Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

[Whiteshore]

(plz give korea a focus tree in the china rework kthxbai)

Hopefully, such a focus tree would include Syngman Rhee imposing Ilminism as the NatPop path.

 

[Worffan101]

If you don’t mind me asking, where does Huey’s America land on this scale?

Somewhere between Restore Constitution--Extend Suffrage Nat France, and Supreme Leader Mac Dadddy. Closer to Mac Daddy.

maybe comparable to Nappy NatFrance? Huey turns America into an authoritarian regime, kinda like Putin's Russia, but at least he isn't a racist lunatic or a soulless corporate drone and genuinely wants to make people's lives better, in his own way.

The great thing about updated Huey is that he's so morally complicated. He genuinely wants to help people but he's brought low by his own hubris, arrogance, and desire for power. He doesn't start out wanting to be Supreme Leader, but his lack of faith in other people and foibles turn him into a dictator.

 

[Godwin]

Don't see them at all, even in quotes, unless I bother to notice the "view ignored content" button in its inconspicuous location at the bottom of the page. Which is nice, though it led to confusion once or twice.

Alright. Fair enough. In all honestly, considering how often we butt heads I'm a little surprised you haven't put me on ignore.

 

[Worffan101]

Alright. Fair enough. In all honestly, considering how often we butt heads I'm a little surprised you haven't put me on ignore.

Quite frankly, though we're on opposite sides of politics and I feel you have a fundamental misunderstanding of left-wing ideologies other than neoliberalism (which...barely qualifies as left of center) and Stalinism, you seem quite reasonable and have only one face. I've got no reason to and it would be intellectually limiting to ignore you.

 

[Godwin]

Quite frankly, though we're on opposite sides of politics and I feel you have a fundamental misunderstanding of left-wing ideologies other than neoliberalism (which...barely qualifies as left of center) and Stalinism, you seem quite reasonable and have only one face. I've got no reason to and it would be intellectually limiting to ignore you.

Which is kind of funny, because I feel you misunderstand a lot of more right-wing and conservative (not the same thing) ideologies. Not Nazism or fascism though. We're on the same page there. But I more or less feel the same way about you. I admit I've gotten frustrated at times, but I genuinely do enjoy having these discussions with you. I think it is a good thing to have your beliefs and understanding of both the world and history challenged, and then to have to defend them.

 

[Godwin]

I just came across an interesting post on Reddit and am curious you all think about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/a8m9vt/the_case_for_removing_jack_reed/

 

[Worffan101]

Which is kind of funny, because I feel you misunderstand a lot of more right-wing and conservative (not the same thing) ideologies. Not Nazism or fascism though. We're on the same page there. But I more or less feel the same way about you. I admit I've gotten frustrated at times, but I genuinely do enjoy having these discussions with you. I think it is a good thing to have your beliefs and understanding of both the world and history challenged, and then to have to defend them.

I mean, from my POV, they kind of are all basically the same. Conservatives want to preserve the established order, put the nation (as represented by the people that make up its dominant sociopolitical group) first, and put every possible resource at the disposal of those of the nation would make use of them. That's a pretty far cry from fascists (who engage in a level of state- and race-worship that any sane person should be freaked out by), but it's still something that I frequently call into question, and while I recognize that there are major differences between, say, Barry Goldwater and Jerry Falwell, on numerous lines including but not limited to ideological underpinnings, methodology used to approach politics, and values they held most dear, they still hold to those core principles that I as a matter of course when discussing political matters call into question.

I mean, from my POV, the established order is deeply flawed and needs change. Putting my nation first has led to some of the most disastrous foreign-policy mistakes in history just within my lifetime (won't go into specifics because THAT is a Chat topic but you can probably guess which ones from my states political positions). Putting every possible resource at the disposal of those who would make use of them could result in long-term damage to our planet that far outweighs the short-term economic benefits. And as long as the established order remains flawed and in need of change, the idea that the established order should be defended--which is kind of the essential underpinning of conservatism as a coherent political descriptor--will remain, to those like me, an inarguable sticking point that fundamentally puts all right-leaning political figures in the same boat.

That said, if my choices are a staunch figure of the established order and a cowardly ex-track runner with "bone spurs" in a shitty wig who shouldn't be in charge of a playground, let alone a country, I'll stick with the established order, thanks.

 

[Worffan101]

I just came across an interesting post on Reddit and am curious you all think about it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/a8m9vt/the_case_for_removing_jack_reed/

I think it's interesting, but two concerns:

• In keeping with the point above, it allows a second path to avoiding the civil war. Assassinating Haywood and implementing share our wealth. The SPA has an internal power struggle between Syndicalist IWW, Radsocs AFL, Totalist CPUSA and is weakened enough to satisfy Long and not strong enough to fight 2 ACW.
• Haywood's position is more syndicalist than Reed, who leans closer to the totalist side based on his OTL writings. The successful French revolution would lend Haywood more legitimacy.

