In terms of the problems within each romance, it’s not necessarily about their rank, status or profession, it might be something to do with their personality…
4 Likes
Anything can be spun to be politically unsound, although if they’re from opposing parties…considering how polarized the US is today.
However politicians are people to and sometimes love/lust can go where it really shouldn’t. Still for the most part such things are awkward but not illegal and if discovered wouldn’t be a prima facie indication of corruption or anything untoward happening. Of course that is not how the modern US media would spin it if, although even I probably couldn’t resist the temptation to make at least one lame “bipartisan cooperation” joke.
Well maybe family/circumstances, basically anything from a sit-com with straight romance (virtually all of them) would suffice to throw some obstacles into the path. Granted they may be less embarrassing, illegal or dangerous then the proverbial “bears” on the other relationship roads.
Beaten to the punch by the author himself, I see. 
On the other hand for my mc having a gay relationship with a cute foreigner of a different social class to boot in the 1930’s the difficulties are rather obvious. 
True, a sticking point with Jules too, being still by all appearances a wealthy “decadent” Frenchman. Then again I think that is the least of the difficulties, or at least one of the lesser ones in that particular relationship, as the mc himself can be a rich aristo and still a high-ranking Solidaraty party member.
Lastly Solidarity isn’t Communist, it certainly isn’t Stalinist, it’s democratic socialism.
2 Likes
It makes things interesting, doesn’t it, friend? One of the reasons I appreciate this game’s freedom.
1 Like
I was always under the impression that we had been disowned and were living on our MP salary, hence why we mention finding an affordable cafe, something a millionaire would be unlikely to worry about. And I’m pretty sure we’re communists, the social democrats are Kant’s party.
Nope, Rosa Wulf herself kicked out the doctrinaire Communists. Solidarity is a Socialist, most likely Democratic Socialist party. There a big difference between that and Communism.
They are, the main split very, very roughly defined is that while democratic socialism and social democracy both emphasize democratic means the end goals are different. Social democracy is for the most part simply concerned with obtaining more equitable results and a more equal/egalitarian society within the capitalist economic system and modes of production. Whereas democratic socialism ultimately seeks to transform the economy away from the capitalist model by democratic and popular mandate.
Again this is a very, very rough description there are lots more illuminating sources on the internet, if you’re really interested.
9 Likes
Haven’t romances Franz but I was under the impression that Herta slept her way to her position.
Solidarity seems more like Tito’s kind of Socialism. Both disliked the Soviets and both are extremist.
She was flustered for what Alessandra said because Herta is very sequestered by her parents, she is more of an innocent girl, see the scene with Riga for you to see more of this.
One of the problems in Herta’s relationship will be get parents and how she can’t break away from them despite being in her late twenties, IMO.
2 Likes
Even if those might be Rosa’s inclinations (which I don’t really see in the game as it is). The mc and other party moderates can keep Solidarity pretty firmly in Democratic Socialist territory.
4 Likes
Actually, at least in Portugal, that’s not frowned upon. Maybe because in Europe each member of the parliament has a much reduced autonomy, with the party effectively establishing official party policy in many issues and using its prerogative of vote discipline to guarantee an unified vote in the main issues and legislation. There is a reason for the majority of European countries not electing individual MPs, but voting in the party.
I don’t think so. Tito was a variation of communism, while Solidarity seems to be mostly democratic socialism. Note the words Alex uses to describe each party right in the first choice. “Socialist Solidarity” or “Fascist New Order”. As an European and an obvious expert in this period and issues, Alex is certainly aware of the difference between using “socialist solidarity” or “communist solidarity”, and given that he didn’t used the much more generic “extreme-right new order” I’m forced to believe he chose “socialist” for a reason. But hey, you might very possibly be correct, this is just my humble take on the issue.
3 Likes
What gives you that idea?
Now it might be that my definition of right and left wing is wrong, but weren’t fascists highly authoritarian collectivists? And isn’t the right highly individualist? Wouldn’t that make them left wing?
Not really. There is collectivist right wing groups and individualist left wing groups. Fascists are also commonly not above supporting nationalist corporations.
