conservatives and the moralist party). Social trends, and the political tensions also will likely as I mentioned favour the more militant moralist party in defence of Brazilian interests abroad and the cause of moralism againts its percieved attackers in Europe and the Americas, and also as a manifestation of the feeling of positive progress in the moralist sense held in Brazilian society that has developed post-Jamaica. Seeing all this, I would predict that the liberal, and small special interest parties will likely see a drop off of support, the old conservatives too are likely to see support drop although to a lesser order of magnitude. This support will go to the Moralist Party, and the Partido Liberal, although the degree to which one or the other will get greater support is obviously unclear since both parties have been on the whole successful. However, unless the Partido Liberal gets an unexpected degree of success in the election in its own right, presumably due to the popularity of its first minister or an unwillingness in society to change governments again too soon, I would say the moralist party has the greater momentum towards government since the social trends favour them and the Old-conservatives would be more inclined to form a coalition with them than the moderates, meaning the moralists can drag in more support than would ordinarily go to them.
However the prospect also remains (considering the success of the current government and the common ideological grounds between the conservatives, the Moralist Party and the Partido Liberal and the fact people are naturally inclined to be conservative when it comes to governmental change in times of success) that all three parties (or just the Partido Liberal and the Moralists due to their common social moralism and the positive image of Partido Liberal and some desire to elucidate a more clearly moralist agenda) will form a grand coalition in order to latch on to the success of the current coalition government and ensure future stability along current lines in order to complete a commonly acceptable programme, while also marginalising liberals, special interest groups and radicals. Although such a grand coalition of either two or three parties almost certainly will lean in social policy more clearly towards traditional moralism which I think is the current political story in Brazil, along with a so far successful programme to extend foreign influence and support strong economic development and prosperity internally.
-
Brazil: State of Politics
-
In 1926 the election was near anarchic, as the coalition of the Moralist Party along with the old-school militarist conservatives was weakened and eventually broke down, because of events in Angola and the Jamaican incident so soon after the Pacific war. This meant the election resulted in no party having a clear majority, with many special interest groups (id guess capitalist groups, gun lobby types and the rest) having a say in the commons, with the government being headed by Partido Liberal, a politically centrist party under First Minister Paulino Souza.
Since then, the political situation in Brazil has more or less clarified. Firstly, and this we see relatively clearly from government statements and policy and partilarly in international relations. The Partido Liberal is clearly in terms of social doctrine a moralist party, being moderate in Brazilian political terms in that it also upholds a strong party line support for the democratic electoral system, anti-colonialism in Africa and and a relatively dovish approach to combatting proletarism and foreign policy in general, and also because it is not so radical in desiring the restructuring of Brazilian society along moralist lines when compared to the moralist party itself, being more willing to allow a more organic development to moralism compared to say re-orienting the education system colombian style. The common ground with the moralist party however almost certainly allowed it to form a coalition with the moralist party, even as the moralist party urges more militant opposition to proletarists and advocates for more social reform than has occured in Brazil thus far in areas like education and liquer and gambling licensing. The Partido Liberals unwillingness to challenge the status quo too radically, and their continued support for a Brazil interested in playing a world role has likely also given them old conservative support as well, ensuring the stability of their government.
This coalition has due to its stability, been able to turn around the fortunes of Brazil since 1926, with Brazilian policy in Africa being wildly successful with increased Brazilian strategic and political influence being clearly established on the continent (to the approval of militarists, soft liberals and moralists alike). In the America's, Brazil has seen a significant expansion in the number of moralist governments occur, and a corresponding detente occuring between it and a number of states such as Cuba all increasing its influence and prestige. However tensions continue to exist with Argentina and Peru due to political conflict on ideological and geostrategic grounds. The threat of war, still somewhat remote, also raises its head anew due to the Brazilian governments guarantee on the defence of Nicaragua in light of the policies of PADA to that state. These negative aspects, and the embargo by much of Europe on Brazil of course, also likely impact on the Partido Liberal as leader of the coalition as a drag on their popularity preventing them from reaching great hights of popularity.
Domestically however, the break out of peace and strong economic growth and development is a positive, with peoples lives continuing to improve. This has seen peoples concerns shift to social factors, with events such as an episode of drunken license (in addition to tensions with liberal states and the seeming attack on Brazil by liberal Europe I note) along with the new forward momentum of moralism abroad seeing societies momentum move back once more to a moralist direction, particularly seeing as Partido Liberal itself has acted in government, socially moralist and been very clearly pro-moralist in its public dialogue with other states and policies.