1. Huey should not be able to avoid the civil war like that, and neither should Olson. The whole point of Huey is that he's a flawed man who's doomed by his own arrogance, making the Reds into the exact same thing as Huey but instead of fascists they have stalinists takes a lot of Huey's uniqueness and moral complexity away. Means a less interesting conflict, IMO.
2. One of the things I like best about KR is how Reed's experiences in the failed Bolshevik revolution shape him. He comes back having seen the Revolution collapse into internecine strife and alienate half the Red political activists along with the peasants and half the military, he comes back having seen Russia fall due to authoritarian leanings among the Bolsheviks, and he says "well, we still need the Revolution but we need democracy, damn it". So he goes and joins the IWW and runs for President. Because he's going to save his country, and he's going to do it the right way, damn it.
   1. Which brings us to the ultimate tragedy; if Reed wins, his country is on the ropes. It's been in Great Depression conditions for a decade with no end in sight. People have been starving to death by the tens of thousands at least, the Great Plains have a suicide rate higher than the birth rate, family abandonment is so high that there are more abandoned kids than kids with families. The American people are about to revolt and live in collapsing shantytowns. The federal government has lost nearly all support due to the wealthy, who've been riding the collapse out OK, essentially rigging the election in the eyes of the common people.
   2. Seeing his nation on the brink, Reed acts on pure impulse. He abuses the executive order power in a desperate bid to take from those fat-cat bastards the money that his country, his people, urgently need. He sees the rich, and that smooth-talking snake down South, trying to stop him from saving his country, and fully breaks the rules, trying to pack the court in a clear violation of his role.
   3. And his nation collapses. MacArthur, betraying the country, takes the Capital before Congress can impeach Reed, and the Socialist leader flees to Chicago, heartbroken by the realization that he just pulled a Lenin and probably doomed his cause. He leads the nation through the war, despite poor health and his own regrets, and somehow, the Reds win. They beat a professional army and the foreign-backed strongman of the South. The Pacific states call a truce and begin talks for reintegration to the union. Reed goes out on a balcony to declare a new America and call for a constitutional convention to restore law and order, and they're cheering his name.
   4. At this point, what else can the man do but resign? in his mind, he's the villain. He fucked up, he broke the rules and kept on breaking them, and broke the USA in the process. Yeah, MacArthur's the one who killed it forever, but Jack Reed had a chance to save the nation he knew and he failed. So he lets the delegates from the provisional state governments and union groups write the new American supreme law, and he leaves. Goes home to work 9 to 5 rebuilding the country and occasionally writing a letter to some friends. Because Jack Reed failed his country when it needed him most.

Really, I just love the parallels between Reed and Huey and how despite being similar in their basic motivations for running, they're brought low by different flaws. Huey by his hubris and Reed by desperation.

Mac Daddy can go fuck himself, he's just a questionably competent martinet with a God complex.

 

[SomeFollowTheStars]

snip

I love your interpretation. You should comment that on the subreddit thread.

 

[Godwin]

I mean, from my POV, they kind of are all basically the same. Conservatives want to preserve the established order, put the nation (as represented by the people that make up its dominant sociopolitical group) first, and put every possible resource at the disposal of those of the nation would make use of them. That's a pretty far cry from fascists (who engage in a level of state- and race-worship that any sane person should be freaked out by), but it's still something that I frequently call into question, and while I recognize that there are major differences between, say, Barry Goldwater and Jerry Falwell, on numerous lines including but not limited to ideological underpinnings, methodology used to approach politics, and values they held most dear, they still hold to those core principles that I as a matter of course when discussing political matters call into question.

I mean, from my POV, the established order is deeply flawed and needs change. Putting my nation first has led to some of the most disastrous foreign-policy mistakes in history just within my lifetime (won't go into specifics because THAT is a Chat topic but you can probably guess which ones from my states political positions). Putting every possible resource at the disposal of those who would make use of them could result in long-term damage to our planet that far outweighs the short-term economic benefits. And as long as the established order remains flawed and in need of change, the idea that the established order should be defended--which is kind of the essential underpinning of conservatism as a coherent political descriptor--will remain, to those like me, an inarguable sticking point that fundamentally puts all right-leaning political figures in the same boat.

That said, if my choices are a staunch figure of the established order and a cowardly ex-track runner with "bone spurs" in a shitty wig who shouldn't be in charge of a playground, let alone a country, I'll stick with the established order, thanks.

While I think you do strike a chord about conservatism (which could really be any ideology), from my perspective there's more to a lot of right wing ideologies. You are right that the current order is flawed. But the current order is always flawed. There is no nation-state or society in history that has been perfect ever. I think that there are really only two things that are true for all right wing ideologies.
1. The nation's history and culture is important and should be preserved. Interpretations of this point can vary from the benign to the genocidal, but it's consistently a part of it.
2. Society is built around the individual unit, not the entirety of the community. There's a spectrum here also, as well as whether or not the State guarantees the rights of individuals, but it is an important part of right-wing ideology.
In all honesty I don't really believe fascism to be a right or left-wing ideology. It incorporates elements of both sides, while still managing to be entirely reprehensible with it's "third way economics".

I think the current order needs to change as well, but I imagine quite differently from what you think. However I believe that no matter what happens, society and the country will always be flawed. There is no such thing as utopia, and most of the time attempts to bring about utopia end in dystopia.

