Flag Thread IV

Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by SaveAtlacamani, Apr 1, 2014.

  1. Belarus-Chan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    Location:
    Canada
    Backstory
    Amidst the successful reform program in the USSR, the flag debate proved a major subject. To placate nationalist tendencies the Politburo agreed to create new flags yet again for the republics. It was agreed that they would incorporate national symbols while continuing to assert their status as Soviet entities. To avoid the project backfiring, a test run was launched in the Central Asian republics, which were considered the most stable and relatively loyal compared to other regions, some of which (Lithuania, Azerbaijan) were experiencing active insurgencies. Premiers of four republics, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan were ordered to open flag redesign committees.

    Turkmen SSR: Two blue stripes replaced with colours of Khanate of Khiva till 1917
    Tajik SSR: Expanded size of colours to fit new symbolism designed by same designers of OTL independent Tajikistan
    Kyrgyz SSR: Symbol of sun containing a yurt from OTL flag designers, placed between the blue-white stripes of previous flag
    Uzbek SSR: Mostly identical to previous flag, now containing 12 stars representing the months of the year, and more subtlety the islamic calender (allowed due to loosening of Soviet religious suppression).
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Dorozhand Queer Hedonistic Communist Kicked

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    North Windsor, Michigan, Canada
    While the flag is really cool, I don't see how socialist France could continue to exploit colonies. Colonialist exploitation is capitalism, the product of the once powerless bourgeoisie gaining demographic leverage over the small but powerful landed aristocracy through urbanization and the dismantling of feudal systems. Socialism is the dismantling of capitalist exploitation; the product of the large and once powerless proletariat gaining leverage over the small but powerful bourgeoisie through strike action. In each case, a class has taken advantage of weaknesses in an ossified system to advance its own interests. The interests of the bourgeoisie are continuous and increasing acquisition at everyone else's expense; the interests of the proletariat are those of everyone else in the world who has been excluded from the collective prosperity produced by our own alienated labor. This fundamental aspect defines socialist revolution.
     
    Vendaval likes this.
  3. AlvinTheCreator I have absolutely no idea what's going on.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Location:
    I don't know... Tuvalu?
    I'll give you that. But then again, wasn't the Soviet Union a massive tyrannical dictatorship were a select few exploited the mass majority to keep their own wealth and power? Just as portrayed by Orwellian literature, communism leads to a form of "disguised" capitalism, hidden by nationalism, propaganda and whatever the regime makes you believe. Since France is low on cash, and they happen to sit over a gold mine, they won't oppress natives (who they considered inferior) simply because it goes against the state ideology. In many cases, communist rulers don't truly believe in the cause, they just seek power and wealth.
     
  4. Dorozhand Queer Hedonistic Communist Kicked

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    North Windsor, Michigan, Canada
    • Kick
    Nope. The USSR underwent the greatest revolution in human quality of life that any society in the 20th century saw. Socialist production did not take the form of an imperial system of exploitation, but a vehicle of cooperative labor and distribution that benefited the periphery as much as the center. Yes, cultural phenomena occurred which were at times regrettable, but no aspect of this from the prison system to the cult of personality or the occasional abuse of the psychiatric system was either unique to the USSR or in any way attributable to the socialist revolution of production. If anything, most of the failures of policy attributable to the Stalin era specifically can be understood as an uncritical attitude towards advances in western academic thinking which at the time were more often than not deeply incorrect. It should have been socialist theorists like Kollontai or Zemlyachka that guided the party's course in these fronts, especially during these dangerous post-Tsarist times, as uneliminated patriarchal structures contributed a great deal to keeping the social revolutions of the USSR from what they could have been.