Seeing this, I would say that the next election will likely be quite interesting, and almost certainly quite close. Partido Liberal has reason for popularity due to successes and yet the moralists and old-conservatives likely have a stake in that success due to the coalition (and thus will not suffer for being the opposition to successful policy). Meanwhile the Partido Liberal will take the responsibility for the European embargo (due to that parties anti-colonial policy not held historically by old conservatives and the moralist party). Social trends, and the political tensions also will likely as I mentioned favour the more militant moralist party in defence of Brazilian interests abroad and the cause of moralism againts its percieved attackers in Europe and the Americas, and also as a manifestation of the feeling of positive progress in the moralist sense held in Brazilian society that has developed post-Jamaica. Seeing all this, I would predict that the liberal, and small special interest parties will likely see a drop off of support, the old conservatives too are likely to see support drop although to a lesser order of magnitude. This support will go to the Moralist Party, and the Partido Liberal, although the degree to which one or the other will get greater support is obviously unclear since both parties have been on the whole successful. However, unless the Partido Liberal gets an unexpected degree of success in the election in its own right, presumably due to the popularity of its first minister or an unwillingness in society to change governments again too soon, I would say the moralist party has the greater momentum towards government since the social trends favour them and the Old-conservatives would be more inclined to form a coalition with them than the moderates, meaning the moralists can drag in more support than would ordinarily go to them.
However the prospect also remains (considering the success of the current government and the common ideological grounds between the conservatives, the Moralist Party and the Partido Liberal and the fact people are naturally inclined to be conservative when it comes to governmental change in times of success) that all three parties (or just the Partido Liberal and the Moralists due to their common social moralism and the positive image of Partido Liberal and some desire to elucidate a more clearly moralist agenda) will form a grand coalition in order to latch on to the success of the current coalition government and ensure future stability along current lines in order to complete a commonly acceptable programme, while also marginalising liberals, special interest groups and radicals. Although such a grand coalition of either two or three parties almost certainly will lean in social policy more clearly towards traditional moralism which I think is the current political story in Brazil, along with a so far successful programme to extend foreign influence and support strong economic development and prosperity internally.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
That is fairly accurate. The Partido Liberal has been using moralism to garner support for their own policies, while also slowly changing as a whole into a more moralist friendly political environment. The National Moralist Party, which is what the Moralists have been calling themselves since they organized with conservatives in 1925, has been working with the Partido Liberal as well. I think the most likely outcome for 1932 will be a genuinely Moralist congress (however not all will be members of the National Moralist Party, as I believe Moralism goes beyond party lines in South America and is a way of life before all else), but the First Minister may be a much milder Moralist over all. But who knows, Brazil might be able to pull off a more hardline Moralist government considering recent successes. And in that case, the Americas will get far more interesting very quickly.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
It appears Pope Paul VI's teaching that moralism must not be merely a superficial political force if it is to be christian, but a fundamental way of looking at the world rooted in the teachings of the faith reflected in every day life has taken root in Brazil. The amusing thing though for me, seeing the spread of moralism, is that it has been far more successful than proletarism and bringing about its form of "revolution' (really renewal in a hermeneutic of continuity with tradition, but still it seeks to reshape society). There are only three proletarist states (Scandinavia, UPRA, Jamaica) not counting those where social proletarism has to compete with other ideologies, and Jamaica became so by outside invasion. There are many more entrenched moralist states (Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay, and more recently Nicaragua and Venezuela), which have arisen in a shorter period, with even more nations having a strong moralist culture (Paraguay comes to mind). The Papal States itself is in a unique category that shares much of moralist ideology socially, but is administered according to a much more ancient structure.