I think it's interesting, but two concerns:

1. Huey should not be able to avoid the civil war like that, and neither should Olson. The whole point of Huey is that he's a flawed man who's doomed by his own arrogance, making the Reds into the exact same thing as Huey but instead of fascists they have stalinists takes a lot of Huey's uniqueness and moral complexity away. Means a less interesting conflict, IMO.
2. One of the things I like best about KR is how Reed's experiences in the failed Bolshevik revolution shape him. He comes back having seen the Revolution collapse into internecine strife and alienate half the Red political activists along with the peasants and half the military, he comes back having seen Russia fall due to authoritarian leanings among the Bolsheviks, and he says "well, we still need the Revolution but we need democracy, damn it". So he goes and joins the IWW and runs for President. Because he's going to save his country, and he's going to do it the right way, damn it.
   1. Which brings us to the ultimate tragedy; if Reed wins, his country is on the ropes. It's been in Great Depression conditions for a decade with no end in sight. People have been starving to death by the tens of thousands at least, the Great Plains have a suicide rate higher than the birth rate, family abandonment is so high that there are more abandoned kids than kids with families. The American people are about to revolt and live in collapsing shantytowns. The federal government has lost nearly all support due to the wealthy, who've been riding the collapse out OK, essentially rigging the election in the eyes of the common people.
   2. Seeing his nation on the brink, Reed acts on pure impulse. He abuses the executive order power in a desperate bid to take from those fat-cat bastards the money that his country, his people, urgently need. He sees the rich, and that smooth-talking snake down South, trying to stop him from saving his country, and fully breaks the rules, trying to pack the court in a clear violation of his role.
   3. And his nation collapses. MacArthur, betraying the country, takes the Capital before Congress can impeach Reed, and the Socialist leader flees to Chicago, heartbroken by the realization that he just pulled a Lenin and probably doomed his cause. He leads the nation through the war, despite poor health and his own regrets, and somehow, the Reds win. They beat a professional army and the foreign-backed strongman of the South. The Pacific states call a truce and begin talks for reintegration to the union. Reed goes out on a balcony to declare a new America and call for a constitutional convention to restore law and order, and they're cheering his name.
   4. At this point, what else can the man do but resign? in his mind, he's the villain. He fucked up, he broke the rules and kept on breaking them, and broke the USA in the process. Yeah, MacArthur's the one who killed it forever, but Jack Reed had a chance to save the nation he knew and he failed. So he lets the delegates from the provisional state governments and union groups write the new American supreme law, and he leaves. Goes home to work 9 to 5 rebuilding the country and occasionally writing a letter to some friends. Because Jack Reed failed his country when it needed him most.

Really, I just love the parallels between Reed and Huey and how despite being similar in their basic motivations for running, they're brought low by different flaws. Huey by his hubris and Reed by desperation.

Mac Daddy can go fuck himself, he's just a questionably competent martinet with a God complex.

I wasn't really sure about it. I think there's a good argument for both sides. Bill Haywood I think allows for a lot of options on how you can write the American Left after him, but I also see the narrative you can write with Reed. I don't know, I just figured you would find the post interesting and it would make for an interesting discussion as well as a nice change of pace for the thread.

 

[Worffan101]

I was speaking specifically about conservatism, particularly the Western variety but it's extendable to non-Western conservatives as well. There's a reason why "conservative" is a shorthand for "resistant to change" in discussions of historical leaders. Fascism is the unholy ultra-radical fusion of populism and reaction, the latter being the belief that things used to be better and that changes made ~10-20 or more years ago should be rolled back (past decade or so still kinda counts as the political present in a lot of cases). It's definitely right-wing (Strasserism is more bridging the sloppy metaphorical horseshoe than anything, probably the closest RL thing to totalism proper, and fascist economics have typically been highly corporatist), but has loose equivalents on the left in the form of batshit Maoist death cults like the Shining Path. But fascism and conservatism are two very different beasts.

I prefer the Reed story as it is, frankly. Haywood would be more of a straight-up heroic narrative, and KR is generally pretty good at avoiding such simplistic stories, especially with its civil war setups. Reed and Huey as they are, along with the Blair coup storyline for Mosley's Britain, are some of the best damn writing ever done for a Paradox game and I'm including AARs there. Huey's a tragic villain, Reed's a tragic hero, and the only real difference between them is that Reed recognizes that he fucked up and Huey thinks that it's other people's fault he fucked up.

MacArthur, of course, is just a rotten person.

Really the whole of the new American storylines rocks. MacArthur deluding himself into thinking he's saving his nation, Reed and Huey trying to save their nation and failing, the Pacific's quest to redeem America after MacArthur's destruction of the nation and the fall of the other factions to authoritarianism (they seem to be OK with coming back into the fold as the Reds, much less so if I go Browder or Foster), the Business Plot as something straight out of a Coppola movie, Browder and Foster taking advantage of a bad situation to go full Bolshevik, and Pelley as...well, Pelley.

The nightmarish state of Pelley's America is the scariest thing in the damn game and really speaks to why we need a Savinkov rework for flavor asap. In the current build, the Vozhd seems almost sane next to American Hitler, and that's not IMO a good thing. Pelley is a monster, yeah, but for the historical irony, Savinkov should be the nightmarishly monstrous final boss of the game.

 

[Ferd42]

Onthe subject of testing syndacism, as anyone consider post war conseus Britain? Would the nationalised industries count as close to syndicates due to high degree of worker control?