    It's also rather cynical to assume that only slavery in colonies could benefit French industry. The best thing for France by far in relation to its colonies would have been to immediately establish self-rule and act in the defense of any of the free colonies that are then inevitably attacked by other European powers. The cooperation that could then occur would be of much greater benefit to all, as was the goal of socialist revolution in the first place; that the people of the world could have access to the collective prosperity of our own labor. The goal of a productive institution in a socialist economy is not the maximization of profits but the maximization of production as a vehicle for social work according to educated plans; to be a guarantor of the economic rights of the people.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  5. AlvinTheCreator I have absolutely no idea what's going on.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Location:
    I don't know... Tuvalu?
    I'm sure the tens of millions of people who died under the regime of Stalin beg to differ, not counting the 6.5 million people who died only between 1932-1933 due to famine, caused primarily due to Soviet collectivization programs and other forms of agricultural policies which decimated the population and economic productivity of the country. Whatever the case, communism will inevitably lead to any form of despotic rule veiled under the premise of "people's power" (Animal Farm is a primary example of this). In this scenario, we can expect a post-revolutionary France with no money, needing a way to extract money quickly. Colonial exploitation was a pretty good way of doing that, as inhumane as it was.
     
  6. Dorozhand Queer Hedonistic Communist Kicked

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    North Windsor, Michigan, Canada
    Bringing up Animal Farm is pretty cliche and you know Orwell was a socialist right?
    Speaking of cliche, the Black Book of Communism is notorious. Pretty much all of its numbers were pulled from whole cloth.
     
  7. Belarus-Chan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    Location:
    Canada
    Cliche but is backed by history, nearly all communist states started or ended up as authoritarian regimes.
     
  8. Ivoshafen Just A Man From Gondor - Recovering from SATS

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Location:
    Indiǣna
    So, few things here.
    The USSR was a fucking black spot on human history, and I could care less what anyone says, this is coming from a leftist. The USSR destroyed the vision of Marx and stained his ideology with the blood of millions, something that will never wash clean, from the human rights violations starting as early as Lenin. The very nation that sought to Marx's dreams choked them out in the crib.

    Even away from the fact that it was self destructive to it's own asserted ideology, regardless of political creed, the USSR was a totalitarian hellscape through most, if not all, of it's history. There's a reason that Stalin is argued for being worse than Hitler, I'm not trying to bring up that debate, but if your leader was awful enough to draw that comparison, something is deeply wrong. There were people that had hope, that believed in the good that the USSR could have achieved, but they were either drowned out by the rest of the mainstream party or shot to death in a shittily lit alleyway.

    Defending the USSR, in any respect, is heinous, horrific, an insult to yourself and the left in General. Orwell was a socialist, thus that is the entire reason he wrote Animal Farm. The Left, the actual humanitarian left, the one Marx dreamed of, the one that any and all true members of the progressive age are a part of, will dismay the USSR with any and all faculties available to them.

    The USSR was a mistake. Lenin purged his own ideology. It was a regime built from the ground up on the suppression of liberty, democracy, and freedom. Socialism and communism cannot exist without those factors that the Union went out of its way to destroy.

    "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."

    Sources: Basic common knowledge. The End of Tsarist Russia: The March to World War I and Revolution by Dominic Lieven. Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991: A History by Orlando Figes. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Europe: A History by Norman Davies. A life of studying the USSR, communism, socialism, and their effects on history and how they fit into our modern view of the concept of revolutionary socialism.
     
    Skinny87, redrobin65, SsgtC and 9 others like this.
  9. Miner Tu sais que j'ai dû le leur faire

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Location:
    New Jersey
    And I can't disagree with your opposition to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc., but communism isn't all gulags and starvation. Anarchists and other libertarian-minded types have opposed both capitalism and authoritarian regimes masquerading as "communism" - whose leaders usually didn't have any intention of abolishing the state unlike libcoms - since the days of Lenin.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  10. Dorozhand Queer Hedonistic Communist Kicked

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2011
    Location:
    North Windsor, Michigan, Canada
    The great economist Professor Leonid Abalkin has particularly interesting things to say.
    From the educational documentary on cooperative economics, USSR: A Society Without Crises

     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2019
  11. Ivoshafen Just A Man From Gondor - Recovering from SATS

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Location:
    Indiǣna
    Nice literal Soviet era propaganda, bud.
    I'm done with this conversation.
     