-
Anyways, on Argentina's politics to go on from what its controller asked. I wont do such a detailed analyses as I did on Brazil, but as I see it Argentina is fundamentally politically divided between an old protestant conservative class established along British lines, and a large Catholic minority that feels disenfranchised by a foreign and hostile establishment brought into being by British immigration. This division is very similar in some ways to the situation in Northern Ireland in the 20th century, or even Australia before the 50's and 60's where society was politically divided between protestants mostly supporting the conservative liberal party (australian liberalism being purely economic for this reference) and Catholics supporting the labour party. However the difference is the catholic population in Argentina sees liberalism in historical terms as the catalyst that brought about their current dilemma, with secular liberalism having caused this loss of control over what they see as their own land to protestant foreigners, many of whom are militantly anti-catholic (see Thacker). Thus many have now turned towards a hardline strain of moralism in the face of these circumstances to retain a sense of their own identity as "true argentines' and Catholics so to speak, and to express their social interests (this being, to use Australia as an example, instead of turning towards a movement like the labour party with its welfare mentality because such views are seen as reflective of the weakness that caused the protestant "invasion" of Argentina to begin with, not to mention the equivalent in this time line is social proletarism, and proletarism is strongly opposed by the Church)
This polarisation and tension leads to the conclusion that many protestants will not consider voting for the moralists, thus separating the voting pattern into two distinct spheres, the Catholic vote and the Protestant vote. However the protestant vote is itself to some degree conflicted as to where its ideological loyalties lie and is not a totally united group. They agree on certain core fundamentals ofc, but onthe one hand there is the established conservative party, and on the other is a strong trend towards liberalism. The liberal strain is likely to remain secondary so long as Argentina continues to be successful, but should tensions overflow or the government begin to do badly the liberal strain may rise to the surface and weaken the conservative party as those more liberally inclined move more away from conservatism in favour of a party more attuned to their ontology, and particular ideals. This could eventually lead to the conservative party, losing votes, making in a bid to retain power a compromise with the moralists to form a coalition government based on the shared ontology of the two perspectives and their not insignificant common ground when it comes to hard policy. This hypothetical situation could either result in a more harmonious Argentina due to the Catholic population gaining a stake in the system, and a corresponding break down in the strife between Catholics and protestants through the realisation of moralist policies (tempered somewhat by conservatives) that are not antithetical to the argentine system as it stands (thus watering down protestant opposition to moralist thought), or result in increased political and ideological tensions from what they now are due to a liberal-protestant backlash, or even a protestant backlash in general against a percieved "papist tyranny", depending on the strength of protestant fundamentalism in Argentina.
Needless to say though, the Catholic-Protestant, Native-Immigrant tensions pose a risk to Argentina's future prosperity and peace, what begins in division never ends well and the continued antipathy between these two groups could if poorly managed end the golden era currently in play by weakening the Argentine state. Indeed after a certain critical mass of tensions is hypothetically reached, Argentina could see a sudden plunge into dangerous instability in a relatively short period of time. If I was to give some advice, I would say that the end of the subsidisation of immigration by the state, and a less militant demeanour with regards to states like Chile would likely improve societal harmony and head off such problems, as these policies out of all policies are likely the ones that give the local Catholics the impression that the Argentine state is directly attacking them, and Catholicism. However ultimately if Argentina's tensions are to be healed a new modus vivendi of mutual toleration where neither group is marginalised by the political franchise will have to be reached. If the state continues to give the appearance (reality being a different story) of being hostile to one group, then Argentina will always have this seething potential for discord and social unrest festering at its heart.