 

[Godwin]

I was speaking specifically about conservatism, particularly the Western variety but it's extendable to non-Western conservatives as well. There's a reason why "conservative" is a shorthand for "resistant to change" in discussions of historical leaders. Fascism is the unholy ultra-radical fusion of populism and reaction, the latter being the belief that things used to be better and that changes made ~10-20 or more years ago should be rolled back (past decade or so still kinda counts as the political present in a lot of cases). It's definitely right-wing (Strasserism is more bridging the sloppy metaphorical horseshoe than anything, probably the closest RL thing to totalism proper, and fascist economics have typically been highly corporatist), but has loose equivalents on the left in the form of batshit Maoist death cults like the Shining Path. But fascism and conservatism are two very different beasts.

I prefer the Reed story as it is, frankly. Haywood would be more of a straight-up heroic narrative, and KR is generally pretty good at avoiding such simplistic stories, especially with its civil war setups. Reed and Huey as they are, along with the Blair coup storyline for Mosley's Britain, are some of the best damn writing ever done for a Paradox game and I'm including AARs there. Huey's a tragic villain, Reed's a tragic hero, and the only real difference between them is that Reed recognizes that he fucked up and Huey thinks that it's other people's fault he fucked up.

MacArthur, of course, is just a rotten person.

Really the whole of the new American storylines rocks. MacArthur deluding himself into thinking he's saving his nation, Reed and Huey trying to save their nation and failing, the Pacific's quest to redeem America after MacArthur's destruction of the nation and the fall of the other factions to authoritarianism (they seem to be OK with coming back into the fold as the Reds, much less so if I go Browder or Foster), the Business Plot as something straight out of a Coppola movie, Browder and Foster taking advantage of a bad situation to go full Bolshevik, and Pelley as...well, Pelley.

The nightmarish state of Pelley's America is the scariest thing in the damn game and really speaks to why we need a Savinkov rework for flavor asap. In the current build, the Vozhd seems almost sane next to American Hitler, and that's not IMO a good thing. Pelley is a monster, yeah, but for the historical irony, Savinkov should be the nightmarishly monstrous final boss of the game.

I would in general agree with your analysis about conservatism. I personally don't like the use of the terms "conservative" or "liberal" in American politics. It's always more complicated than that. I will disagree ever on your thoughts about fascism. Simply because it ranges all across the spectrum from National-Syndicalists to Integralism. Fascism as a concept is very broad ideologies. I'd say it's a blend of Populist Nationalism to a feverish degree and loyalty to the Leader and the State as opposed to reaction (keeping in mind a reactionary would be longing for the days of Bismark or the divided kingdoms of Italy instead of a new absolutist state).

I would agree in general. I admit I have a more sympathetic view of MacArthur though. I won't deny he's an egoist, but I also believe he thinks he's doing what's best for his country. He works closely with President Hoover in trying to maintain stability in an increasingly tense and volatile political climate, and prepares for the worst possible situation (that being armed insurrection in the United States). If either Garner or Landon or even Olson is elected but fails to prevent the Civil War he dutifully serves the President in defense of his nation until the bitter end or his triumph. However if Reed or Long wins you see them massively overreaching their power (of course trying to do what they can to help their people) and provoking each other into conflict and provoking Civil War. MacArthur in a last ditch effort to save his nation removes either Long or Reed to prevent them from doing any more damage (sending them fleeing to their base to revolt anyway). The Pacific States see this as MacArthur overstepping his bound (Rightfully so) and also ends up revolting. In his attempt to save his nation, MacArthur ends up dividing it even further. In a prison of his own design, MacAthur resigns himself to a war with enemies on all sides. Now the war can have two effects. If it's a quick war that's over by say '39, then a triumphant MacArthur restores the democratic nation he loved and tried to defend. However the nation will be forever scarred by the action of military intervention. If it's a long war lasting until '41 or onward MacArthur can become disillusioned and fall to his own ego forging a stratocracy to bring order to the United States once and for all.

 

[Christian]

What do you guys think Syndicalism with American Characteristics actually entail? What's their thoughts on foreign trade, what's their agricultural policy, do you think something like this could work out?
What about Foster's Centralized Syndicalism? Can you guys try to explain that, and his Green Fields Program, its apparently not based on any RL socialist experiments.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

What do you guys think Syndicalism with American Characteristics actually entail? What's their thoughts on foreign trade, what's their agricultural policy, do you think something like this could work out?

If you check out the KR Photos thread, quite a few people have posted how they reckon a Syndicalist America would look. Here's a couple of examples:

Decided to do a little text post because I've been having fun with the PRUSA.
-------
Structure of the PRUSA government:

American Syndicalism is very much a product of the democracy-loving American society and people, with its roots fundamentally in liberation of the working class and extension of the franchise to all adults. As such, Syndicalist platforms from as early as 1928 advocated for increased union power and a "choose your boss" type business structure when running candidates. Built upon the successful defense of these ideals in the Second American Civil War/Second American Revolution, the PRUSA seeks to portray itself as a continuation of the old US regime, but stripped of the "impurities" and flaws that plagued and eventually killed the old state. By most standards of the Third Internationale, the PRUSA is a very structurally conservative state, but the American people are proud of their way of life and believe that it has helped then endure forces that drove other nations to less than savory ideologies.

