Well I read Marx writings and the Marx private letters to Engels and other people . What he wrote was not what he really did in his life. And dunno NONE COMMUNIST REGIME was good same as not fascist so IF ALL PRACTICAL EXAMPLES ARE GARBAGE THE IDEALS HAVE TO BEING ROTTEN.
Franco was one of worst man in story of Spain. I born in same city as him and yes he was imperialist the only thing save us from a complete masses massacre is he was monarchy loyalist in his heart so he can’t assume declared himself king or a republic. So we ended with a Lifelong keeper that was good Because everyone know that when the old man end death another regime would born (we didn’t knew what regime could be chosen by our King but we know it would be different.) Franco brother was left wing mason atheist and one of best pilots in story . Franco was so jealous about his handsome brother that arrange his death in an accident ( Franco loves arrange accidents)
United We Stand - Political WIP
Communism is rotten at its core because it’s unachieveable. Because of this, it creates false hopes and gives inspiration to people to try to achieve it, but because it’s impossible, it always ends up in dictatorship or poor state. They try to achieve it, find it impossible, but since they believe in it so much, they try to find imaginary problems in their plans - people with other views, minorities etc etc. The principle itself might be noble, but it loses its nobility status the moment someone tries to make it reality, and as it serves no other purpose, it’s just as rotten as fascism. It’s a bait for young people to fall for its promises, and then descend into violence and rebelion in order to achieve it, only they don’t know it’s impossible and that they break all they’re supposed to stand for by doing it.
Are we talking about Fascism or National Socialism here? Yes, Nazism is an even more extreme evolution of Fascism, but the same could be said of Stalinism as an extreme evolution of Marxism. Yet the differences are always quite clear.
Let’s be honest with the era of the 20s and 30s. Europe at that time was a hive of wretched Imperialist ideas and a powderkeg of jingoism resulting from the horrors of the Great War. Beliefs of segregation were not uncommon, and the Jews were very much still within the cycle of hatred that had been running for close to two thousand years at that point. The idea of blaming the Jews was not a novel idea that Hitler just happened to come up with, nor was it an idea that the Fascists of Italy agreed with until the 30s when Mussolini feared that he would alienate Hitler.
As for other racial policies outside of antisemitism, remember that the kind of research that both Italians and Germans used to declare their superiority was at the time a cutting edge field of study, no matter how misguided. The way it was used did not differ that much from previous Imperialist doctrines of presenting natives (of America, Africa, and Asia) as uncultured beasts and savages meant to be delivered to the light by Europeans. Concentration camps were established in Africa and Asia by Imperialist powers throughout the later 19th century, many of them conducting mass murder either with use of force or utter neglect. One could argue that in the United States the forcible relocation of Native Americans into areas where they could not survive is no different as an end result than the genocide that happened in Poland and the hands of both Germans and Soviets. Spanish military actions in Cuba to the latter half of the 19th century are an example of early concentration camps that would later be so closely tied to the Nazis.
You’ll note that none of the very early Syndicalists and Nationalists that fed into the formation of Fascism spoke of eradicating 25% of the population either. They did speak of political violence as a necessary tool of maintaining an organized few in power over the disorganized many. Much like in all ideologies, the genocide part comes in with the strong demagogue who makes the ideology fit their own mindscape - this being Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Khomeini…
Marx and Engels discussed political violence quite extensively as well. For example, they saw the Paris Commune as an excellent example of their ideas coming to fruition. It was Lenin who would eventually criticise them for not having done enough to destroy their enemies and secure their foothold.
You have to take note that the country was still extremely young and not particularly unified. They did not have the industrial base or political unity necessary to fuel their grand ideas. They also ended up taking the worst possible lessons from WWI - lessons which they did learn throughout WWII but which came too late, as by that time the Italian industrial capacity was already stretched far too thin to support Mussolini’s ever-growing ambitions.
Besides which, their dreams of imperialism were there since the unification of Italy took place.
The ethics are largely the same, although our modern minds will always comprehend the fascists as the worse offender. In countries where the left and right were so diametrically opposed in rhetoric, their means of gaining power tended to be the same. Fascists could not curry favour without painting the Communists as the enemy, and the Communists had the perfect representation of the bourgeoisie in the Fascists. They are in many ways two sides of a single coin of political extremism.
