Siddermark Going the Way of the Wiemer Republic? (Spoilers?)

Just about finished TFT and I some very... uneasy feelings. While its not an exact perallel I'm seeing the Republic taking similar slides that Wiemar did and how easily it transformed into the Nazi state.

Anyone else seen these ever so slight parallels and wondering if Siddar, maybe with a little push from say Desnair or South Harchong wanting to sow more dissent and see well, the complete fall of the Republic into something maybe even worse than Harchong or Desnair?

Chaser617 wrote:Just about finished TFT and I some very... uneasy feelings. While its not an exact perallel I'm seeing the Republic taking similar slides that Wiemar did and how easily it transformed into the Nazi state.

Anyone else seen these ever so slight parallels and wondering if Siddar, maybe with a little push from say Desnair or South Harchong wanting to sow more dissent and see well, the complete fall of the Republic into something maybe even worse than Harchong or Desnair?

Spoilers
It has many more similarities to the American Civil War. As I recall Lincoln was enamored with Marx and the United States of that day was definitely controlled by a relatively large number of oligarchs. Recall the Robber Barons of America built their wealth from building the railroad. Their rise can be argued to be the financial driver of the Civil War. Slavery was a wedge issues to gain the support of the more populated North whose workers were threatened by unpaid slaves. Northern magnates donated large sums to Abolitionist Movement. I believe that it was necessary for moral reasons, but those wealthy oligarchs had more fundamentally selfish reasons as well.

That sort of environment is very similar to what RFC has set up in Siddermark. We have at least 3 distinct regions with very different economic needs and societies/cultures; North-Western Siddermark is established aggriculture, Eastern Siddermark is a mix of aggriculture and industry where the old wealth is and finally the frontier of Central Siddermark. Western Siddermark is north of the Gray Walls and west of the Kalgarans. Central Siddermark would include Cliff Peak, Glacierheart, thesmar and Shiloh. Eastern Siddermark are all the other better established provinces.

Central Siddermark is either very new or has faced military conflict regularly in recent memory. That provides a frontier, selfsufcient mentality with a history that recognizes the need for security in all the various forms. I think Central Siddermark will be least amenable to being the economic serfs of moneyed or landed oligarchs.

The aggricultural oligarchs of the north-west will be turning themselves into landed nobility while securing their labor in some sort of legal or economic indentured servitude. The oligarchs out east will turn into the British Industrialists of the Industrial Revolution of the worst sort. Unbridled greed that is only found in a kleptocratic oligarchies with high concentrations of political and economic power.

That points to a morass as bad if not worse than Northern Harchong of TFT. Once the factions coalesce and consilidate their regions, we'll have war. The CoGA will be torn by theoligical debates for the soal of their Church and be impotent to intercede. Charis will be spread thin holding off Desnair and Harchong leaving Dohlar to rescue Central Siddermark. Given the likely reversion of the rest of Siddermark into toalitarianism, Central Siddermark will be the most attractive region to support.

Lincoln's death was VERY convenient...he wanted a very different outcome with the South than the arrogant rapine that made so much resentment,
There were reasons for suspicion of serious fraud on war contracts so investigations and trials may have followed had he lived
And then the endemic corruption Grant's Administration was wrecked by and thus, exposed.

Yeah, very convenient assassination....




It does seem Siddermark is headed down such dark paths, but it can go to either extreme.
Germany could have been take over by the Communists but fortunately they didn't have funds and were hammered by the Polish war.
Thus, usually, a fascist take over backed by greedy well funded interests is most likely, as has occured so often in RL, but not always.
Chaos can result in unexpected things and sometimes out right disasters...Khmer Rouge etc.
Reaction against the "big money" backing Siddermark's new tin pot Protector could result in the Levellers gaining power.
Whatever happens, it is likely to turn out nasty due to the huge social and psychological woes the folk have went through, without healing or effective leadership in too long.
Left or Right religious or atheist, extremists of any form ALL suck

Left and right are immaterial. It's the concentration of wealth and political control that is the problem. Communists or Nazis are equally prone to abuse because both ideologies espouse concentrated wealth and power. I really see little difference if these are the ideological poles/extremes we work within.

A better measure is a scale ranging between totalitarianism and anarchy.

PeterZ wrote:Left and right are immaterial. It's the concentration of wealth and political control that is the problem. Communists or Nazis are equally prone to abuse because both ideologies espouse concentrated wealth and power. I really see little difference if these are the ideological poles/extremes we work within.

A better measure is a scale ranging between totalitarianism and anarchy.

interesting...
where do the 'robber barons' fit in this scale. I imagine more towards totaliarinism for the masses and total freedom for themselves

BTW up thread, you mentioned Lincoln was enamoured with Marx. I dont remember seeing that in the books on Lincoln that I have read, but I guess I could have missed that. I had had the feeling that L was intensively concnetrating on US politics

isaac_newton wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Left and right are immaterial. It's the concentration of wealth and political control that is the problem. Communists or Nazis are equally prone to abuse because both ideologies espouse concentrated wealth and power. I really see little difference if these are the ideological poles/extremes we work within.

A better measure is a scale ranging between totalitarianism and anarchy.

interesting...
where do the 'robber barons' fit in this scale. I imagine more towards totaliarinism for the masses and total freedom for themselves

BTW up thread, you mentioned Lincoln was enamoured with Marx. I dont remember seeing that in the books on Lincoln that I have read, but I guess I could have missed that. I had had the feeling that L was intensively concnetrating on US politics

Marx wrote Lincoln to congratulate him on winning a second term and Lincoln responded. They agreed on slavery and perhaps a good deal more. That is speculation with some validity.