Like the old USA, the PRUSA has three branches of government; the Executive (President), Legislative (People's Congress and People's Senate), and Judicial (Supreme Workers' Court). While political parties are banned, seen in the aftermath of the war as part of what doomed the USA, the formation of such organizations was inevitable; as a result, informal cliques function as de facto parties minus the fundraising, a total of five that stretch from radical socialist and syndicalist on the left side aaaallll the way to progressive and liberal on the right. The Democratic-Republicans haven't been in charge of the government since the founding of the PRUSA, but the progressives (Social Democratic clique) and syndicalists (Federalist faction) regularly trade places in power. The President serves up to two 4-year terms; Senators serve up to 4 6-year terms; Representatives serve an unlimited number of 2-year terms (term limits for Representatives were removed in the '60s due to concerns that they were failing in their purpose and allowing de facto handovers of power from incumbents to handpicked successors). The legislative/executive divide leaves more power with the legislative branch than the USA did, with the Chair of the People's Congress (roughly the old Speaker of the House) being de facto head of state and government, and the President's power restricted (the veto override threshold is a little lower and executive orders are incredibly strictly limited, and basically amount to rulings on how to interpret legislative policy). Judicial review is explicitly granted in the People's Constitution, as is the right to form a labor union, and the Bill of Rights is a hard-coded part of the Constitution with the 1st amendment modified to say "Neither Congress nor any State of the Union shall make any law..." and to explicitly include strikes as protected assembly. The 13th and 14th amendments were also explicitly included in the document itself, with the 14th amended to explicitly prohibit sexual discrimination and to state that Native Americans born in America are American citizens. Poll taxes were banned by the First Amendment to the People's Constitution. Otherwise, the general language of the Constitution is pretty similar, except with liberal use of "People's" and "Workers'" almost to the point of poor taste.

Political advertising is frowned upon and big money in politics is seen as bourgeois elitism, though stump speeches and old-fashioned campaign stops are still in vogue. Until the rise of computers, candidates were required by law to provide a brief "pitch" and summary of their positions (amended in 1956 to allow endorsement of a particular clique platform and to include clique imagery with the pitch), which would then be copied and sent to polling stations for the curious voter to look into on election day. With the rise of the Internet, this formerly somewhat complicated process has become much easier; polling places, typically in schools, now generally line up a bank of borrowed computers with a file of the candidates' positions open in read-only so that the voters can go through the electronically-submitted pitches. This is considered to enhance the ability of voters to be informed about who and what they're voting for, and candidate pitches are made public no less than one month before the election.

While not explicitly banned, Totalism and National Populism are strongly frowned upon in America, and the latter is denounced by significant government figures whenever advocates show up on the news. America's one rule when interacting with the rest of the world is "Free and fair elections or we shoot you"--its rule when interacting with itself is "Keep the f***ing Nat-Pops out!"

American foreign policy is simple: Be Good, Or We Shoot You. The PRUSA is currently sending stern warnings to Bharat to cut the authoritarian bullshit now or there will be Consequences, and Putin is careful to keep the thuggery to a bare minimum since the American people already dislike him and the government isn't much happier. Failure to comply with PRUSA demands for free elections that at least look fair and have more than one candidate per office has resulted in swift invasion in the past, so the various Internationale nations that are plagued by corruption tend to be corrupt in other ways (for example, in Brazil every politician accepts bribes, it's just a fact of life, and in France they used the German Menace as justification to engage in a few Questionable Activities Geared Towards Potential Subversives, though the Americans made it clear that Such Activities Would Not Be Tolerated Any Longer in the 1980s). Since America controls 95% of the decent land in North America and all the North American trade routes and has buttloads of factories and a large population, people tend to listen when the Big Stick begins to be waved around.

There are 5 factions in the PRUSA government currently; Federalists (the orthodox Syndicalists, ruling party, big on union power and industry, currently trying to deal with increasing automation of industry and the changing economic environment), Radical Socialists (in coalition with the Syndicalists, want to try more radical structure changes. Many environmentalists), Farmer-Labor (left-populist, agrarian, kingmaker party generally), Social Democratic (progressive regulated-capitalist, the Loyal Opposition), and Democratic-Republican (Everything Would Be Better With Less Government (And More Capitalism)). The Syndicalists have also formed coalitions with the Soc-Dems and Farmer-Labor in the so called "Balanced Government" in the past, but persistent divides in ideas of how government should be run and structured between the Soc-Dems and Federalists put an unfortunate end to that. However, the legally nonpartisan nature of government has so far prevented serious threats of government shutdown. The Federalists poll high in the Midwest and much of the East Coast particularly in the North but also in parts of the South (particularly black-majority districts; the Black Belt has been solid Federalist and loyally syndicalist for over 60 years and counting), the Soc-Dems in urban south New England and the Pacific coast, Farmer-Labor in the Great Plains and Rockies, and the Dem-Reps in the whiter parts of the South.

Political Factions of the Combined Syndicates of America

While the Syndicalist Internationale does not have political parties in the same manner as the Paneuropa pact, they often are filled with political "factions" within organizations such as the Congress of Syndicates, which operate in a similar manner to political parties in practice. The following is a list of the political factions of the Combined Syndicates of America.