Might I add that I think you guys are confusing Fascism and Nazism? Fascism is more about order and unity and a dictatorship of sorts, it’s meant to be a utopia as well! I am a left winger myself but I don’t think one is inherently worse or committed to the ideals of the first countries to adopt it.
Oh, and might I add that there seems to be a lot of debate on the nature of Fascism, so many people could claim so many things about it which feels to me more like Nazism.
I agree communism is unachievable and agree regimes do bad things for the reasons you say. But world peace is unachieveable, does that mean the idea of world peace is rotten to the core?
I think you can really say that one is simply a form of the other. Especially if you equate Stalinism and Communism. If you can use stalin to criticise communism, you can use Hitler to criticise fascism.
@Goshman
Of course fascism didn’t invent concentration camps or anti-semitism, or racial policy, or imperialism. But I don’t really get why that’s relevant. They believed in it and used those ideas and policies and put them in to practice. Other people did similar bad things. But fascism is an ideology that promotes and justifies them. It is far more extreme than the admittedly distasteful imperialism and racism of 20th century europe for reasons i’ve already stated.
All that said, i’d quite like to draw a line under this whole debate. I appreciate there’s a lot of strong feelings and good arguments on both sides but this is really besides the point of this thread as I have pointed out! Not having a go with anyone, I love a good debate as much as the next man, but let’s get back on topic!
And for anyone who may be dying to continue a political debate after the thread owner shuts it down… that’s why we have a generic Politics Thread for civil conversation on such topics.
Now back to the game.
I’m beginning to see why political COGs haven’t taken, I’m not sure that we can separate the issue being that there’s so little of the game just now. Maybe we should let the waters settle until there’s more of it, I dunno, then at least we could talk about the game rather than persist in soapboxing one another to death.
Just a suggestion, forget I’m even here.
At the very least we couldn’t accuse this premise of not generating interest.
i just now realized that with your previous game Divided we Fall. This is essentially Spiritual Sequel. if you do second game as sequel to this what will you name it ?
It seems to me alex you are making no disctiction between fascism and nazism.
for fascism look at Franco and Pinochet rather mussoliny.
A couple of thoughts, then you can shoot me if you so desire…
-
@AlexClifford1994 is building his world currently - we really don’t have a good idea on his fictional world before we are thrown into the action. Perhaps in his fictional world, the fascist and nazi parties have merged with one having a hostile takeover of the other…
1a. If this is the case, the MC is giving the option of calling for a purge in the press … perhaps she/he is calling for a purge of the party of the nazi extremists … we don’t know yet.
1b. If this isn’t the case, perhaps we need more background on the party structures before we decide which to ascribe to. - Perhaps @AlexClifford1994 will have a “historical” (pseudo-historical) primer in the beginning to set the entire setting sort of the way @Goshman is doing with the train scene and the cadet scene in his WiP.
2a. I’m sure @AlexClifford1994 was going to do so with the beer putsch scene we are currently in the middle of but maybe this is indicating a revised intro is called for.
2b. I have not played the Leninist party yet … is the feeling of disconnect there as well? If not, it may be because @AlexClifford1994 did not yet focus on the fascist side … remember we wasn’t even sure if he wanted to allow both paths.
I still think offering both paths is the way to go but perhaps a little more world-building in the beginning would help ease the angst we as a reader-base is feeling here.
ok… I’ve had my say on this you can shoot the messenger now 
Dvivided we fall is such unloved Gem it not even funny!!! One of best choice of games I ever played!!
I’ll try and clear up these points if I may…
The fascist party, as I’ve said early on I think, is going to have an extreme form of patriotism, a hatred of the left, liberalism and democracy, and a belief in violence but not racial or anti-Semitic elements in order to avoid all this.
Solidarity is a democratic socialist party, so not communist or leninist, openly critical of Soviet russia but opposed to the monarchy and fascism of course.
I could add a sort of historical introduction like i have at the start of divided we fall but i haven’t done so because I want the reader to almost feel their way into this world. I also think a big historical info section would jar the narrative a bit. The state of the country and the parties are (i hope) fleshed out to some extent in the queen’s speech and that of the leader of your chosen party. For further info you can read the guide.
