Eh, I'm not entirely sure. People like to make things that a lot of people like.
For instance, it feels bad when you're producing a Quest that has five likes a post and it feels good when you're producing a Quest that has fifty likes a post. You're not actually any richer either way, but.
True, but while a quest is a significant investment of one's time and effort, it's an entirely different matter when you make giant-scale movies, such as blockbusters, which are significant investments of time, effort, and money by a significant number of people. There's generally expected to be a return on investment on that, and blockbusters, while some can stand on their own artistic merit, rely on large box office numbers to rake in a profit. If you eliminate currency, there's less of an incentive to do a high-risk, high-reward effort like a blockbuster movie.
True, but while a quest is a significant investment of one's time and effort, it's an entirely different matter when you make giant-scale movies, such as blockbusters, which are significant investments of time, effort, and money by a significant number of people. There's generally expected to be a return on investment on that, and blockbusters, while some can stand on their own artistic merit, rely on large box office numbers to rake in a profit. If you eliminate currency, there's less of an incentive to do a high-risk, high-reward effort like a blockbuster movie.
Hmm, maybe. It also depends on how you get funding. I could very well see the various Hollywood creative communes and the government encouraging projects that people like a lot. You might wind up with a mandatory blockbuster a year per studio, which is admittedly different than the, "Every movie is now a blockbuster" model that Hollywood seems to be transitioning towards.
Very fascinating with the writeups for the various parties. I really really like the Democratic-Republicans. I didn't think there was going to be any party in the UASR I'd feel comfortable voting for, but apparently there is. I knew I found my party the moment I saw "civil libertarianism."
Hmm, maybe. It also depends on how you get funding. I could very well see the various Hollywood creative communes and the government encouraging projects that people like a lot. You might wind up with a mandatory blockbuster a year per studio, which is admittedly different than the, "Every movie is now a blockbuster" model that Hollywood seems to be transitioning towards.
Eh, I'm not entirely sure. People like to make things that a lot of people like.
For instance, it feels bad when you're producing a Quest that has five likes a post and it feels good when you're producing a Quest that has fifty likes a post. You're not actually any richer either way, but.
You might choose the most popular option among the ones you like to keep updating. But you're not going to write a clone of a popular quest you don't enjoy just because it pays the bills.
It's worth remembering that lots of people make dumb media just because it's fun, and lots of said media gets remembered decades later for the same reason.
Like, I can't stress enough how most of Shakespeare's catalogue is low brow stuff he wrote to pay the bills. It's excellent because he was an excellent writer, but it's still far from high brow intellectual stuff.
People will still make dumb spectacles because dumb spectacles are fun.
It's worth remembering that lots of people make dumb media just because it's fun, and lots of said media gets remembered decades later for the same reason.
Like, I can't stress enough how most of Shakespeare's catalogue is low brow stuff he wrote to pay the bills. It's excellent because he was an excellent writer, but it's still far from high brow intellectual stuff.
People will still make dumb spectacles because dumb spectacles are fun.
A cursory Wikipedia search of the highest grossing Soviet films produces all kinds of shit, from action adventure films to disaster to romantic comedies. Obviously some of those are attempts at producing domestic versions of international hits, but they were still made and proved wildly popular.
There's always going to be people who want to make big silly films, and being "good in the room" (aka convincing people to give you money for your big silly film) is a constant whether the person holding the bag is a private investor, a studio, or a government run arts fund. This is just me spitballing, but IIRC given that the film industry is run as a series of collectives (with the whole crew voting on which projects to work on, etc.) it'd be pretty simple to found your own (with blackjack and hookers!), petition your local Film Fund rep (or whatever) for a meeting, and then sell them in the room on why a movie about a space farm boy fighting the interstellar forces of reaction is something the people need to see to stoke their revolutionary fervor (or whatever). It's not different than a modern studio being sold on an idea because it'll make them a shit load of money - there's still an ROI, it's just about earning cache, prestige, etc. instead of money.
