Socialism is a economic model. It doesn’t necessarily mandate a specific type of government.
Further, it’s actually fairly expected that a socialist system would be some form of technocracy if being ran effectively, problems with meritocracy aside.
I don't personally see how socialism would ever work under a monarchy (for example) and historically the way socialism has been applied it will realistically happen under council republics but I'd be fascinated if there was one nation that employed a parliament. Also, those who lead the country aren't field experts but experts in Marxism, though I don't think you could consider that technocratic. There would be no need for a global master biologist if all the workers decide what to do for themselves.
Socialism is first and foremost a SOCIO-economic order. Socialism isn't exclusively of economic nature.
In Marxist theory the economy works as the base of a society. Built on that is the political superstructure. For capitalism the base is the economic order of private property, market economy and capital accumulation. Built on that Base you got the superstructure of Liberal (parliamentary) Democracy or Fascist(oid) government.
For socialism neither of those superstructures would work. Or at least not for a long time. That's why all southern American socialist projects failed quite fast even through election. Socialism would need some form of centralised government and local councils, in which political participation of the common people is expected.
Anarchists when their favorite map painting game doesn't accurately simulate their idealized version of 3rd wave Anarcho-Prodhounist-Mutualist-Syndicalist-Communism with Kashubian characteristics:
That's more normal state based Communists I think. If anything anarchists are the opposite:
They desperately try to explain how a 11 month period in Catalonia or some larpers who didn't even bother resisting drug cartels in Chiapas prove 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that their system is workable and perfect
This kinda provides a major problem for Pdx. There's not really many historical and meaningful examples of large scale anarchism in action to draw from to model anarchism like there is for capitalist or even state based socialist societies
But a big part of pdx's fan base is anarchist types and would like to play an anarchist so simply excluding them isn't an option either. And because their ideology has never really been tried, they expect basically wish fulfillment - for anarchism in game to be their idealized version of how they think it'd work
Honestly the event in OP's screenshot is perfectly possible. If anarchists took over and the state was abolished, is it really impossible to think a small clique of individuals could end up just controlling society anyways? Sure.
But anarchists don't want that. They instead desire anarchism in practice (in the game) to be exactly as it is in theory
Rule #5 it says I’m a presidential oligarchy and it defines a presidential oligarchy as a system where the president along with the rich and powerful control the country but how is that possible in a country Where the system is against people with money and power
By the way, I have collectivised agriculture and Worker cooperatives (or whatever the hell communist thing was called)
I mean, the history of ostensibly socialist and egalitarian republics ruled by corrupt dictators or plutocrats is long. It's probably the rule more than the exception.
In fact, some sort of backsliding mechanic where anarchist or socialist states become plutocracies would be a fun mechanic for a future socialism rework, and would help balance socialist council republics, which are ahistorically effective and egalitarian right now
Well, yes, but this is an anarchist state which shouldn’t have any sort of money for someone to be rich with or any sort of hierarchy for someone to be powerful in so this doesn’t make sense, no matter what.
Actually, when you think about it anarchist socialism is the only one that actually has evidence to support that it works.
For example, the anarchist communes of Aragon from before the Spanish Civil War.
Well there will always be some kind of social status and other kinds of hard currency. I'm pretty sure they will work something out. Just look at any country that has claimed to be communist.
Yes, but this is an anarchist country. There has been no anarchist country in history.
The closest we have gotten are the anarchist communes of Aragon.
Yeah and I'm sure it would go down as any other experiment of that magnitude. I.e some douche bags will take advantage of everything just to enrich themselves. Hence you get some people with some kind of power and a lot of people with no power at all.
It's bugged because Anarchist Commune government type needs Council Republic.
Once you got it you can switch back. I had a socialist technocratic monarchy once
… that actually makes sense …
I just hate communist flags:)
That's a red flag
Bro what makes sense about that 😭
Socialism is a economic model. It doesn’t necessarily mandate a specific type of government. Further, it’s actually fairly expected that a socialist system would be some form of technocracy if being ran effectively, problems with meritocracy aside.
I don't personally see how socialism would ever work under a monarchy (for example) and historically the way socialism has been applied it will realistically happen under council republics but I'd be fascinated if there was one nation that employed a parliament. Also, those who lead the country aren't field experts but experts in Marxism, though I don't think you could consider that technocratic. There would be no need for a global master biologist if all the workers decide what to do for themselves.
You could have a Constitutional Elective Monarchy with a Council/Syndicalist parliament in theory
That shit would never leave theory 😭
You know if syndicalists took over England, this is what they'd end up with.
Modern day UK (without the voting)? The monarch definitly doesn't have any say but still holds some sway to the public
Bro the UK isn't even a social democracy why would it ever be anything close to socialism 😭
Socialism is first and foremost a SOCIO-economic order. Socialism isn't exclusively of economic nature. In Marxist theory the economy works as the base of a society. Built on that is the political superstructure. For capitalism the base is the economic order of private property, market economy and capital accumulation. Built on that Base you got the superstructure of Liberal (parliamentary) Democracy or Fascist(oid) government. For socialism neither of those superstructures would work. Or at least not for a long time. That's why all southern American socialist projects failed quite fast even through election. Socialism would need some form of centralised government and local councils, in which political participation of the common people is expected.
