To be fair, the Romans were pretty much the poster child of thinking your people are better than everyone else. Now, seeing as how their allies literally fought a war against Rome over the right to citizenship, and seeing as how they conquered the biggest powers of the ancient world (Macedon, Egypt, Seleucids, Carthage), you can kind of see where they were coming from with that belief. But their whole thing was basically making people Roman in a sense. They would make you worship their gods, speak their language, and serve in their legions. They would “Romanize” the people which helped to stem discontent. But they certainly saw themselves as superior to the “barbarians” elsewhere in the world. But I’m also not sure they were necessarily fascist. They were kind of an anomaly in a way.
This is a gentle reminder to please keep conversations directed at the topic at hand which is the WiP United We Stand. Going off-topic does not help the author of this WiP and often causes the thread to derail.
If you have already stated your position on @AlexClifford1994’s latest question , please take a short break and allow others to share their perspective too.
Taking action because political conditions have changed isn’t giving fascists power. Burying your head in the sand is not a good reaction to these sorts of things. I’m honestly not 100% clear on what your point about Rome is. Generally I don’t think it’s smart to try to apply post industrial ideologies to ancient empires. But I feel like going on about this will derail the thread.
@MrNoname. You believe Leaving NO path in game would give facists power ? Should everything about the Art change because you are afraid that single thing that doesnt condemn fascism hard enought for your tastes means they win ? Because if i understood correctly you seem to be ruled by fear, rather than staring defiantly at them you are afraid and letting them break you.
Sorry if i misunderstood but it just seems that way to me. i Really dont think Alex should have to change his ART because of politics, he was okay with including that path in first place.
Also Rome was made as point that while Fascism requires some sort of supremacy it doesnt have to be on Ehnics basis, it can be on Religious basis as we can See In Saudi Arabia, or on Cultural as we could see in Roman Empire.
Edit: I was informed by Moderator that the fear part of my post could easily be miseunderstood and I apologize for possible confusion, I meant it in the terms of being afraid that If Every single thing is not Actively and overhelming Antifascist Fascists will win, which to me smelled a bit too much of Goebelsian Total war And Culture Kampf. In a way you are making Fascism into Threat That is just about to start WWIII in 3 2 1. And as Such Entertaiment Art etc should be explicitly antifascist otherwise they win. Which seems to a bit defeatist and Hysterical.
The idea that fascism can be meaningfully separated from ethnic supremacy is an idea that fascist groups today are trying to promote.
I’m not for removing New Order from the game, in fact, I think that would be a mistake. But presenting fascism without ethnic supremacy plays into fascist propaganda. But no one would want to write a playable real fascist. Thus I think it’s best to depict the New Order more accurately fascist and make them unplayable.
Rome wasn’t fascist. Fascism didn’t exist until the 1900s.
Guys, Eiwynn already gave a reminder to keep the conversation on topic. You guys need to stop going off topic for a while before this thread gets closed again. If you want to keep this conversation about fascism and politics, go to the politics thread and leave this one for only UwS related conversation.
The name Fascism didnt exist UNTIL 1900s. but There is reason its name after Fasces. the Symbol of office of Roman dictators. You also didnt adress my point regarding Saudis. And i didnt say Removing NO from game but removing NO path from game. Furthermore you presume that No one would want to write playable real fascist, which is not true as using Shock principle can be very effective, For example in Spec Ops:The Line. Also you are aware That if there will be “More Accurate” description, it could make people uncomfortable ? Games also have function as escapism they are not only a educational and enlightening tools.
Anyway we should take It to other thread if this is well with you.
Well, like many people here I understand why you don’t want to do the New Order path because you
more then likely don’t want to empower fascists but the point that I can see and narrow down due to how you wrote the story so far is to show the horribleness of both sides may it be fascist or communist and I believe that taking out one or the other will do a dishonest job for a story with such a unique place that we haven’t seen as a community in awhile with the closet one being the Spanish civil war stories and as such. I hope and pray you decide to keep both sides of the spectrum and don’t shy away from the problems of BOTH sides since that will show the readers why these two ideologies are bad and shouldn’t be copied or respected.
I didnt even spot that, It makes sense that If you cut out fascist path it might get taken as communism apologia partially negating the points made about fascism. So to avoid that it would mean Solidarity would need Rewrite and in that case you are stuck playing moderate left wing leading people to question why you cant be moderate right wing, and suddenly instead of game exploring the edges you have game about attempting to ensure stability with moderate reforms necessicating big rewrite if you want to go that way.
