Politics and War is created in English, but we offer a translation option to translate the game into your preferred language. Please note that the translation is automatic based on Google's neural translation and not perfect,
but our goal is to make the game as accessible as possible for all players.
Note: This popup will not appear again. If you wish to change your language in the future you will be able to find this language selection option in the website footer or on
the Account Page.
Cookies, Privacy, Terms and Conditions
We care about your privacy. To ensure that you get the best experience, this website uses cookies.
By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies and agree to the
Privacy Policy and
Terms and Conditions.
Welcome back everyone! I must say the amount of participation in the dialogue this week as gone up a level I never expected to occur for several more weeks, and it has me very excited for tonight! Knowing this is going to be a LOT longer than week one, let's get right into it!
"Do you support gay people?
that is my question" -New Smithsonia
The Marxist ideology advocates the abolition of all forms of persecution, and therefore the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community are intolerable by any means and ends. A person’s image of their body does not define them as any less human, and someone else’s image of such does not either.
The attacks on the LGBTQ+ community stems from the right, an effort to combat “woke” ideologies that it identifies as being socialist in nature and pertaining to the liberalists. It formulates stories such as those of the “groomers” trying to drag children into the community, ignorant of those who make decisions for themselves, and then telling them that they are not allowed to think of themselves in a certain way, and must abide by the societal code. They then turn this narrative into a panic, a sense of urgency created that the LGBTQ+ community poses a threat to the country and order by demonizing their lifestyle, and from that stems the vigilante attacks by fascists and racists, in the form of hate crimes and shootings.
From there the media is sure to cover these events, the liberals expressing empty regret whilst taking no decisive action to prevent further violence, and the right openly applauding the actions of these domestic terrorists.
Marxism abolishes all persecution, of any and all races, ethnicities, genders, faiths, and lifestyles, so long as they do not endanger the survival and livelihood of others. Anyone who argues otherwise is likely referring to the crimes of Stalinism, such as the Holodomor famine.
"Ok, major question here:
What are your thoughts on the third position/third positionism/third positionists? Remember that the third position isn't just fascism and n*zism, it's also distributism, national syndicalism/falangism, and many more completely different ideologies and economic systems. I have spoken to many people who support socialism and/or communism and they all have wildly different answers.
Also, thoughts on Augusto Pinochet and his form of Neoliberalism? Say what you want about him, his song goes hard." -Tibetan Warlord State
The Third Position, regardless of what other ideologies fall under it, is naturally reactionary and dictatorial. Beyond the basic knowledge of fascism, each of the branches involve bureaucratic tyranny: Falangist movements in Spain crushed the proletarian revolution in the civil war of 1936, which itself was being betrayed by the Third International.
Distributism’s origins are in the church aristocracy and focus on individualist ownership as opposed to the recognition of personal property and abolition of private property as defined by Marxist theories.
National syndicalism opposes the core Marxist principle of international revolution over the boundaries of nationality as opposed to the state system that evolved in the USSR. National revolution is in itself nationalistic, and thereby an enemy of the working class, as a creation of the bourgeoisie to funnel the proletariat away from global unification, and cement their control of the situation.
The Third Position all together is counterrevolutionary and opposed in every manner possible to the collective ownership of the means of production by the working class.
As for Pinochet, he was a dictator whether you like him or not, and his “neoliberalism” sought to dismantle the already flawed welfare state and restore the power of the bourgeoisie. He reprivatized the land and basic utilities, forced natives off their homes for construction and industry, and brutally crushed left-wing peasant organizations. As for his song, well... that's besides the point-MOVING ON!
"What are your (thoughts) on the global supply chain in relation to Marxism. I think prior examples throughout history have made it abundantly clear that if communism (or systems associated with it) we’re to succeed (which I still point out it has not succeeded) it would come from a strong global trade system. I know someone who lived in Soviet Berlin and told me that because the Soviets only traded with Cuba (and a few other countries) and Cubas shipments took forever a banana in Soviet Berlin was 80 times as expensive as a banana from Regular Berlin. Yes, 80 times. Do you think that this Global Trade Problem is a non-issue? If you believe it is an issue how does your country (address) it?" -Vulcanities/RoManic
Of course our fellow Aequitas legend and writer sent in his thoughts, much appreciated! We did have to correct some spelling errors, but those are minor discrepancies. To the point...
Global trade is an interesting topic, because in modern society, the vast majority only know how to view it from the capitalist perspective: multi-national corporations, global finance and banking, etc.