5 Likes
Alessandra questioned her about how she could have became an mp and she just turned red when she mentioned sleeping with someone to get a position. Plus when I actually romanced her and took her to the ball, I talked to Riga and he said something along the lines of her being fun and it kinda of threw me off a bit but I guess it was just nothing since I didn’t consider the whole strict parents angle with her.
1 Like
Yugoslavia was a Socialist Republic, and that is the radical path of Solidarity. They aren’t Social Democratics, they are an extreme group of left.
@Urban, as I said, you might be right even if I clearly don’t think so Lets just agree to disagree.
@lucdop, what @cyanide said. Third Way or most of Anarchism are good examples of individualistic left-wing ideologies. Fascism and generally all extreme-right ideologies are a good example of a collectivist right-wing, even if you think of more moderate right-wing ideologies such as christian-democracy you do find a large degree of collectivism in it, not so much in “lets all march together towards an utopia” but more like “the individual lives in a collective, the strong must guarantee some level of subsistence for the weak and family and traditions are the pillars of society” kind of thing.
The idea that right = individualism and left = collectivism is a not so wrong way to put things, but the subject becomes more complex and varied once you start really looking ar the different ideologies in each side of the spectrum. I mean, even if we were talking about absolutes, only libertarians and some branches of Anarchism would be totally individualistic, and only Marxism-Leninism and all other non-democratic forms of Communism would be, possibly together with nazism, 100% collectivistic.
6 Likes
Moderate? Solidarity is an extremist and radical party.
Both New Order and Solidarity can kill, destroy several establishment owned by innocent people, threat people into serving their purpose. That is the point, both party are the two sides of the same coin.
There is no good left vs evil right or moderate party vs extremist party, both are radicals and willing to do bad sh*t to get what they want, the decision of the player is to choose which side is less abhorrent not which side is good out which side is evil.
Congrats, you have just summed up our PM and Conservatives during the 1930’s, when in our still mild by European standards street violence the police was often just another one of the gangs and the de-facto conservative paramilitary force. Let’s not forget the reason why the Conservatives didn’t need a formal paramilitary neither in Moravia, nor in the Netherlands of the time period is that the extremely wealthy conservative backers have always liberally employed “private security” they didn’t hesitate to deploy as armed strike-breakers.
It is only notable when progressives do it because when the authoritarian-leaning Conservatives (to be fair there are some principled conservatives around too, but especially in the time period of the game they tended to lose out to their less scrupulous brethren) do things like that it’s just “business as usual”.
Point is politics of every ideology can succumb to radicalism and possibly turn violent. In the 1930’s even mainstream social democratic parties employed armed guards armed guards to protect themselves and their voters, because the police in many European countries was firmly in the grip of the conservative authoritarians in much of Europe at the time and was therefore, again, often just another paramilitary force and bloody useless at its job of maintaining law and order, let alone protect the innocent.
Radical, maybe. The extremist part is definitely in part up to the player. If it Solidarity joins the alliance to save democracy then it is actually quite moderate
7 Likes
An my point was that Solidairty vs New Order is Extreme Left vs Extreme Right, there are no innocents or a good side in this conflict.
They didn’t join to save democracy, if they join is because Rosa is afraid of Facism taking over Moravia. Her end goal is to turn Moravia into a Socialist Republic, that is why she only enters into an alliance if the MC tells her.
Guys, we should let this discussion drop. There is no need to recreate the Communism VS Fascism debate (already forbidden by Alex) in a different mold. Let’s just agree to disagree, and recognize that our different take on the ideology and extremism of Solidarity comes from our different ideological stances. Of course Democratic Socialists like me and @idonotlikeusernames wouldn’t agree with the extremism and totalitarianism someone from the center-right side of the spectrum like @Urban sees in them. And that’s only natural, nothing wrong with that.
Lets just move on and try to talk about things Alex can get good stuff from. 
13 Likes
MRW you’re trying to have a celebratory parade, but some commies and an english photographer start running towards you
8 Likes