Solidarity are not Communists. They’re Democratic Socialists. I see a lot of people conflating the two in the thread, but while they two ideologies share some similarities, they’re not the same thing.
To throw my two cents in, I liked the addition of a NO path, mainly because it made my choice to play Solidarity feel meaningful. I liked that it was my choice to fight the fascists, if that makes any sense. But that said, if writing that path makes @AlexClifford1994 (understandably) uncomfortable, I won’t mind too much if it’s removed; this will still remain one of my favorite WIPs on the forum.
Socialist they are but Democratic not. Same new order is not democratic at all. If your objective is destroying the system there you can’t be democratic even if you use the system at your convenience. It reminds me a lot of parties from both wings in Spanish second republic.
That’s why I love seeing two perspectives and seen both defects. Due both have serious problems.
I understand why not continue NO but still i will love that path changed to other thing like a ultra nationalist party i don’t care if traditionalist or even anarchist. For me is not problem of left right is more problem of present all sides in a situation of 30s were everything turn extreme and focused in destroying each other.
I would like a traditional ultra national route against socialism more international could be a tolerable change.
I mean i would play game anyway due story is interesting. Even if i don’t like people from solidarity in comparison with NO but they could be changed I suppose
Solidarity wants to maintain the democratic system, just not the economic one. You can call them a lot of things, but anti-democratic isn’t one of them.
And to destroy that economic system would be against constitutional and systems so basically against democracy
We don’t actually know enough about the Moravian constitution to say whether it would violate it, but regardless, Solidarity would probably try and call a constitutional convention to heavily amend or replace the existing one should they gain a decisive majority. Presuming it’s done above board, that wouldn’t be violating any democratic principles, and would allow them to go about dismantling the capitalist system legally.
To be fair, the Bolsheviks were democratic too. And we know how they wound up. Communist or Social Democrat, when you use violence and intimidation to achieve power you cannot truly claim to be a proponent of democracy. Because you are just forcing the opposition out. Solidarity would force any dissenting parties out and leaving only yes men as the other parties. If there is not a party that represents an opposing side its a democracy in name only.
Spanish franquism made that a pantomime of a democratic system Organic democracy they called… It was no democracy at all. Funny that the same twisted system was used to make the Cortes suicide themselves and dissolve to make a real democratic system.
But yeah maybe you’re right and they are super democrats then the game became a total socialist propaganda due…
SUPER GOOD PEOPLE against anything that are shit.
Edit To be clare it was a joke. And about solidarity not about real socialism. Lol i voted for them so i could be critical with them lol
Fair point. I doubt a part that set on upending the system would be content to sit back and let “counterrevolutionary forces” continue to play a role in parliament. They’d probably continue to hold fair elections and maintain Parliament and all that, but any party that advocated a return to capitalism or held other “reactionary” views would likely be tightly controlled or outright banned.
I understand the good intentions of Solidarity. But I also come from Russia. We have first hand experience with how these parties of good intentions lead to monsters. Solidarity is going down the same path that the Bolsheviks did. Try to gain representation in government to dismantle things legally, face opposition, use force against the opposition, get put down by the government, start a revolution, eventually get tired of opposition to your new government, and finally become authoritarian. But in the end, I saw this as a game about showing that both sides weren’t good. So it wouldn’t make much sense to have Solidarity break from the path that most far left parties tend to go down.
My dad was in the sindicalism movement last years Franco with friends in jail for political activism.
You know when they real celebrate that this country will be free it wasnt when rFranco died. It was when Communist party was legalized and appear with a Spanish flag . You can’t have democracy without freedom. You can’t call it democracy if everyone can’t present and following freedom without only few limitations market in law. So if you kick out half of people is not democratic …
Then Franco was super democrat you could vote for him all the times you want except most women we were cattle. Seriously how he could destroy Spain so many years boil my blood.
Sorry, apparently I wasn’t clear with my last post. I wasn’t implying that censoring/banning non-socialist parties would be okay, or that it wouldn’t fly in the face of the concept of democracy and freedom. I merely meant to say that they would maintain a form of democracy for those that “color inside the lines” and don’t challenge the overarching assumptions the government operates under.