Democratic Alliance of Socialists and Anarcho-Syndicalists

View attachment 363015

Founded:1927
Ideology: Social Democracy/Left-Wing Populism (formally), Democratic Socialism/ Anarcho Syndicalism
Political position: Center (In CSA), Left (Syndicalist International)
International Affiliation: Syndicalist International
Official Color: Red, White, Blue
Youth Wing: Young Socialists
Faction Newspaper: The Leftist Democracy
Congressional Majority?: No
Animal symbol of the Faction: Heron

Initially formed as the moderate wing of the IWW, this alliance of DemSocs, SocDems, and Anarcho-Syndicalists preferred a much less militant approach to Socialism compared to their radical colleagues. Moved farther left over the years, the Aliiance remains a powerful faction of the people and for the people, even if they are less Syndicalist than their opposition.


Capital Punishment: Absolutely Opposed.
Civil Defense: The Alliance is in favor of civil militia programs to help curb military spending.
Cultural Stance: rather conservative, though supports anti-racism, the LGBT community, and feminism,many has even campaigned to allow women greater roles in the combat arms of the Army and Marine Corps, though their efforts are often fruitless.
Defense: While in favor of a powerful and well equipped military, the Alliance favors the scaling down of the armed forces to promote Detente between the Syndintern and Paneuropa.
Drug Policy: Has a somewhat hard policy on drug use, with mandatory rehabilitation programs for all hard drugs and a platform that calls for soft drugs to only come from republic approved channels.
Economy: Favors a Social Corporatist model of guild socialism mixed with large amounts of state-owned industries. This policy, a rather unpopular one in the Syndintern, has created an Internet meme in the Capitalist bloc called "Syndicalism is where the government does stuff" which is a constant thorne in the side of Paneuropan Syndicalists.
Education: Strictly government controlled education.
Environment: Has shifted its opinion on environmentalism in more recent decades in an effort to protect the CSA's vast wilderness.
Foreign Aid: Historically in favor of sending support to left wing guerrillas in NatPop nations, though preferring detente. also in favour of heavy humanitarian aid.
Foreign Alliances: Strongly in favour of the Syndintern, also believes in decreasing the amount of nationalism in th Syndicalist bloc to drive towards traditional Leftist internationalism.
Immigration: Favours loose border security
Law Enforcement: Believes in elected sheriffs replacing the Marshall system of the CSA.
Nuclear Armament: The Alliance maintains the need for a large and well maintained nuclear arsenal to protect the revolution from all of its enemies and to ensure that the imperial states cannot freely bully the poor and downtrodden with nuclear weapons without risking their own annihilation.
War: Believes in a major de-escalation of hostilities, though wholeheartedly favors war if the Paneuropa block starts a confrontation.
Social Benefits: Believes in maintaining the status quo of civilian prosperity.
Trade: In favor of self sufficiency and protectionism.

American Radical Syndicalist Union


View attachment 363016


Founded:1927
Ideology: Trade Unionism, Proletarian Internationalism, Neo-DeLeonism (far-left wing)
Political position: Left (In CSA), Far-Left (Syndicalist International)
International Affiliation: Syndicalist International
Official Color: Red, White, Black
Youth Wing: The American Pioneers
Faction Newspaper: The Voice Of The People
Congressional Majority?: Yes (Coalition with larger faction)
Animal symbol of the Faction: Grizzly Bear

A wing of the Congress of Syndicates formed from the Radical Socialists and Classical Marxists in the IWW, the ARSU is the classicalist wing of the American Republic, believing that the current state of affairs is only a temporary measure and that all nations and borders should be fully dissolved under a world government, an ideology that caused a split with the Syndicalist Republicans to the Left of the ARSU. While popular in the CSA, their supporters come nowhere near close to the popularity of their Left Integralist counterparts, and the ARSU only maintains power through a coalition with them.

Capital Punishment: In favor of for crimes of treason.
Civil Defense: In favor of limited civil defense militias trained by the Proletarian Guard.
Cultural Stance: Significantly more socially liberal than the Alliance, the ARSU is still rather socially moderate, the norm for the Syndintern.
Defense: Favours a massive, flexible, and elegantly equipped and trained military to safeguard their Syndicalist nation. While less bellicose than the ISCL, the ARSU still believes in showing Paneuropa the might of the American juggernaut.
Economy: Favors a Neo-DeLeonist model of self-managed trade unions and central republican planning mixed with American individualism.
Education: Supports government controlled education and is a patron of military academies for the youth and for adults.
Environment: Generally less in favor than the other factions, though the ARSU is still generally green.
Foreign Aid: Infamous for it's financial aid plans to Syndicalist groups around the world which would utterly tied down American assets, thus almost always being shot down by the rest of the Congress.
Foreign Alliances: You would be hard pressed to find a party more loyal to the Syndicalist International as an ideal, constantly preaching about the end of nations and the birth of the world Republic.
Immigration: Status quo on American immigration policies.
Law enforcement: Prefers to leave the Republic Marshall service in the hands of local Syndicates rather than the Republic.
Nuclear Armament: Supports the continued expansion of the CSA's nuclear deterrent.
War: Prefers a primarily defensive stance on war, though is prepared to unleash hell on the Imperial block should the need arise.
Social Benefits: Was somewhat quicker to realise the value of emerging forms of industry and the arts as labour deserving of compensation and encouragement, generally agrees with the American Syndicalist consensus of allowing for people to live prosperously and individually regardless of their choices of livelihood.
Trade: Supports limited trade with the Paneuropa block but open to free trade with the Syndicalist International.