-
Anyways, on Argentina's politics to go on from what its controller asked. I wont do such a detailed analyses as I did on Brazil, but as I see it Argentina is fundamentally politically divided between an old protestant conservative class established along British lines, and a large Catholic minority that feels disenfranchised by a foreign and hostile establishment brought into being by British immigration. This division is very similar in some ways to the situation in Northern Ireland in the 20th century, or even Australia before the 50's and 60's where society was politically divided between protestants mostly supporting the conservative liberal party (australian liberalism being purely economic for this reference) and Catholics supporting the labour party. However the difference is the catholic population in Argentina sees liberalism in historical terms as the catalyst that brought about their current dilemma, with secular liberalism having caused this loss of control over what they see as their own land to protestant foreigners, many of whom are militantly anti-catholic (see Thacker). Thus many have now turned towards a hardline strain of moralism in the face of these circumstances to retain a sense of their own identity as "true argentines' and Catholics so to speak, and to express their social interests (this being, to use Australia as an example, instead of turning towards a movement like the labour party with its welfare mentality because such views are seen as reflective of the weakness that caused the protestant "invasion" of Argentina to begin with, not to mention the equivalent in this time line is social proletarism, and proletarism is strongly opposed by the Church)
This polarisation and tension leads to the conclusion that many protestants will not consider voting for the moralists, thus separating the voting pattern into two distinct spheres, the Catholic vote and the Protestant vote. However the protestant vote is itself to some degree conflicted as to where its ideological loyalties lie and is not a totally united group. They agree on certain core fundamentals ofc, but onthe one hand there is the established conservative party, and on the other is a strong trend towards liberalism. The liberal strain is likely to remain secondary so long as Argentina continues to be successful, but should tensions overflow or the government begin to do badly the liberal strain may rise to the surface and weaken the conservative party as those more liberally inclined move more away from conservatism in favour of a party more attuned to their ontology, and particular ideals. This could eventually lead to the conservative party, losing votes, making in a bid to retain power a compromise with the moralists to form a coalition government based on the shared ontology of the two perspectives and their not insignificant common ground when it comes to hard policy. This hypothetical situation could either result in a more harmonious Argentina due to the Catholic population gaining a stake in the system, and a corresponding break down in the strife between Catholics and protestants through the realisation of moralist policies (tempered somewhat by conservatives) that are not antithetical to the argentine system as it stands (thus watering down protestant opposition to moralist thought), or result in increased political and ideological tensions from what they now are due to a liberal-protestant backlash, or even a protestant backlash in general against a percieved "papist tyranny", depending on the strength of protestant fundamentalism in Argentina.
Needless to say though, the Catholic-Protestant, Native-Immigrant tensions pose a risk to Argentina's future prosperity and peace, what begins in division never ends well and the continued antipathy between these two groups could if poorly managed end the golden era currently in play by weakening the Argentine state. Indeed after a certain critical mass of tensions is hypothetically reached, Argentina could see a sudden plunge into dangerous instability in a relatively short period of time. If I was to give some advice, I would say that the end of the subsidisation of immigration by the state, and a less militant demeanour with regards to states like Chile would likely improve societal harmony and head off such problems, as these policies out of all policies are likely the ones that give the local Catholics the impression that the Argentine state is directly attacking them, and Catholicism. However ultimately if Argentina's tensions are to be healed a new modus vivendi of mutual toleration where neither group is marginalised by the political franchise will have to be reached. If the state continues to give the appearance (reality being a different story) of being hostile to one group, then Argentina will always have this seething potential for discord and social unrest festering at its heart.
theDright
King
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 605
I know the Catholics are not as disenfranchised as you propose. The Catholic vote is a major contributor to the National Conservative majority, and the Catholic vote brought in the last Liberal president. The Catholics are a major decider in politics. All my calculations using CI:E&N and the BT support that Catholics are ~40-50% of the populace and Protestants are ~50-60%. The current, almost even, split between the Old Argentine Church and Catholic Church has one component in the current Pope's doctrinal positions, ie that liberalism of any sort is anti-Catholic and Catholic ideology should be law over the long-established democratic and republican Argentine principles. The Old Church would further criticize applying Papal positions on liberalism learned in Europe to the Americas. While Old World republics have to interact with entrenched monarchism, and thus can be less stable, New Wold republics, largely, have not had to, and have been incredibly stable and prosperous.
Also, it isn't really rich Brit Protestants vs. poor Native Catholics. There is a large class of rich, landowning Native Catholics, who are probably at least partially intermarried with British immigrants, both Protestant and Catholic. The long peace and prosperity of Argentina has led to less tensions, not more. As demonstrated in past administrations, policies which support Moralist positions have been adopted. Most Old Church Argentines and Protestants of piety would be able to support policies which support Moralism, without the actual Catholic hierarchy becoming intertwined with government. Prohibitions or restrictions on 'luxurious or sinful items' might find a large audience, both Protestant, Old Church, and Catholic. Strengthening government support for marriage, anti-contraception, and anti-smut could easily find adherents regardless of creed. Also, immigrants need not upset the Catholic-Protestant balance. I would think that large amounts of British Catholics and non-Anglican Protestants would bring a much more nuanced spectrum of creeds, cultures, and languages. I would think that any Argentine worth his salt knows both Argentine Rioplatonese (Spanish with English and European Romance languages) and Argentine English (English with Spanish and other immigrant loanwords), and knows to talk Rioplatonese in Cordoba and English in Buenos Aires.
