SPOILER! Sidermark

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
With what's happening in Sidermark, I'm seeing it as quickly going down an out of control near communist path. They've mentioned "Levelers" before as part of the Sidermark body poilitc, although a fringe part.
Then there's the shining example of the People's Republic of Haven in Runs for Celery's history.

Charis makes a good (bad) example for the common people to be pointed at, and Sidermark is going to get a lot of resentment from the people of the Charisian empore for not fulfilling their treaties and contracts.

Cold war?

I wonder...

Wrong. Siddarmark is going all-fascist way, close to Mussolini Italy (with a lot of populist actions, which actually benefitted the ruling military & industrial junta the most). Not only communists went for nationalization, you know.

Dilandu wrote:Wrong. Siddarmark is going all-fascist way, close to Mussolini Italy (with a lot of populist actions, which actually benefitted the ruling military & industrial junta the most). Not only communists went for nationalization, you know.

Ayup. Of course the difference to my way of thinking is too small to really argue over.

PeterZ wrote:

Dilandu wrote:Wrong. Siddarmark is going all-fascist way, close to Mussolini Italy (with a lot of populist actions, which actually benefitted the ruling military & industrial junta the most). Not only communists went for nationalization, you know.

Ayup. Of course the difference to my way of thinking is too small to really argue over.

Extremists end up pretty much the damn same, no matter what it is they claim to be :/

I think their leader, riding on populist agenda will just run hogwild with his "great ideas"...while criminals will loot the system and run the Republic into war to avoid repercussions from bankruptcy, to use force/secret police to cover up crimes etc

Sometimes such leaders, like Robespierre, mean well or were even "good", but things go into complete lunatic cycle and the tigers tail they grabbed onto....eats them or drags things off into lunacy no matter how they try

SilverbladeTE wrote:
Sometimes such leaders, like Robespierre, mean well or were even "good", but things go into complete lunatic cycle and the tigers tail they grabbed onto....eats them or drags things off into lunacy no matter how they try

Still, the French Revolution turned France into mightiest European nation till the Unification of Germany. And Bolsheviks rule literally was the pinnacle of Russian history, when Russia became one of two world greatest superpowers, combined with unprecedent for our national history leap in public well-being.

So, the political lunatics are usually unpleasant peoples to have around, but they could be enormously effective. After all, who in 1920s could believe that Soviet Russia - dirt-poor, exausted, half-destroyed by Civil War and interventions Russiа - thirty years later would become a mighty colossus, second only to the United States, and far more powerful and capable that former powers like Britain or France?

P.S. But it would be hilarious, if, decpite all Charisian cheating, the Siddarmarkian People Republic would still beat them in launching the first ingenious Safeholdian space sattelite)

Dilandu wrote: SNIP

Still, the French Revolution turned France into mightiest European nation till the Unification of Germany. And Bolsheviks rule literally was the pinnacle of Russian history, when Russia became one of two world greatest superpowers, combined with unprecedent for our national history leap in public well-being.

SNIP

I take it you mean mainland european nation

isaac_newton wrote:

Dilandu wrote: SNIP

Still, the French Revolution turned France into mightiest European nation till the Unification of Germany. And Bolsheviks rule literally was the pinnacle of Russian history, when Russia became one of two world greatest superpowers, combined with unprecedent for our national history leap in public well-being.

SNIP

I take it you mean mainland european nation

Please, who would ever consider Englishmen as true Europeans, with their pathetic cuisine?

But yes, I stand corrected. Hovewer, I must point that Britain also have their own - and PRETTY BRUTAL - revolution, which was one of motivation point for eventually turning into a world superpower.

isaac_newton wrote:

Dilandu wrote: SNIP

Still, the French Revolution turned France into mightiest European nation till the Unification of Germany. And Bolsheviks rule literally was the pinnacle of Russian history, when Russia became one of two world greatest superpowers, combined with unprecedent for our national history leap in public well-being.

SNIP

I take it you mean mainland european nation

Fog closes channel. Continent isolated.

Dilandu wrote:

SilverbladeTE wrote:
Sometimes such leaders, like Robespierre, mean well or were even "good", but things go into complete lunatic cycle and the tigers tail they grabbed onto....eats them or drags things off into lunacy no matter how they try

Still, the French Revolution turned France into mightiest European nation till the Unification of Germany. And Bolsheviks rule literally was the pinnacle of Russian history, when Russia became one of two world greatest superpowers, combined with unprecedent for our national history leap in public well-being.

So, the political lunatics are usually unpleasant peoples to have around, but they could be enormously effective. After all, who in 1920s could believe that Soviet Russia - dirt-poor, exausted, half-destroyed by Civil War and interventions Russiа - thirty years later would become a mighty colossus, second only to the United States, and far more powerful and capable that former powers like Britain or France?

Choosing those political avenues will limit future options. Choosing a course that consolidated political and economic power as tightly as in the USSR limits future options. Current Russia is well prepared for Oligarch's retaining that tight control and comfortable in that state of affairs. The effect is to keep the potential output of the Russian economy much smaller than its access to abundant natural resources would allow.
The US has its own problems in this regard, but our history has favored less central control of our wealth and political power. The dispersion of both allows for more creative uses of both, whereas the heavy concentration of both limits their use to a select few options. Usually those choices are suboptimal.