If given a Marxist touch, the global trade would not cease, rather, it would improve. Without the nation-states and their nationalistic tendencies imposed by the bourgeoisie, tariffs and embargoes would be lifted, supplies and goods could flow freely across the planet. The idea in mind is industries that can produce what the world needs at the highest possible quality and have it available to the whole world equally.
Separate companies for certain commodities, such as restaurants, would not cease to exist, they will instead be democratized, and their assets placed first and foremost towards the workers, and then quality. So yes, you can still get your Chick-Fil-A Spicy Chicken Sandwich in a Marxist society.
As for that relation to someone in Eastern Berlin, first and foremost I apologize for what they had to experience in that part of their life. The key factor to be understood is that this was under the bureaucracy of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc: these organizations had already deviated from the Bolsheviks significantly, and Lenin was little more than an image to promote Soviet Nationalism.
A banana should never cost 80 times more one place than somewhere else, that’s absurdity. But at the same time, do you wish to justify the food prices of the modern era compared to the minimum wage that the working class receives in relation to hyperinflation? I would scarcely think so.
The global trade problem is a matter of the corporate system, and how countries are dependent on them for their economies to survive. A good example of this is China: The reason Zero-Covid could not persist for the CCP was because large corporations threatened to leave the country and find labor elsewhere, so China had to push aside the protection of the people in the name of profit. Zero-Covid cannot work as a national policy, and not under a capitalist economic system constantly in need of profiteering.
As such, the idea of how we address it in our country cannot be understood in that context: only on an international level, led by the global working class, could such a new, democratized and socialized market ever be achieved.
"What is your opinion on Maoism. Do you believe Maoism's idea of revolution to establish dictatorship of proletariat, even in nations with strong democratic institutions is necessary?
As a person whose home state has suffered badly from Maoist insurgency, and was the state where it began, this will be a question I would like to ask." -Chittagong State
Maoism as an ideology was doomed from the start. It had zero practical foundation in Marxist teachings and was firmly set in the totalitarian regime of the party as adopted from the Stalinist principles of the USSR. As such, it faced an alternate, but similar fate as the Stalinist bureaucracy of the Soviet Union: The restoration of capitalism.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a touchy term, and in my opinion, is one of the worst misfortunes of Marxist terminology. Though Marx didn’t foresee the interpretation it would gain, his coinage of the idea was more of a dictatorship BY the proletariat: The idea that only the working class has the greatest political power, including over elected authority should it become obstructive of its ends.
Of course, following the reactionist tragedy of Stalinism, the term garnered a new meaning created and seized upon by the capitalists that looked on and screamed in the face of the world, and continues to do so today, “that is the dictatorship of the proletariat!” when it really had not a single relation to the vision it was based off of.
If you asked me, a better description would indeed be “democracy of the proletariat”, as that conveys the intended idea better in contemporary times of political authority by the masses.
"Thoughts on the repeated failures of all Marxist ideologies?" -Rocky Mountain Republic
You thought I wasn’t going to take this seriously? Well, you thought so very wrong: Marxism has never failed because it has never been implemented in a lasting state. The Paris Commune failed to evolve adequately in its short life, and the October Revolution was hijacked by counterrevolutionary forces at such a young age that it never could meet the Marxist vision, and every revolution of the “communist” name after was in the name of this intrusive caricature.
Marxism in practice, should it ever occur, would begin with a revolution that would, once stable, enter a means of democratic election. That brings up the first election of the RSFSR, in which Lenin overthrew the Social Democratic Party, an action often seen as a descent into tyranny.
The Social Democrats, however, are never actively analyzed, even when accused as being counterrevolutionary. From the Marxist viewpoint, they were opposed to the working class and their demands: They rejected the idea of pulling out of World War One, opposed distribution of private property to the masses, and even openly expressed the thought that Russia was not ready for proletariat revolution.
Could Lenin have gone about it better, certainly, but in that manner his actions would have resulted in more chaos and revolution, and by that point, the working class would risk exhaustion, and lose all momentum in the fight for their liberation from capital and liberalist deception.
In summary, no, Marxism has never failed, because it never got a chance to even start.
"QUESTION :
Do you like furries" -Weimar Germany
Even though this may start a war, I will not answer dishonestly.
This again goes back to the persecution topic: Rimskaya itself originally did remove furries from our land, but the policy was reversed after public outcry reached rebellious levels.
So, in short, we tolerate them, yes. Come at me bro.