I would say that militant anti-Catholics like Thacker, and militant anti-Protestants are the exception and not the norm. Argentines of all stripes supported Thacker due to his unjust arrest as a citizen of Argentina and his expression of religious freedom in a totalitarian dictatorship. Militant anti-Protestants were probably provoked both by the split of the Old Church from the Catholic, and the perverted influences of some priests.
Also, I would think that the Protestant minority in Brazil is a much larger subset of the population than OTL, as Brazil's population is far greater than it was OTL. Brazilian tempering of Moralism with its' own traditions could lead to a continuation of its' liberal, democratic, and republican principles with Moralist policies, but its' ardent support for democracy, republics, and constitutionalism could be waning, as its' support of the unconstitutional coup in Nicaragua would attest. Needless to say, popular support =/= democratic governance always.
Also, it isn't really rich Brit Protestants vs. poor Native Catholics. There is a large class of rich, landowning Native Catholics, who are probably at least partially intermarried with British immigrants, both Protestant and Catholic. The long peace and prosperity of Argentina has led to less tensions, not more. As demonstrated in past administrations, policies which support Moralist positions have been adopted. Most Old Church Argentines and Protestants of piety would be able to support policies which support Moralism, without the actual Catholic hierarchy becoming intertwined with government. Prohibitions or restrictions on 'luxurious or sinful items' might find a large audience, both Protestant, Old Church, and Catholic. Strengthening government support for marriage, anti-contraception, and anti-smut could easily find adherents regardless of creed. Also, immigrants need not upset the Catholic-Protestant balance. I would think that large amounts of British Catholics and non-Anglican Protestants would bring a much more nuanced spectrum of creeds, cultures, and languages. I would think that any Argentine worth his salt knows both Argentine Rioplatonese (Spanish with English and European Romance languages) and Argentine English (English with Spanish and other immigrant loanwords), and knows to talk Rioplatonese in Cordoba and English in Buenos Aires.
I would say that militant anti-Catholics like Thacker, and militant anti-Protestants are the exception and not the norm. Argentines of all stripes supported Thacker due to his unjust arrest as a citizen of Argentina and his expression of religious freedom in a totalitarian dictatorship. Militant anti-Protestants were probably provoked both by the split of the Old Church from the Catholic, and the perverted influences of some priests.
Also, I would think that the Protestant minority in Brazil is a much larger subset of the population than OTL, as Brazil's population is far greater than it was OTL. Brazilian tempering of Moralism with its' own traditions could lead to a continuation of its' liberal, democratic, and republican principles with Moralist policies, but its' ardent support for democracy, republics, and constitutionalism could be waning, as its' support of the unconstitutional coup in Nicaragua would attest. Needless to say, popular support =/= democratic governance always.
I'd actually argue that the Catholics are typically the more wealthy in Argentina, though it's probably evenly divided among all classes. Catholic Argentines on a whle are likely more isolated from the Mother Church than those in other nations. This could largely be attributed to the growth of prosperity, but some may claim it's due to the horrendous and un-Christian debachery that has extended from the cinemas there.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Now of course I can only go off of whats available to me in the updates, but from them it does seem to me that a good portion of the Catholic population feel like foreigners in their own country. It seems to me that the more... militant, moralism in some quarters as we saw in the recent unrest was a product of that. Perhaps the feeling of disenfranchisement is not as widespread as I indicated, most definitely it is not absolute political truth, and certainly quarters of the Catholic population are embedded in the franchise, but that does not mean the feeling does not exist perhaps, and almost certainly the fundamental religious tension exists, which if not as widespread as the updates seem to indicate, at the very least has the potential to become more problematic. EDIT: As to EQ's revelations, perhaps one could describe any disenfranchisement as more akin to the french conservative aristocracy and their fellow travellers post-revolution, they had wealth but were politically sidelined by the republican regime despite that wealth and personal standing. At any rate, its increasingly clear that the problems in Argentina are due to the debasement of it culture into debauchery and barbarity.