Integral Syndicalist Coalition of Labor

View attachment 363017

Founded:1936
Ideology: Revolutionary Syndicalism, Left Wing Integralism, Republicanism, Left-Wing Populism, Libertarian Syndicalism, Civic Nationalism
Political position: Far-Left (In CSA), Ultra-Left (Syndicalist International)
International Affiliation: Syndicalist International
Official Color: Red,Black
Youth Wing: The New Guard
Faction Newspaper: One Earth, One Union, One Human Race
Congressional Majority?: Yes (Majority Faction)
Animal symbol of the Faction: Grey Wolf

The largest wing of the Congress of Syndicates, the ISCL was formed from the Republican Syndicalists and Patriotic Leftists that lead the CSA into it's creation. Adopting an ideology of "Integral Syndicalism" partially inspired by Portuguese Integralism (the idea that a nation is an organic unity minus the far right authoritarianism) , the ISCL rejected the actions of the Montagnard dictatorship and the actions of Right Wing Integralism, instead adopting the Left Wing Integralist ideals of love for the nation, it's people, and it's culture alongside a strong sense of national identity, a burning desire for popular democracy (based on the ideals of the Jacobinist Sans-culottes and their En Rages allies) and a belief in a strong republic to unify the nation, as well as a powerful military to protect it. The ISCL also Beleives in a strong Syndicalist economy to liberate the common man from the treachery of rulers, bankers, and corporate owners, as well as believing it is their duty to help those in other nations liberate themselves. It remains the most popular faction in the CSA to the current era.


Capital Punishment: In favor of rehabilitation for most crimes but execution for Rapists, Murderers, and other such criminals.
Civil Defense: In favor of limited civil defense militias, but prefer an emphasis on a powerful military.
Cultural Stance: the ISCL is still rather socially moderate, the norm for the Syndintern. Emphasizes social equality to help unify the citizenry as one unified body of common people. Also, despite it's similar nationalistic leanings, is the most heavily anti-Totalist faction in the CSA in their constant condemning of them.
Defense: The most bellicose party in the Combined Syndicates of America, the ISCL is often nicknamed "the Marine Corps Lobby" due to the amount of famous Marines involved in it's politics, like Chesty Puller, Smedley Butler, Ira Hayes, and even modern figures like General James Mattis, though other famous non-Marine figures like George Patton, Jake Devers, William Halsey, and Curtis Lemay all were involved in the ISCL in the years after the second world war. The ISCL believes the Combined Syndicates of America needs a "navy to weigh down the oceans", an Army and Marine Corps "filled with incredibly trained fighting men" and bearing "weapons, armor, and equipment fit to shatter any opposing army", and an air force to "blot out the very sun itself."
Economy: Favors model of Decentralized Direct Planning, powerful, democratic Syndicates with very limited central republican assistance, and mixed with American individualism and entrepreneurial spirit.
Education: Supports government controlled education and is a patron of military academies for the youth and for adults.
Environment: Generally centrist and status quo on green issues, supporting Nuclear Fusion and Solar technology.
Foreign Aid: supports humanitarian aid and financial assistance to leftist groups fighting totalitarian regimes.
Foreign Alliances: Suports the Syndintern almost unanimously, rather opposed to the ideal of a world government, more a loose confederation of republics with friendly autonomy.
Immigration: Status quo on American immigration policies.
Law enforcement: Prefers to leave the Republic Marshall service in the hands of local Syndicates rather than the Republic.
Nuclear Armament: A believer in the need for a large and diverse array of nuclear weapons from tactical warheads to ICBMs to boomer submarines and nuclear capable bombers. Perhaps the primary architect of the CSA's currently still enormous nuclear arsenal.
War: In practice, supports detente and a defensive stance to protect it's people. However, the ISCL is the single most aggressive party in the CSA, and ideally would love to end the Cold War with a giant hammerblow to the Imperial Block, but stays away from war out of love for it's people and the people of the Syndintern. However, elements of the ISCL has advocated for research into a means of rendering Mutually Assured Destruction an obsolete concept via investment into SDI programs meant to allow for conventional war to occur without threat of nuclear apocalypse, upon which the ISCL advocates launching an immediate offensive against the Imperials with the intention of wreaking havoc upon the Paneuropa bloc until, in the words of Premier James Mattis, "every Kraut Kaiserfucker, Tsarist Cocksucker, and whore of the Qing Emperor are wiped from the face of the earth, and peace can finally arrive on this earth."
Social Benefits: generally agrees with the American Syndicalist consensus of allowing for people to live prosperously and individually regardless of their choices of livelihood. Prefers those who are very patriotic, however.
Trade: Supports limited trade with the Paneuropa block but supports open trade with the Syndicalist International.