  12. AlvinTheCreator I have absolutely no idea what's going on.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Location:
    I don't know... Tuvalu?
    I really didn't want to start a communist debate here, just uploading flags for fun:oops:
    In any case, the reason Animal Farm is always brought up is because it's true. Facts are facts: Cuba, for example, has had only two presidents since 1959; North Korea three since 1948, and in all cases it was because the leader died in office, not because a democratic process removed them. I rest my case, and I'll just carry on posting flags :p
     
  13. DownrangeDowner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    “New Union” scenarios are so underrated. I love these, any more?
     
    Dorozhand, Daniwani and Belarus-Chan like this.
  14. AlvinTheCreator I have absolutely no idea what's going on.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2018
    Location:
    I don't know... Tuvalu?
    royal-brazil.png
    Kingdom of Brazil
    Alternate 1831. Following the abdication of Pedro I, Emperor of Brazil, his five-year-old son Pedro II was proclaimed as the new monarch. As the young emperor occupied the throne, a weak and very unstable regency commanded the country until Pedro II was declared of age. Different factions vied for power, and all across Brazil a great struggle ensued. The Brazilian Civil War was a complex web of warlords, private armies, political parties and even members of the imperial court battling it out for control of Brazil. The violent war forced Pedro II out to Argentina, where he would reign as a landless emperor. By 1838, the regency collapsed and Rio de Janeiro fell to Joao do Santos: a commander within the imperial army, who espoused radical leftist views after seeing the oppression of black slaves across Brazil. He proclaimed a republic, the Republic of Brazil, stripping Pedro II of his titles and arresting any political opponents. The dwindling royalist faction retreated south to Santa Catarina, were they regrouped.

    But not everything was lost. Once Pedro II became of age in 1841, he quickly rode to Santa Catarina, met with royalist forces, and set out to regain control of Brazil. Luckily for Pedro II, do Santos and his administration were collapsing: inexperience and a lack of support from the elite, who still controlled most means of production, led to his resignation shortly after Pedro II's return. The emperor returned to Rio de Janeiro and reestablished the monarchy in 1842. However, this was short-lived as well: in an attempt to restore stability and calm his enemies, Pedro II abolished the Empire and instead proclaimed a Kingdom, where the King's powers were limited by a democratically-elected assembly. The Peace of Paraná of 1843 brought an end to the period of civil war and formalized the Kingdom of Brazil. But not everything was so rosy...
     
    DubstepGamer758, Filo, Lyly and 9 others like this.
  15. Belarus-Chan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes, I'm redesigning the other ones too. I've gone through several different concepts but I think keeping them similar to the originals is the best. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia will be next.
     
  16. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    A Free Soil American secessionist state:
    fso (1).png
    The red stripes are the "bloody pillars that uphold Freedom".
    The gold star on blue represents unity of all peoples - originally planned to be a white star and representing the states as one people until it was realised it might come across a tad too racist for Freesoilers.
     
  17. Zachary VIII Russian bot

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2017
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I like it. All the symbolism makes sense. Why those particular colors for the star? Something like blue representing the nation and how it encompasses all its people (gold)?
     
    The Professor likes this.
  18. The Professor Pontifex Collegii Vexillographiariorum

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Collegium Vexillarum
    It was originally going to be a white star on blue - a single star for a single union - compared to the previous American flag of multiple stars on blue.
    But a white star on a blue star seemed to be able to symbolise racial supremacy so gold instead.
     
    FiendslayerPrime1976 likes this.
  19. Trackah the Uchronaut

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Location:
    République du Madawaska
    While it make sence in 2019 to not use the white star, I don't think it would have been a problem at the time.
     
  20. timmy_khagann Nomad of the Red Plains

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2015
    [​IMG]

    Redesign of Virginia's flag, from my ongoing project. Lower third of the flag is half of George Washington's CoA for that "Birthplace of Statesmen" thing. The thin white line is for aesthetic (never cross tincture with tincture, or metal with metal), and all four "bars" put together represent the four major river systems of the state. The charges defacing the blue field is a graphical representation of the state's motto "Sic semper tyrannis", with Virtus's spear "breaking" a link of thirteen chains -- one for each of the thirteen founding states -- and holding a dangling crown.

    I was primarily inspired by the flag of Richmond, VA, and from some designs I found off Google Images that made use of either a spear and crown or a spear and chain link.