"Grand Uniter Ilkin Inamara, First of His Name, Harbinger of Chaos and Justice, Hammer of The Great Lakes, The Magnanimous One, wants to know the Trotskyist's opinion on Stalin's support in the formation of Israel during the late 1940s. Specifically, the idea he was willing to support ethnic cleansing if the cleansers were socialist." -Uniland
I'm going to first of all ignore the crises between you and Aequitas. That's not our discussion here.
Aside from the defeat of the Germans, Trotskyists reject all policies and ideological basics of Stalinism. The formation of Israel was an infringement on the people inhabiting the region, and has resulted to this day in their persecution and non-stop warfare only stoked by the United States and the constant imperialist struggle between the powers since the Cold War.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, and anyone who commits to such has no right to call themselves socialist in any manner, for they are committing a social atrocity.
Before anyone steps in and pulls out some ridiculous accusations, the Marxist movement is not opposed to the Jewish people, nor to the Muslims: Marxism does not bias or concern itself on bias of such labels, only on economic standpoint; the class struggle, from which all these other struggles stem. Lenin himself stated that he was a friend of the Jew as he was to the Russian or any other: his only expressed enemies were capital, and capitalists, including those such as the Kulaks, regardless of their other standpoints.
"Question:
Is Social Democracy okay?" -Nordic Socialist Democracy
We previously discussed this in week one, so to recap: Social Democracy, or the welfare state, while an improvement from the hardcore capitalist state, is not enough for the working class, because so long as capitalism remains in any form rather than being overthrown, it will always win over reforms. Social Democracies must still bow down to the demands of the international capitalists and investors, or the state goes bankrupt as taxes can no longer account for all the money. And most of the cheaper living of those in Social Democratic states comes from the back of labor by companies based in Social Democracies exploiting the workers of poorer states. Social Spending in the Nordics in particular has also been slashed continuously as the right seeps its way into the state, and using the funds from cut welfare, are in turn are playing their part in the militarization of Europe for Total War against the Russian Federation.
Social Democracy is not enough and is as much a cog in the capitalist machine as any other. Admittedly my summary of such here is exceedingly brief, and I encourage those interested to conduct research of their own from Marxist sources and others.
"Does money buy you happiness?" -Devlin Republic of RoDevs
Money does not buy happiness. Capital does not but happiness.
Money is a form of exchange, which in time has become so disvalued that it can increasingly buy less and less of anything.
So, what can buy happiness? The human soul, cooperation with others, social connections, and success.
The difference there is that happiness is not idly won, it is worked for and achieved, and therefore produces satisfaction, that only increases when done collectively.
Humans work best in groups, as we have for our entire existence as a species. On that note, to anyone that says human nature gets in the way of Marxist society, that argument is, as far as science and historical accuracy is concerned, complete and utter idiocracy.
But I suppose that’s a story for another time.
WOW... that was a lot to get through! Good thing there's a lot to talk about in this field, otherwise I'd be worried about running out of topics! Thank you to all who participated, and a reminder to send for others to ask their own questions, send their own claims and theories!
And with that...
UNTIL NEXT TIME, THIS IS AUGUSTUS DEMOCRATICUS, REMINDING YOU THAT RIMSKAYA IS STILL SURVIVING WITHOUT NUKES. GOOD NIGHT ORBIS!
Here’s the issue with the final paragraph of your response to me. When your country is led by the millions directly instead of the few a few things are going to happen. 1. People through human nature are inevitably going to want to profit themselves so this system would break back into capitalism, the natural order of things, very quickly. 2. In a system led by the “working class” where and how are the limits set. If the working class runs the show the working class wants to get more of this and more of that to better provide for themselves. They would almost immediately lose revolution fever because they’ve lost all incentive. As soon as they get what they need for themselves they don’t need the system to improve to much anymore. The lasting criticism of this system is that Marxists fail to understand basic human nature. Humans don’t believe, most of the time, in micro economics for the good of all. Yes, you hear about sweeping macro economical changes but those affect everyone and are widely publicized. Micro- economics where most day to day transactions happen is not driven by those same factors. It’s driven by human need. I doubt everyone in your system so fervently believes in your system that even when there behind closed doors they are actively practicing it. This is a large reason as to why systems like these have never worked. I know a system that has prevailed though, it’s called capitalism and while not the greatest thing since sliced bread (which you can thank capitalism for) it’s surely a system that will last. At least we can say that much for capitalism.
Sorry For the long comment but hopefully you understand the point I’m trying to express. Thanks!
P.S: great news letter sort of reminds me of early editions of the OOW keep it up!