As to Liberalism, the "Old Church" and the Catholic Church. It seemed to me from the update that the old church was only a small and relatively minor schism, not of the scale of half of the catholic population schisming off. "A number of young priests" and "a portion" of the congregation as mentiond in the update doesn't indicate to me half the Church going off (and indeed that would be quite unrealistic). That said you could be privy to more detailed information than me, considering you run the place As to the papal position on liberalism though, the Church is not opposed fundamentally to certain individual principles within liberalism (like democracy as a means of government for example), but liberalism as a total ideology is incompatible with Catholicism because its fundamental ontology rejects the doctrine of original sin, and is entirely man-centred in its conception of the world. A good Catholic therefore cannot be liberal, even though he may hold certain positions that are close to liberals in certain areas (like support for democracy). Incidentally the Church does not say that Catholic principles must be law, it says that error (principles opposed to Catholic truth) are illegitimate as law, since all law to be true must orient itself to and be in accord with the divine law of God, who is the Ultimate Sovereign Lord. The Church as such doesn't actually propose a model for government, it merely says that a Catholic should only support laws and governmental models that are not contrary to his religion, its a negative (thou shalt not support) approach instead of a positive (thou shalt impose these governmental principles) one if you will with regards to governmental institutions, laws and the like. Although the Church does obviously give its approval to moralism in its manifestation as a renewal of christian living in all areas of life, although not exclusively as support for policies of certain traditionalist and conservative regimes in Europe attests. This is more a religious and cultural thing for the Church than a political one as is perhaps evident by the fact the Church was promoting moralism (I think I used the term "religious renewal and increased piety" in sending orders) before it ever became a political phenomenon, "before it was cool" so to speak amongst the chattering classes.
Oh and on Brazil, the proportion is dependant on where the immigration came from, the rate of conversions, and the rate of natural population growth. Considering the religious renewal, and the strong likelihood that immigration was mostly from Catholic nations its not necessarily true that the protestant proportion is larger than it was IRL at this period of time. Indeed religious piety would increase the rate of natural population growth due to the Church's teaching on contraception. (and thats something thats very noticable IRL if you know where to look)
As to Liberalism, the "Old Church" and the Catholic Church. It seemed to me from the update that the old church was only a small and relatively minor schism, not of the scale of half of the catholic population schisming off. "A number of young priests" and "a portion" of the congregation as mentiond in the update doesn't indicate to me half the Church going off (and indeed that would be quite unrealistic). That said you could be privy to more detailed information than me, considering you run the place
As to the papal position on liberalism though, the Church is not opposed fundamentally to certain individual principles within liberalism (like democracy as a means of government for example), but liberalism as a total ideology is incompatible with Catholicism because its fundamental ontology rejects the doctrine of original sin, and is entirely man-centred in its conception of the world. A good Catholic therefore cannot be liberal, even though he may hold certain positions that are close to liberals in certain areas (like support for democracy). Incidentally the Church does not say that Catholic principles must be law, it says that error (principles opposed to Catholic truth) are illegitimate as law, since all law to be true must orient itself to and be in accord with the divine law of God, who is the Ultimate Sovereign Lord. The Church as such doesn't actually propose a model for government, it merely says that a Catholic should only support laws and governmental models that are not contrary to his religion, its a negative (thou shalt not support) approach instead of a positive (thou shalt impose these governmental principles) one if you will with regards to governmental institutions, laws and the like. Although the Church does obviously give its approval to moralism in its manifestation as a renewal of christian living in all areas of life, although not exclusively as support for policies of certain traditionalist and conservative regimes in Europe attests. This is more a religious and cultural thing for the Church than a political one as is perhaps evident by the fact the Church was promoting moralism (I think I used the term "religious renewal and increased piety" in sending orders) before it ever became a political phenomenon, "before it was cool" so to speak amongst the chattering classes.Oh and on Brazil, the proportion is dependant on where the immigration came from, the rate of conversions, and the rate of natural population growth. Considering the religious renewal, and the strong likelihood that immigration was mostly from Catholic nations its not necessarily true that the protestant proportion is larger than it was IRL at this period of time. Indeed religious piety would increase the rate of natural population growth due to the Church's teaching on contraception. (and thats something thats very noticable IRL if you know where to look)
theDright
King
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 605
I haven't gotten the Catholics as foreigners in their own country vibe at all. I would say that the the Native Catholic-Immigrant Anglican divide is more like the Dutch-English or French-English or German-English divide in the US. More like OTL New York City, Louisiana, or the Midwest, rather than a OTL 'Native American'-Immigrant or N. Ireland-Ireland. Certain tensions between populations exist, but I would say it is a lot more based upon class and time of immigration. English Anglicans and Native Old Church or Native Catholics are more likely to cooperate against other creeds and cultures. I'd imagine the Methodists, Calvinists, both English and French, Lutherans etc. liven up the mix quite substantially, particularly when you take into account minority languages.