I am going to add to the opening chapter a bit where you can choose the social background of your character, after which their will be a discussion with your friend about your background and why you chose to join the party. This will add in the motivations and experiences of the character and also build up the world a little, i.e. if you are a aristocratic new order member you were sickened by the way that your parents and their class accepted and collaborated with the german occupiers in WWI and betrayed the nation. If you are a middle class Solidarity MP you worked in your 20s for a charity helping those in poverty and saw the terrible conditions that the working class endure… etc etc Whatever background or party you chose, there will be experiences that will be detailed that have led you to the conclusion that the system is broken and radical change is needed.
I’d never think of shooting you or any other messenger for that matter @Eiwynn, some very valid points/suggestions
It doesn’t have to be grand history, it could just be a bit of playable background for our characters and their personal story and origins that simultaneously allows us to get a feel of this fictional country.
Show us a bit of who our characters were and what they did before circumstances no doubt drove them to become a part of either the radical right or left wings in the politics of this country.
I personally enjoy the feeling around in the beginning. I think if we wait for more story to come out we will get our background soon enough.
I really enjoyed the demo and definitely think you should include the facist playthrough, seems more interesting than serving the communist agenda. I will admit though, it really does feel like the game is post WW1 Germany alittle too much.
I’ve added the promised section in the opening chapter where you can choose your social background, and fleshed out the character’s backstory somewhat. Does that satisfy those looking for more background? I’m not really sure about a playable backstory because it would inevitably involve simply asking the reader straight which background they want to be from and which party they join. And as you may have noticed with my style i try and always avoid just asking the player “you are: male, female etc, what is your name etc etc etc”. I really strive to have those sort of establishing questions weaved in for the sake of the narrative.
I also had a think about the whole historical intro vs feel your way into world and I must say I really like the idea of you slowly learning and understanding more about the world you are in. Perhaps my favourite game of all time is dishonored, which is set in a steampunk world. Only the very basics of the universe are laid out at the start but over the course of the game there is so much detail that it honestly is one of the most rich game worlds i’ve ever come across. That’s the gold standard i strive for.
edit: I’ve also planned out the next chapter. The open world system will work like this: the city has 5 districts and in each chapter you will have the choice to go to each one to carry out tasks for the party. In each chapter, there will be one main or “story” task, which you have to do to porgress. Before you tackle it you can can go to other districts and complete any number (or none) of the smaller side tasks. As an example, as solidarity in the next chapter the main task is moving in to new order’s district with paramilitaries and taking them on in the streets. Side tasks include union agitation in industry and meeting a prominent member of the social democrats to discuss an aliiance. What do you guys think of this systrm?
Yes; the newspaper story still hits like a tonne of bricks out of nowhere but I like the background snippets.
Fine; it reminds me of @Vendetta’s Mobster story structure which is a good thing. If you have not looked at his structure, you should.
I still think the “Social Democrats” are Leninists - October revolution variation, not Stalin’s ursurption of the party. Just like the right party had too many shades of Hitler, the left has too many shades of Lenin - for a fictional world.
I played through the demo on the Fascist side of things. I’ll never be accused of being left wing in any context other than a hockey line up. It’s a well written demo so I look forward to seeing how it develops.
With respect to those suggesting fascism is necessarily Nazism, that’s not really true. There were the regimes of Mussolini and Franco which evolved separately and lacked the racism of their German counterpart. Which is not to say that there were not aspects of either of those regimes that were deplorable. Those noting that the history of extreme Communist regime is rather grim are quite right. The death count of Stalinism and Maoism actually dwarfs the body count of fascism and Stalin engaged in his own genocide in the Ukraine. So arguably there are no good guys in this game just various flavours of misguided radicals in a difficult time in world history.
I haven’t played the demo but I do enough about history to tell you that communist regimes have a much bloodier track record then fascist regimes and that the whole idea that ether idea could be rejected while the other stays is arbitrary. Although I understand if your just want to keep the work load down, these things must be very time consuming.
As Spanish I could tell you Franco was racist as hell. He treated gypsys as shit, forcing them to move from certain zones to new accommodations . He was against Jews and did eternal discourses about The JEWISH masonry alliance trying to stealing our county and tainted our catholicism
And new backgrounds are cool.