I only mention a bipolar scale measuring the extent of government, but a second dimension would provide more clarity. Jerry Pournel suggested a scale of Reason v Religiosity. I prefer Walter Russell Meade's choice of prime beneficiaries of government. Granted, focused on US foreign policy, but the underlying principles of each ideal can be applied to domestic policy as well.

His dimensions would be: Jeffersonian vs Wilsonian and Jacksonian vs Hamiltonian. These are purely US labels. Think of them as Libertarian v Progressive and Common Man v Monied Class. Meade's poles aren't extremes as much as they are ideals containing several characteristics. I would substitute Anarchy v Totalitariansm and Distributed Wealth v Concentrated Wealth.

On this chart US Robber Barons were closer to Anarchy and Concentrated Wealth. They controlled a limited government but managed to use a few national objectives like the Transcontinental Railroad to enrich themselves. I would assert that as government approaches either extreme, wealth tends to concentrate. As wealth concentrates changing government becomes more difficult because higher concentrations of resources are controlled by those who are advantaged by the status quo. Too few resources are controlled by those advantaged by change to shift the entrenched status quo. The only remaining options are revolution in a totalitarian state or conquest of regions where anarchy reigns.

There's another parallel from our history, and that's the collapse of the Lesseps company in France that was digging the (first attempt at) a Panama canal.

PeterZ wrote:
[/b]It has many more similarities to the American Civil War. As I recall Lincoln was enamored with Marx and the United States of that day was definitely controlled by a relatively large number of oligarchs. Recall the Robber Barons of America built their wealth from building the railroad. Their rise can be argued to be the financial driver of the Civil War. Slavery was a wedge issues to gain the support of the more populated North whose workers were threatened by unpaid slaves. Northern magnates donated large sums to Abolitionist Movement.

Generally true. The main driving force behind US civil war was a clash between North industrial national-oriented magnates, and Southern cotton resource-oriented magnates.

The Northern elite wanted to protect the US marked from cheaper European goods and took it over by protectionist tariffs and wanted a powerful, centralized nation, capable of imposing such tariffs, supported with political and military power. Basically, they wanted to compete with European - specifically, British - industry, for the American and essentially the world market.

The Southern elite wanted to have absolute freedom of cotton export, and cheapest industrial goods possible. So they wanted a weak, decentralized government, which would be specifically forbidden from imposing any protectionist tariffs. Actually, they were quite similar to our Russian oil Oligarchs of 1990 - no interest to anything except of exporting the natural resources.

Up to Lincoln election, the pro-Southern democrats controlled the US government, and basically worked in the interest of Southern oligarchy at the cost of the North. In 1850s, North elites consolidated, and wrestled the control of the government. Since it would means the destruction of Southern economical elite (yes, slavery was ineffective; it could not bring profits of the same size if any new tariff system would be imposed), they - rather idiotically, IMHO, having only one major industrial node - decided to secede.

Dilandu wrote:Generally true. The main driving force behind US civil war was a clash between North industrial national-oriented magnates, and Southern cotton resource-oriented magnates.

The Northern elite wanted to protect the US marked from cheaper European goods and took it over by protectionist tariffs and wanted a powerful, centralized nation, capable of imposing such tariffs, supported with political and military power. Basically, they wanted to compete with European - specifically, British - industry, for the American and essentially the world market.

The Southern elite wanted to have absolute freedom of cotton export, and cheapest industrial goods possible. So they wanted a weak, decentralized government, which would be specifically forbidden from imposing any protectionist tariffs. Actually, they were quite similar to our Russian oil Oligarchs of 1990 - no interest to anything except of exporting the natural resources.

Up to Lincoln election, the pro-Southern democrats controlled the US government, and basically worked in the interest of Southern oligarchy at the cost of the North. In 1850s, North elites consolidated, and wrestled the control of the government. Since it would means the destruction of Southern economical elite (yes, slavery was ineffective; it could not bring profits of the same size if any new tariff system would be imposed), they - rather idiotically, IMHO, having only one major industrial node - decided to secede.

That summary parallels very nicely with our story. Western Siddermark's wealth is based on agriculture. Western oligarchs have just consolidated their control over Loyalist owned land. That means those old established farms in Western Siddermark which used to be owned by loyalist families were bought up by local magnates who had access to capital. That access was limited or there wouldn't have been the initial economic dislocations after the Jihad. That limited capital is likely based on loans against real estate colateral in the West. With so many loans being given by fly by night banks, the folks with real capital scooped up those mortgages. As prices for land fell, those who mortgaged their land to buy more land began to face what amounts to margin calls as their collateral fell in value relative to their loan amounts.

Slowly but surely, the monied carpetbaggers scooped up all the mortgaged land. Those that did not mortgage their land were driven out as described in the story of the loyalist family driven to ruin. The result was to create a parallel to the landed gentry of the ACW Southern States. There is no slavery per se, but have destroyed the small land owners the remaining landed magnates now control almost all the capital and economic flows in Western Siddermark. Wouldn't be surprised if indentured servitude doesn't rear it ugly head in the region. Heck, that same vile institution may well spring up out East too as capital consolidates into fewer and fewer hands and labor becomes a slave to overly concentrated capital.

Ayup. This really does set up an alternative ACW scenario in Siddermark. This time, methinks, the monied classes of East and West attempt to enslave the stubborn, independent frontiersmen of the South.

PeterZ wrote: Wouldn't be surprised if indentured servitude doesn't rear it ugly head in the region. Heck, that same vile institution may well spring up out East too as capital consolidates into fewer and fewer hands and labor becomes a slave to overly concentrated capital.

For what reason? Slavery is economically-based system. If it is not economically-effective, it disappear rather quickly. Siddarmark is experiencing industrialization, which is not compatible with slavery (because industry required experienced & willing workers to be effective).