Not to rain on your party RoManic, but human nature is actually a garbage argument for, anything really. It's a mystic psychic that we don't fully understand, and is fully capable of generous and wholesome activities: but when it comes to improvement of society, suddenly we become barbaric and greedy a-holes? Humans were not made by nature seeking profit, we were made seeking cooperation as tribal communities. The idea of profit wasn't a factor of our society until the global market was created as a product of the Industrial Revolution.
Humans, like most animals, were made social creatures, not meant to exploit each other. That trait evolved with economic development as intelligent beings, and isn't intended to continue. If anything, capitalism is more opposed to this "human nature" than Marxism.
Marx also predicted the claim that universal laziness would overtake under his societal layout: it's practically in the Communist Manifesto itself. But in that mindset, capitalism ought to have been trashed from the start: those who toil get hardly anything, and those who sit idly gain all the wealth. There is no positive incentive under capitalism. Marxism holds the incentive of progressivism, of the imagination, of the desire to march forward as one, whereas under capitalism, the vast majority have no motivation because they see no future beyond their subsistence lives: they only work because without it, they would only be worse off.
The incentive to labor under capitalism is not to go up, but to stop from sliding further down.
The incentive to labor under Marxism is not to risk falling, but the desire to go up further, not just individually, but socially.
As for the argument that capitalism has prevailed, you're ignoring history as a whole: when capitalism first came around, it had critics in the form of aristocracy based in the feudalist system that had so far lasted centuries. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, something will inevitably have to replace capitalism. Capitalism naturally destroys itself: it grinds resources at rates that cannot be sustained, produces economic collapses and drops people into poverty on a regular schedule (notice how we get recessions every decade or so?), and places profit over everything else, including human life.
Capitalism had its respective place in history to improve the lives of people from feudalism. But that place in history is over.
You bring up good points but there are two things i feel need to be addressed:
We aren’t in the industrial revolution anymore. We must remember that Marxism was created in the Industrial Revolution for the Industrial Revolution. Just as capitalism has evolved so to does your idea of Marxism have to. Capitalism understands that their are issues in its system. Find me one person in America who doesn’t think the system is rigged. You can’t. However, we evolved from our times in the Industrial Revolution. We don’t work people to the bone. People don’t always make 5 cents a day in some sweat shop (Looking at you China) in America. That doesn’t happen anymore. It’s in large part because the system has evolved and I have high hopes that it will continue to do so. It’s in large part because of light socialist “band aids” as economists call them. There is a yin and Yang balance to the two systems. However, Marxists seem to love the idea of not working within the system to accomplish good, like the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When they accomplished necessary reforms by working with capitalists instead of against good things happened. We got child labor laws and a solid work week. Now it’s a little different than saying “Let’s lead a revolution (that no one has incentive to join) to help out poor old doomed America from itself even though we refuse to do anything to save it.” Now excuse me if that’s a gross exaggeration but this is just from what I’ve experienced. Marxism in its full has no place anywhere. Capitalism in its full has no place anywhere. However a capitalist system with minor socialist band-aids is a proven way to achieve greatness. Instead of keeping Marxism in the steel age evolve it to fit the current infrastructure already in place. That doesn’t mean override the system it means work with it. Don’t swim against the tide is the words I’ll leave this section with.
Your evaluation of society under Marxism is flawed, I believe. You say that under capitalism (though I believe this view is outdated and relates to what I said in the section above) people who toil get poor while the those who don’t get rich. In large part this speaks to a broader misunderstanding by the American people as to what Capitalism is and what it should be. Capitalism is an evolving system that will favor the rich over the poor for society’s benefit. To explain this would take me a while so I’ll wait on it. Capitalism should be an evolving system that seeks to grow the opportunity’s of everyone. It goes back to me motto “Work, Opportunity, Freedom!” Through work you will gain opportunity and through opportunity comes greater freedom. Capitalist should work towards this goal though I understand it doesn’t happen always. Like I said we’re evolving. Let’s look at Marxism though. There are no ”appropriate“ examples to examine Marxism buy so I won’t use one rather I will go off what the system you’re describing says. Marxism isn’t a system that wants you to rise. Marxism is a system that wants everyone to stagnate out of a toddlers misguided sense of fairness (I’m sorry for the strong language but I believe it’s apt). If Marxism ever were to work effectively you would see another mindless class of workers who get a say in their country but because they are a mindless class of workers don’t really use it to their advantage. Workers don’t have time to consider the vast economic effects of something like global trade. No they consider what meal they need next. They don’t have time for something like that. I don’t blame them. Plus most workers aren’t educated and don’t need education. It seems like Marxism agrees with this because what institution penalizes idiocy and drives unfairness more than School, the eternal enemy. Marxism doesn’t want an educated working class running the country, no it would seem they want an uneducated mass. But why? Well look at Russia. I know you don’t like comparisons to it but here it is. They started with good intentions by lo and behold as soon as workers got a say it was taken away because they were easily controlled by educated power hungry officials. When in reality to make something like Marxism work you need everyone to be highly intelligient. But to make someone highly intelligent you have to go to school. This series of thinking is circular and leads us back to square one.