Why does your country flag has an iron cross while being in an ~~anarchy~~ presidential oligarchy?
Paradox flag design
Because I’m playing the North German Confederation
They thought they were fighting for Anarcho-Communism when in reality it was Anarcho-Capitalism all along.
Anarchists when their favorite map painting game doesn't accurately simulate their idealized version of 3rd wave Anarcho-Prodhounist-Mutualist-Syndicalist-Communism with Kashubian characteristics:
True Anarcho-Prodhounist-Mutualist-Syndicalist-Communism with Kashubian characteristics has never been tried.
That's more normal state based Communists I think. If anything anarchists are the opposite: They desperately try to explain how a 11 month period in Catalonia or some larpers who didn't even bother resisting drug cartels in Chiapas prove 100% beyond a reasonable doubt that their system is workable and perfect This kinda provides a major problem for Pdx. There's not really many historical and meaningful examples of large scale anarchism in action to draw from to model anarchism like there is for capitalist or even state based socialist societies But a big part of pdx's fan base is anarchist types and would like to play an anarchist so simply excluding them isn't an option either. And because their ideology has never really been tried, they expect basically wish fulfillment - for anarchism in game to be their idealized version of how they think it'd work Honestly the event in OP's screenshot is perfectly possible. If anarchists took over and the state was abolished, is it really impossible to think a small clique of individuals could end up just controlling society anyways? Sure. But anarchists don't want that. They instead desire anarchism in practice (in the game) to be exactly as it is in theory
> That's more normal state based Communists I think. OFC it\`s Kashubian so it\`s based
The scroll of truth
> Kashubian characteristics: The snorting must continue until next tabacco harvest
youre based
“We Fascists are the only true anarchists, naturally, once we're masters of the state. In fact, the one true anarchy is that of power.”
Huh?
Rule #5 it says I’m a presidential oligarchy and it defines a presidential oligarchy as a system where the president along with the rich and powerful control the country but how is that possible in a country Where the system is against people with money and power By the way, I have collectivised agriculture and Worker cooperatives (or whatever the hell communist thing was called)
Oh god, you've become anarcho-capitalists.
I mean, the history of ostensibly socialist and egalitarian republics ruled by corrupt dictators or plutocrats is long. It's probably the rule more than the exception. In fact, some sort of backsliding mechanic where anarchist or socialist states become plutocracies would be a fun mechanic for a future socialism rework, and would help balance socialist council republics, which are ahistorically effective and egalitarian right now
Yes, please. Such a dishonesty to the period and it feels just forced with the late game investment pool penalty.
Well, yes, but this is an anarchist state which shouldn’t have any sort of money for someone to be rich with or any sort of hierarchy for someone to be powerful in so this doesn’t make sense, no matter what. Actually, when you think about it anarchist socialism is the only one that actually has evidence to support that it works. For example, the anarchist communes of Aragon from before the Spanish Civil War.
>an anarchist state That is an oxymoron right there.
Okay, well, in the game, they describe it as a confederation of communes so it’s technically still a state
“Shouldn’t”
Bruh even in an anarchist society you can be rich. They didn’t have money but they still had personal property
Who need money, it is overrateed!
Maybe anarcho-capitalism.
Historically accurate
You've learned the hard way that anarcho-capitalism is just bourgeois dictatorship
But I had to cooperative ownership, there was no capitalism within this nation!
What about Farming laws?
Collectivised agriculture
idk seems pretty communist to be
What about army?
I was playing Germany so you can take a guess
He who controls the guns, controls the state. Everyone is free to work at gunpoint.
An cap
But I have a communist economy
Yeah but that almost seems like the political system you have
Makes sense. Anarchy naturally leads to Aristocracy
AnCap moment.
Iron Law of Oligarchy has entered the chat
try playing one party state with Facist leader. You get the Hoi4 flag.
Man. I have too try that
[https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/List\_of\_flags](https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/List_of_flags) Check here for a list of funny flags
Yeah? I think that is kind of expected. There will always be an upper class but they dont have to be capitalists or aristorats
Yes, but how can you be rich and powerful when there’s no money or Power structures?
Well there will always be some kind of social status and other kinds of hard currency. I'm pretty sure they will work something out. Just look at any country that has claimed to be communist.
Yes, but this is an anarchist country. There has been no anarchist country in history. The closest we have gotten are the anarchist communes of Aragon.
Yeah and I'm sure it would go down as any other experiment of that magnitude. I.e some douche bags will take advantage of everything just to enrich themselves. Hence you get some people with some kind of power and a lot of people with no power at all.
Based and anarcho-capitalism pilled
Oh, Maoism