I'm not sure where you are getting the debasement, debauchery, and barbarity. Certain scenes surrounding the concert hall, cinema, or theater surely, but actors and singers have always been debauched. Other countries' may decry the influence of Argentine art and culture, but it is just a reaction against media perceived as foreign; an art scene intruding outside of its' place of birth.
It may be less than an even split, but it is a large enough minority to be seriously aggravating to hardliners.
I would argue that the United States' government model, which is what the Argentine is based upon, is entirely silent on the concept of original sin. After all, American 'natural rights' are those granted by the Creator; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property being conditions that any living person can not have removed from them. Liberal democracy, as conceived in Argentina, does not reject the concept of original sin, as it is not the place of an inherently worldly institution to dictate such matters. Catholics thus could not support laws that are in error, but the institution itself is entirely neutral.
Yeah, but this sort of fervent piety is a recent phenomenon. I am speaking of course on the immigration to Brazil in the 1800s. Even more so than Argentina, Brazil has lots of places in which Protestant creeds can thrive, either as urban movement or rural enclave. Certainly Brazil is even more European in this timeline, and less of the Portuguese-Native-African spectrum.
I'm not sure where you are getting the debasement, debauchery, and barbarity. Certain scenes surrounding the concert hall, cinema, or theater surely, but actors and singers have always been debauched. Other countries' may decry the influence of Argentine art and culture, but it is just a reaction against media perceived as foreign; an art scene intruding outside of its' place of birth.
It may be less than an even split, but it is a large enough minority to be seriously aggravating to hardliners.
I would argue that the United States' government model, which is what the Argentine is based upon, is entirely silent on the concept of original sin. After all, American 'natural rights' are those granted by the Creator; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property being conditions that any living person can not have removed from them. Liberal democracy, as conceived in Argentina, does not reject the concept of original sin, as it is not the place of an inherently worldly institution to dictate such matters. Catholics thus could not support laws that are in error, but the institution itself is entirely neutral.
Yeah, but this sort of fervent piety is a recent phenomenon. I am speaking of course on the immigration to Brazil in the 1800s. Even more so than Argentina, Brazil has lots of places in which Protestant creeds can thrive, either as urban movement or rural enclave. Certainly Brazil is even more European in this timeline, and less of the Portuguese-Native-African spectrum.
To elaborate upon the current feelings (especially of moralism) to Argentine culture we must first look at what Argentine culture is, as perceived by the rest of the world. This culture consists of two key elements:
1. The rapid rise of cinema and its assorted industries, and the proliferation of information of the stars who appear in Argentina's films. Not to mention, due to the heat of the region, the Argentines frequently wear a bit less clothing than traditional audiences may understand. Similarly, risque films are likely quite common, featuring things like kissing or even partial nudity. This is how it was in the early days of Hollywood too, because sex sells, always has, always will. Unlike OTL, where the US film industry forced regulation of sex in film, this has not taken place in Argentina. Therefore the cinema that comes out of Argentina is quite good, but it shocks traditional morals to the core. Thus moralism opposes it upon basic principles. Needless to say, the Catholic Argentine's greater exposure to the film industry makes it a bit more likely that they see the Papacy as backward and out of touch. It would not surprise me at all if the Catholics involved in film make up the heart of current opposition to the Pope.
2. The Argentine tango is the other cultural elemetn which the nation has exported in the past decade, and is wildly popular among the youth. With no fault of Argentina, the tango has been butchered into other nations, and is seen as depraved and sexual by many. Because the original tango is linked to Argentina, moralism thus finds them to blame, and the focus refmains on the depravity it allegedly inspires.
Therefore, from a moralist point of view, there is no greater hive of sin and villiany than Argentina, Rosario in particular.
1. The rapid rise of cinema and its assorted industries, and the proliferation of information of the stars who appear in Argentina's films. Not to mention, due to the heat of the region, the Argentines frequently wear a bit less clothing than traditional audiences may understand. Similarly, risque films are likely quite common, featuring things like kissing or even partial nudity. This is how it was in the early days of Hollywood too, because sex sells, always has, always will. Unlike OTL, where the US film industry forced regulation of sex in film, this has not taken place in Argentina. Therefore the cinema that comes out of Argentina is quite good, but it shocks traditional morals to the core. Thus moralism opposes it upon basic principles. Needless to say, the Catholic Argentine's greater exposure to the film industry makes it a bit more likely that they see the Papacy as backward and out of touch. It would not surprise me at all if the Catholics involved in film make up the heart of current opposition to the Pope.
