Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[EQandcivfanatic]

Indeed, also, I'm going to comment on the T-28, it's technically a upgunned T-34. The gun itself is a 77mm cannon, and the armor is T-34 equivalent, maybe slightly thicker.

 

[Circuit]

Crezth and I can work out what to write about the US and Britain, as we both were very involved in both nations' development. I could easily write about Scottite USA And prior, when I have the chance.

 

[Ahigin]

Indeed, also, I'm going to comment on the T-28, it's technically a upgunned T-34. The gun itself is a 77mm cannon, and the armor is T-34 equivalent, maybe slightly thicker.

Original T-34 had a 76.2mm cannon, so one extra millimeter doesn't sound like a serious improvement. T-34-85 may be what you mean, it had an 85mm cannon.

 

[Circuit]

*sigh* The Russians get to use my favorite tank in Flames of War... *sniffle*

 

[ChiefDesigner]

In all honestly Moralism's position on women doesn't strike me as being anything different to the status quo in the 1920s. Right up until basically the mid-20th Century, the social rule for women (at least in the West) was that they could have certain jobs right up until they got married, at which point they were expected to quit their jobs. Though this wasn't legally enforced, it was the norm by a vast majority. By 1920 Cornell had exactly had two female engineering graduates in its entire history.

This is because right up maybe the sixties in the West, it was firmly believed that a women's most important job was specifically as a mother and homemaker. A career would clash with that, so once women got married they were expected to drop their jobs. Even then, employers right up until the 1940s didn't believe that women could do anything other than work involving interpersonal interaction (such as teaching, nursing, and being a secretary), so it was very rare to find a women as anything other than what are traditionally called female professions.

What Brazil is doing is merely pushing a propaganda campaign to keep the status quo. Though there are likely quite a few unmarried women in the workforce, the campaign isn't really that damaging to Brazil or the Moralists. In fact, given that its the 1930s ITTL and its comparably maybe ten years behind OTL socially, there's probably very many catholic women (married and unmarried) nodding along!

To conclude: Women weren't really accepted in the workplace outside of 'female professions' until the sixties, expected to leave when they get married, and suffrage does not imply workplace equality. Brazil's propaganda campaign isn't about to make the country fragment into male vs. female civil war, because its 1930 and the moralists aren't pushing for that much.

I'm not denying that in OTL, women in the USA did not achieve real equality until the 1980s; I have also seen Mad Men.

I am pushing back against the idea that patriarchy is a policy preferred by women, or that the taking away anybody's economic independence is a policy that will win the governing party many votes in the next election. (I have also seen Mad Men.)

 

[Luckymoose]

Women still vote against their interests in much worse ways than this. You are thinking of a much later period, in a different world with different ideological views. No one is being stripped of economic independence. Moralism at no point in time has or will remove women from a workplace. There is a very big difference between asking that women who have employed husbands step down, so unemployed people can feed their families, and misogyny.

I don't think you have a very strong grasp on the histories involved here, of the relations between gender roles and economic, social, and political developments of the early 20th century. The world of CI is more like the 1910s than the 1930s, and OTL 1930s were much worse to women than what the Brazilian government is asking (note: not enforcing in any form). This isn't the 1950's. And this sure as hell isn't a world even close to as liberal as ours.

 

[Lokki242]

Question, if the women has superior income and ability, could the man step down from his job?

 

[Jehoshua]

As Lucky has noted, Brazil isn't forcing anyone to do anything. So yes, a man can if he wanted too, could step out of the workforce and the government wouldn't do squat to prevent him. Brazil under the moralists is not a police state.

 

[Crezth]

I don't understand the debate at hand. This is a world where moralist USA justifies genocide and vicious apartheid with scripture. Surely a bit of sexism is not out of character here?

 

[Jehoshua]

Since when has the United States been moralist? I would say it never has (and that this ideological difference is self-evident), both because its ideology rests on different philosophical grounds than moralism (Protestantism, nationalistic militarism), and because its implemented policies (apartheid and so forth) are distinct from those states defined as moralist.

The United States ideology as such I would say is best defined by a distinct name, perhaps Scottism, or Americanism or whatever. If you apply this uniquely American mode to the debate on moralism, then naturally you're going to be left in a stupor.

 

[christos200]

The best ideology was Hollandism.

 

[Grandkhan]

The best ideology was Hollandism.

I was destroying my own nation with radical ideologies before it was cool.

 

[Lord of Elves]

These ideological debates are kind of pointless. All ideologies exist to oppress the proletariat except for the Revolution.

 

[Crezth]

Since when has the United States been moralist? I would say it never has (and that this ideological difference is self-evident), both because its ideology rests on different philosophical grounds than moralism (Protestantism, nationalistic militarism), and because its implemented policies (apartheid and so forth) are distinct from those states defined as moralist.