Anarchist Ecology Union

View attachment 363020
Founded:1981
Ideology: Green Anarchism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Pacifism
Political position: Far-Left (In CSA), Far-Left (Syndicalist International)
International Affiliation: Syndicalist International
Official Color: Green
Youth Wing: The Youth of the World
Faction Newspaper: The Call of Our Planet
Congressional Majority?: No
Animal symbol of the Faction: Mantis

The newest faction in the CSA, the AEU supports a policy of Pacifism, Detente, and Green Syndicalism. Though they are sometimes seen as hippies, they are often comprised of other characters as well. The smallest political faction in the CSA, they are nonetheless a major part of politics.

Capital Punishment: Univerally opposed.
Civil Defense: The AEU finds Civil a Defense programs overly militaristic, instead promoting de-militarization.
Cultural Stance: The social Libertines of the CSA, the AEU believes that it is the nation's duty to maintain a cultural leap. While not every Green believes this, the AEU has yet to revise this policy if needed.
Defense: believes in dismantling the International Revolutionary Armed Forces, a belief that has contributed to their dislike amongst the American populace.
Economy: Favors a decentralized communal gift economy.
Education: believes in delegating educational autonomy to local levels.
Environment: The most environmentally friendly faction in the CSA, the AEU believes in transferring the CSA to a wholly solar and wind powered society.
Foreign Aid: believes in receiving and giving foreign aid for humanitarian and environmental causes.
Foreign Alliances: believes in the death of nations and the formation of a green international Commune.
Immigration: believes in wholly dissolved national borders.
Law enforcement: Prefers to dissolve the Republic Marshall service in favor of militias formed from local Syndicates.
Nuclear Armament: Beleives in total nuclear disarmament.
War: Pacifists by nature, wholly opposed to any kind of confrontation.
Social Benefits: generally agrees with the American Syndicalist consensus of allowing for people to live prosperously and individually regardless of their choices of livelihood. Prefers those who are very environmentally friendly.
Trade: Supports greater Autonomy for regional trade.



[so that's it, hope you liked it guys. Also, the JSCL is what I identify most with, Jacobin Syndicalism is literally how I think in political terms. Yeah, I used a third positionist flag, I just liked the look of it better and I thought it fit Leftist patriotism. It has nothing to do with ideology. Let me know what you guys thought.]

Just an OOC: in my TL, the CSA is Syndicalist (heavily) but has "American characteristics", meaning that entrepreneurship still exists. TTL, entrepreneurs still exist in the Syndicalist system to give their fellow workers quality goods and services. TTL, entrepreneurs are as famous as actors and sports stars: because American culture doesn't let anybody gain billions at the expense of a few, the alternative is that American culture gives the Entrepeneur status as a well known hero: someone who helped the Syndicalist economy grow into something even better. Of course, that status depends on how successful the product is: guys like Marcus Lemonis would be George Clooney big: whilst a certain city's Entrepeneur might become more of a local legend than a widespread figure.

Also, rewards still exist: custom personal property, and even cool mansions they can have designed to their liking. Obviously, these mansions are less of a villa, and more of a larger townhouse, and they do have to share this building with other people (randoms, they can't fill it with their buddies) but in the Syndicalist entrepreneurs mind, they don't care: just knowing that they designed this building to their liking is something that many cannot say.

So that's my vision of a democratic Syndicalist America: DIRECT DECENTRALIZED PLANNING mixed with the good old American spirit of individualism, adopted to a society that exists for the vast prosperity of all instead of a select few.

 

[Christian]

If you check out the KR Photos thread, quite a few people have posted how they reckon a Syndicalist America would look. Here's a couple of examples:

Yeah, I'm a regular lurker there. I just meant, what would the current American Syndicalism look like based on the descriptions in the focus tree?
Plus, what about Foster's Centralized Syndicalism, the green fields program in his focus sounds pretty interesting.

 

[Worffan101]

MacArthur was a prima-donna martinet with an ego the size of a small galaxy. He liked to talk about himself in the third person and idolized Julius Caesar.

He is not the good guy and he's not sympathetic. At least Huey starts from a position of "My people are hurting and I have to help them." Mac Daddy starts from "the guy who wants to help people is breaking the rules, so I'm going to break even MORE rules and coup him because I am MacArthur and MacArthur is always right, my pet natpop toady tells me that all the time!"

 

[Worffan101]

It's pretty clear how Huey and MacArthur stand in KR based just on how they see themselves. Huey sees himself as a new Washington, and idolizes a man who helped build a democratic nation with his wisdom and intelligence, whereas MacArthur sees MacArthur as a new Caesar, idolizing a man who destroyed what had been at least a quasi-democracy through setting himself up as de facto military dictator.

Huey is fundamentally a guy who wants to do good but is bitten in the ass by his arrogance and hubris. MacArthur is nothing BUT arrogance and acts purely for MacArthur's own personal power, using flimsy "defending America" justifications as a fig leaf to defend MacArthur to MacArthur.

 

[freivolk]

Its really difficult to justfy McArthur. He coups so early after Reed/Long take over, that you can´t really say both have already brocken the constitution.

 

[Worffan101]

Its really difficult to justfy McArthur. He coups so early after Reed/Long take over, that you can´t really say both have already brocken the constitution.

Technically he now coups after Reed/Long tries to pack the court. However, he does so before impeachment proceedings have even been brought, which basically destroys even the fig leaf of legitimacy that he might have been able to wave.