2. The Argentine tango is the other cultural elemetn which the nation has exported in the past decade, and is wildly popular among the youth. With no fault of Argentina, the tango has been butchered into other nations, and is seen as depraved and sexual by many. Because the original tango is linked to Argentina, moralism thus finds them to blame, and the focus refmains on the depravity it allegedly inspires.
Therefore, from a moralist point of view, there is no greater hive of sin and villiany than Argentina, Rosario in particular.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
I suppose that different people get different intonations from what they percieve. Being "In Persona Vicarius Christi", in the person of the Vicar of Christ for this game, and being thoroughly Catholic in my perspectives IRL to begin with, I obviously will see things from a different angle compared to yourself (not to mention my own national and local contexts). I would still argue though that the fundamental tension between Catholics and protestants exist, IRL this underlying tension was the case almost universally until the cultural shift of the sixtis which emerged as a consequence of the war, even in places that were cosmopolitan and I see no reason why CI Argentina in 1929, lacks this, particularly considering the recent... unpleasantness involving armed militias. Unpleasantness that I point out rather more recalls Northern Ireland (a class dispute on religious lines) with its 60-40 split of protestants to Catholics (closer to 50/50 in the 21st century due to the higher population growth rate of Catholics) than it does the situation in the USA.
I'm getting the debasement of the culture from the fact the cultural products of Argentina are the subject of moral outrage and riots on the part of faithful Catholics in neighbouring countries. Since this seemingly applies only to Argentinian products as compared to any other country, presumably the content of certain works is depraved by civilised standards.
We're not talking about constitutional norms like the US constitution, but rather to political theory and ideologies. The US constitution may be a product of liberal thought, but it is not liberalism itself and is separated from the ontological thinking of liberalism as you have pointed out. At any rate, this shows what I am saying that certain liberal conceptions are not antithetical to Catholicism, although I would say the strict interpretation of separation of Church and State that later developed IRL would indeed be antithetical to Catholic thought. (state neutrality, like in Australia would be tolerable)
However as I said, that really depends on where immigration came from. I would say considering the notable absence of significant protestantism that it came from mostly Catholic nations (protestant immigration being mostly absorbed by Argentina and the North American States) most particularly one suspects Catholic French and Italian immigration due to the warfare during that period in those areas. Also just to say, protestantism clearly cannot thrive in an environment where the Catholic faith is properly taught and lived due to the Catholic Faith' self evident reasonablity and truth (and the cultural pressures against conversion to a heretical movement), and one must stress that it is organised moralism that is a recent political phenomenon, fervent religious piety is nothing new as the existence of a Catholic league and a number of unnoficially official crusades attests.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
ooc: Thats an idealistic definition to begin with and a false one (opinions can;t be discriminated against, only people). Furthermore all states discriminate (and this is not inherently bad in all cases), and all governments push through things that others despise in opposition to, one just has to accept this reality. In a democracy, government generally acts on the modus vivendi that the opposition can say what it wants, but it will ignore it in favour of promoting its own platform, as we see with controversial issues today that permit what many, many people, often a majority consider abominations.
An example would include the fact that France makes it an offence to wear religious symbols in state institutions like schools (or the muslim niqab in public), an imposition of secular liberalism on the entire population. Would you deny that religious people are discriminated against here?
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Either way it prooves my point that your definition is incorrect as a general one. As to Jacksonia, In saying what you do though Nuke, you clearly show you are an idealist even if you don't realise it. Because if Jacksonia truly had no discrimination its government would not impose any law at all and would be anarchist, solely trusting in the moral agency of people to look out for the good of others. Afterall it would be discrimination and against the rights of human liberty would it not to criminalise someone just because he commited some offence no?
The criminal system in and of itself is discriminatory, and rightly so wouldn't you say? This very basic example (which applies to many other aspects of government) is a clear example of the fact that discrimination is a fundamental part of human societies.
The criminal system in and of itself is discriminatory, and rightly so wouldn't you say? This very basic example (which applies to many other aspects of government) is a clear example of the fact that discrimination is a fundamental part of human societies.