Well, OK, thanks for reinforcing my point that the position of you and Luckymoose seems to be "Moralism is the perfect flawless ideology and required for a society to be any kind of functional."

 

[Luckymoose]

Well, OK, thanks for reinforcing my point that the position of you and Luckymoose seems to be "Moralism is the perfect flawless ideology and required for a society to be any kind of functional."

That isn't true. Papal Moralism is a different beast from Brazilian. I've never said Moralism is specifically Catholic, or perfect. I think it can be used by Protestants and Muslims too. Brazilian Moralism is a good deal more socialist than the Papal version.

 

[Jehoshua]

Indeed tis not true. What I was saying is that the ideology of the united states seems to be based on different assumptions than moralism both in its accidents (appearances of ideology in policy) and quite likely in its essential fundamental ideas. Saying that, I am not saying that non-Catholics cannot be moralist, or that its some perfect system, I'm simply pointing out what appears to be an evident differentiation in theory between the moralist sphere and the United States.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

My own personal position on the whole woman thing is that it's not "Anti-women" or even truly sexist in a sense. The position that Brazil, Uruguay, and so forth have is one reinforcing and protecting the traditional role of women in society. Yes, it could be argued as suppressing their rights, but in all fairness, no one has passed laws against them entering the work force, yet. It's also highly unlikely anyone will, simply because it's not an economically or politically viable legislation, especially considering that in the relevant nations, women do have the right to vote, whether it is exercised or not.

Frankly the Libyan position is a bit more out of character in my opinion, but as I've been doing some reading, there is precedent for both courses, and frankly I'm interested in seeing on how things develop, especially if a major war breaks out.

 

[Jehoshua]

Really, at this moment, I'd said the situation is surprisingly non-ideologically charged. Nations are quite clearly pursuing imperial or political interests, regardless of much ideology. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's a bit of an interesting development to me.

Just on this quote of yours EQ. My assessment on first looking at the situation is that it reflects the history of the Capto Iugulum world. OTL, world war one brought the imperial order to near ruin, with challenges rising in the form of fascism, communism and indeed liberalism as the European ascendancy was pushed to the precipice, and challengers gained in relative power. World war two then finished the job, destroying in a historical instant the European Imperial Order that had existed for five or so centuries by bringing the European states to ruination (simultaneously making colonialism untenable) leaving in its wake a bipolar world suspended between newly created communist and liberal world orders as the United States and the Soviet Union were left as the sole great powers standing. War is the midwife of world orders, and the convulsion great wars create is what causes turmoil and a change in the international order.

In Capto Iugulum however, the system of Empires has not so far been fundamentally weakened by such a situation, no conflict has been so devastating as to undermine the social consensus within society and bring into consensus established values in such a way as to promote mass movements in favour of radical revisionism. In this paradigm greater social and political stability on the whole, and a less charged ideological atmosphere is perhaps not unexpected.

 

[Grandkhan]

Denmark now has a wiki page, which I'll probably add to as I feel the desire.

 

[theDright]

"Embargoes?" You mean banning films of questionable content until rights and ratings were sorted out? That isn't very serious at all. Also, the idea that Moralism is somehow the antithesis to democracy bugs the hell out of me. Moralism is fundamentally democratic, free market, and social policy driven.

OOC: The Rome Economic Pact didn't ban films of 'questionable content'; it banned all films. Furthermore, they foisted an anachronistic international copyright system onto the world. Embargo, prohibition, and make-work are also fundamentally not free market. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. I also never said that Moralism is the antithesis of democracy. I said that Moralism, at least as Jehoshua describes it, is opposed to many of the tenets of liberalism and republicanism, and as such, could be framed that way in Colombia. Also, while I have no evidence that South American Moralism, with the exception of Chile, is opposed to democracy at home, their support of a Moralist coup in Nicaragua shows that, when it comes down to it, Moralism trumps Democracy. I would really like a more detailed view of how the Brazilian conception of Moralism differs from the Papal conception. How am I supposed to argue for or against something so nebulous?

concordantly, it is clear that the advocates of Liberalism see anything other than their own view as "undemocratic". :That, or incomprehension of moralism translates into lamentable and compounded ignorance of the movement itself.

I never said that. Non-republican is not necessarily undemocratic. But without Liberalism, I'd argue you can't have a true democracy.

Any 'incomprehension' of moralism is due to the silence of Luckymoose in the face of the many essays you have written on Moralism. Currently, the Papal conception is all that has been fleshed out in its' entirety. But obviously, the Brazilian conception is quite different otherwise talks of liberalism, free markets, and applications to non-Catholics wouldn't even be mentioned.