Remove ads

Red Earth, Black War (Alternate Communist Bloc ISOT into Original Magitek Fantasy, CK3)

Reader mode
Victory being essentially inevitable does not mean it will come easily, or at no cost. 2/3rds of the world fighting the remaining 1/3 will end badly for the 1/3, but even without nukes it doesn't seem likely it will end with the other 2/3 unscathed.
 
Lord_Asmodeus said:
Victory being essentially inevitable does not mean it will come easily, or at no cost. 2/3rds of the world fighting the remaining 1/3 will end badly for the 1/3, but even without nukes it doesn't seem likely it will end with the other 2/3 unscathed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe, but it's inevitable in the long run, and it's unironically better for us to do it now rather than later when we have to fight not just regular capitalists but magic-capitalists violently stabbing us in the back. I'd much rather stab them in the front now so we can properly use their resources for the coming trials.

Also the liberation of the global proletariat, that's a plus.
 
Yeah but the global proletariat in America, I mean... they live in America. If you tear half of their country to hell and gone even if they're on-side for your revolution are going to be less than perfectly happy about all their dead friends and family. That's the problem with gleefully bombing countries to liberate their people. The people live there. Most of those who die aren't going to be the capitalist owner class.
 
Lord_Asmodeus said:
Yeah but the global proletariat in America, I mean... they live in America. If you tear half of their country to hell and gone even if they're on-side for your revolution are going to be less than perfectly happy about all their dead friends and family. That's the problem with gleefully bombing countries to liberate their people. The people live there. Most of those who die aren't going to be the capitalist owner class.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True, and that is unfortunate, but again, it's unavoidable. It's not a question of "War with America Yes/No" it's a question of "War with America Now/Later" and I think it's better to pick Now.
 
to quote a favorite book of mine, "What is identified as the problem determines the frame of rhetoric and solutions sought." If we see the problem as one of a threat we must destroy, that will shape all of our thinking and future actions. If we go into this with the assumption war is a foregone conclusion and diplomacy has no chance of success then indeed, war will be a foregone conclusion and diplomacy will have no chance for success.

What would be the point of giving us options which seem to suggest a diplomatic solution is possible, if no diplomatic solution were possible.
 
Last edited:
Lord_Asmodeus said:
to quote a favorite book of mine, "What is identified as the problem determines the frame of rhetoric and solutions sought." If we see the problem as one of a threat we must destroy, that will shape all of our thinking and future actions. If we go into this with the assumption war is a foregone conclusion and diplomacy has no chance of success then indeed, war will be a foregone conclusion and diplomacy will have no chance for success.

What would be the point of giving us options which seem to suggest a diplomatic solution is possible, if no diplomatic solution were possible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not that I don't think a diplomatic solution is possible, it's that I don't want one. That would mean that America is never freed from capitalism.

Personally I prefer biulding up and then attacking to attacking right away, however the "attack immediately" person is better then the "attack later" person outside of that difference, so I support them
 
Why would a diplomatic solution inherently rule out the coming of the revolution to the US and GTO? Is patience, and the long view, not a virtue of communism over capitalism? Have not other nations and people's, though they seemed intractable at first, been brought over to the cause? One need not love war to love the movement, and you do not need to abandon your zeal for the liberation of all peoples from their shackles of oppression, merely because you see peace as a means of obtaining it.
 
Last edited:
Lord_Asmodeus said:
Why would a diplomatic solution inherently rule out the coming of the revolution to the US and GTO? Is patience, and the long view, not a virtue of communism over capitalism? Have not other nations and people's, though they seemed intractable at first, been brought over to the cause? One need not love war to love the movement, and you do not need to abandon your zeal for the liberation of all peoples from their shackles of oppression, merely because you see peace as a means of obtaining it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It does not, in this case, take two to tango. If the Americans feel like that's a risk they're just going to declare war on us no matter what. And that is why long-term diplomacy cannot work. Because if we don't first strike them they'll first strike us.
 
Lord_Asmodeus said:
Why would a diplomatic solution inherently rule out the coming of the revolution to the US and GTO? Is patience, and the long view, not a virtue of communism over capitalism? Have not other nations and people's, though they seemed intractable at first, been brought over to the cause? One need not love war to love the movement, and you do not need to abandon your zeal for the liberation of all peoples from their shackles of oppression, merely because you see peace as a means of obtaining it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So how many year do you think a "peacfull" revolution will take? 10? 50? 100? How many years before the Bourgeoisie of America decide to peacfully move to communism? How many decades? How many centuries?

The fact is that the capitalists will never peacefully accept communism, and if by diplomatic you mean waiting for America to achieve class consciousness on its own, that just means that the might of the American Empire will be turned against its own Prolitariet, instead of our army.

Communism is not love, communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy, and the faster we use that hammer, the faster the Proletariat of America will be free
 
Last edited:
If all you have is a hammer, all you will see is nails. If you wield the cause as a bludgeon without regard to the cost to the people, nothing truly seperates us from them. Communism is the people. To lose sight of this, is to lose sight of the whole point of the endeavour. Communism is not the means it is the ends.
 
Lord_Asmodeus said:
If all you have is a hammer, all you will see is nails. If you wield the cause as a bludgeon without regard to the cost to the people, nothing truly seperates us from them. Communism is the people. To lose sight of this, is to lose sight of the whole point of the endeavour. Communism is not the means it is the ends.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Then why do you abandon the people of America so easily? There are two ways communism can come without our intervention, and neither are possible.

Either reform brings America to us, an impossible feat, or they have their own revolution, where without the very intervention you decry as warmongering their natural revolution would crumble beneath their forces.

With one choice we have doomed the proletariat of America to capitalist tyranny for hundreds more years then there would be if we simply acted. The revolution in America will need our support either way, all that peace does is delay the conflict further, damming millions, no, billions of Proletariat to capitalist tyranny!
 
Depending on our choice of leader, will the others simply fade out of the picture, or will they keep some relevance?
 
Ultrackius said:
Depending on our choice of leader, will the others simply fade out of the picture, or will they keep some relevance?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Many will stand for election in other Committee positions.

Meyer for example, into the Commissariat for Research & Development while Xiulan can also stand for the Supreme Commander of the organisation's Military STAVKA or for Chief of the Land Forces.
 
[X] Xuan Xiulan


changing my vote to avoid splitting the Revolutionary faction's vote. We can't let the pacifists take this
 
[VOTE VOIDED] [X] Sirvan Vahdat [VOTE VOIDED]

I'm not a fan of taking the warmonger approach. I believe that ultimately taking the road of ongoing political and economic influence will yield better and more morally sound results. Plus, Sirvan seems to be highly respected in many political arenas, and I don't think the value of that can be overstated.
 
Last edited:
BobTheNinja said:
[X] Sirvan Vahdat

I'm not a fan of taking the warmonger approach. I believe that ultimately taking the road of ongoing political and economic influence will yield better and more morally sound results. Plus, Sirvan seems to be highly respected in many political arenas, and I don't think the value of that can be overstated.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Please tell me how exactly you plan to peacefully convince the American Bourgeoisie to allow communism to come to their nation?
 
Clearly, the only way to secure communism is to take out the American Bourgeois, and forcing a surrender on our terms. Once we have achieved unconditional American surrender, then we can knock out all the remaining capitalist powers easily.
 
Rise Comics said:
Clearly, the only way to secure communism is to take out the American Bourgeois, and forcing a surrender on our terms. Once we have achieved unconditional American surrender, then we can knock out all the remaining capitalist powers easily.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Americans are not the primary antagonist or even close to it. They just have the potential to become a nuisance depending on how they're dealt with.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top