I hope you don’t view any of these comments as insults please let me know if I have to dial things down. Thanks!
Replies
Empire of RoDevs*
Changed name, but it's fine with me to refer to me as the Devlin Republic of RoDevs.
:) thanks for responding Ally
I recognize you as an Lettuce Garlic Bacon Taco with Queso ++sized ally now
I ask a simple question:
What is your opinion on Nukeyism as an political, economic and militaristic ideology?
Here’s the issue with the final paragraph of your response to me. When your country is led by the millions directly instead of the few a few things are going to happen. 1. People through human nature are inevitably going to want to profit themselves so this system would break back into capitalism, the natural order of things, very quickly. 2. In a system led by the “working class” where and how are the limits set. If the working class runs the show the working class wants to get more of this and more of that to better provide for themselves. They would almost immediately lose revolution fever because they’ve lost all incentive. As soon as they get what they need for themselves they don’t need the system to improve to much anymore. The lasting criticism of this system is that Marxists fail to understand basic human nature. Humans don’t believe, most of the time, in micro economics for the good of all. Yes, you hear about sweeping macro economical changes but those affect everyone and are widely publicized. Micro- economics where most day to day transactions happen is not driven by those same factors. It’s driven by human need. I doubt everyone in your system so fervently believes in your system that even when there behind closed doors they are actively practicing it. This is a large reason as to why systems like these have never worked. I know a system that has prevailed though, it’s called capitalism and while not the greatest thing since sliced bread (which you can thank capitalism for) it’s surely a system that will last. At least we can say that much for capitalism.
Sorry For the long comment but hopefully you understand the point I’m trying to express. Thanks!
P.S: great news letter sort of reminds me of early editions of the OOW keep it up!
Not to rain on your party RoManic, but human nature is actually a garbage argument for, anything really. It's a mystic psychic that we don't fully understand, and is fully capable of generous and wholesome activities: but when it comes to improvement of society, suddenly we become barbaric and greedy a-holes? Humans were not made by nature seeking profit, we were made seeking cooperation as tribal communities. The idea of profit wasn't a factor of our society until the global market was created as a product of the Industrial Revolution.
Humans, like most animals, were made social creatures, not meant to exploit each other. That trait evolved with economic development as intelligent beings, and isn't intended to continue. If anything, capitalism is more opposed to this "human nature" than Marxism.
Marx also predicted the claim that universal laziness would overtake under his societal layout: it's practically in the Communist Manifesto itself. But in that mindset, capitalism ought to have been trashed from the start: those who toil get hardly anything, and those who sit idly gain all the wealth. There is no positive incentive under capitalism. Marxism holds the incentive of progressivism, of the imagination, of the desire to march forward as one, whereas under capitalism, the vast majority have no motivation because they see no future beyond their subsistence lives: they only work because without it, they would only be worse off.
The incentive to labor under capitalism is not to go up, but to stop from sliding further down.
The incentive to labor under Marxism is not to risk falling, but the desire to go up further, not just individually, but socially.
As for the argument that capitalism has prevailed, you're ignoring history as a whole: when capitalism first came around, it had critics in the form of aristocracy based in the feudalist system that had so far lasted centuries. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, something will inevitably have to replace capitalism. Capitalism naturally destroys itself: it grinds resources at rates that cannot be sustained, produces economic collapses and drops people into poverty on a regular schedule (notice how we get recessions every decade or so?), and places profit over everything else, including human life.
Capitalism had its respective place in history to improve the lives of people from feudalism. But that place in history is over.
You bring up good points but there are two things i feel need to be addressed:
I hope you don’t view any of these comments as insults please let me know if I have to dial things down. Thanks!
Communism 🚩🚩🚩
@Vladmir Petrov IV Aren't you a socialist (just guessing off your countries name)?
Yeah but the USSR is a socialist republic so kinda based it off that I guess