Now, the odds of essentially the same films being made with essentially the same people 50+ years after the POD, in a wildly different cultural and socio-political context, is something different. The circumstances of any film being made are incredibly specific and arcane, at every level of the production, such that a ATL producing a recognizable "cousin" of an OTL work are pretty remote.
Having to be 'good in the room' will probably be less of an issue in the UASR (and alt-USSR by the time its economy recovers from the war) than it was either in our US or the USSR - because the movie industry is not as profit-driven, and because the system is pluralistic enough. What can be shot down in one 'room' can fly in another, they don't have to follow the same directive guidelines.
Now, the odds of essentially the same films being made with essentially the same people 50+ years after the POD, in a wildly different cultural and socio-political context, is something different. The circumstances of any film being made are incredibly specific and arcane, at every level of the production, such that a ATL producing a recognizable "cousin" of an OTL work are pretty remote.
True, but this is a matter of willing suspension of disbelief concerning the Redverse as a work of fiction. It would probably be more realistic to avoid the movies recognisable from OTL being produced ITTL and to replace them with something made of the whole cloth, but it would be at the cost of the Redverse becoming less relatable.
Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Chile I think. Either Socialist or Socialist-aligned, though in a more dictatorial bent given the massive damages inflicted upon them by the Brazilian Integralist forces.
As a note, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Colombia just grill and Venezuela is a British client state whose reigning autocrat; Contreras; is a passionate anglophile.
As a note, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Colombia just grill and Venezuela is a British client state whose reigning autocrat; Contreras; is a passionate anglophile.
Yeah, I remembered the bit about Venezuela being pro-FBU after I posted that. Specifically, how they played Spain to Brazil's Germany (by being a neutral port to skirt blockades and source of easily obtainable resources) during the war.
From what I understand, it appears that may have been changed in the reboot(s). Basically, Venezuela supports the Integralists with oil, allowing use of its ports, and maybe volunteers, but doesn't actively join the war, which spares it the asskicking it would get if it did join.
From what I understand, it appears that may have been changed in the reboot(s). Basically, Venezuela supports the Integralists with oil, allowing use of its ports, and maybe volunteers, but doesn't actively join the war, which spares it the asskicking it would get if it did join.
That's mildly disappointing. I kinda liked the whole ultimate total war thing the AH thread had where literally every country on the planet except Switzerland joined one side or another. Although I guess that might not be wholly realistic
Pushing Brazil out of Guiana and helping to push down the narrow passageways in the North of Brazil as well as sending expeditionary forces to Europe, North Africa, and Southern Asia.
That's mildly disappointing. I kinda liked the whole ultimate total war thing the AH thread had where literally every country on the planet except Switzerland joined one side or another. Although I guess that might not be wholly realistic
It happened OTL with Spain - though admittedly, that was more a) Franco being a pragmatist and more of a run-of-the-mill ultraconservative military dictator than a dyed-in-the-wool Fascist and b) Spain being so utterly trashed by the end of the Spanish Civil War they would probably have made Italy seem competent by comparison had they joined the Axis. Sweden also remained neutral, but while Sweden played the realpolitik game very carefully, it was also largely a matter of luck.
I'm guessing here, the Venezuelans were hedging their bets; if the Axis win, they have buddies in power, but they similarly don't want to piss off the Entente, who are their biggest friends. Also, they lucked out in a way; both sides were too busy fighting each other to come down on it, and by the time the Integralists were about to fall, Venezuela was more useful to the FBU as a postwar ally than an occupied state.
That's mildly disappointing. I kinda liked the whole ultimate total war thing the AH thread had where literally every country on the planet except Switzerland joined one side or another. Although I guess that might not be wholly realistic
No there was a blurb in one of the AH thread about Afghanistan invanding British India and getting split between the British and the the soviets and another blurb about Tibet getting Merced by one of the Chinese Warlord states after a border skirmish spiraled out of control or something like that.
No there was a blurb in one of the AH thread about Afghanistan invanding British India and getting split between the British and the the soviets and another blurb about Tibet getting Merced by one of the Chinese Warlord states after a border skirmish spiraled out of control or something like that.
Maybe I'm misremembering the Afghanistan part. I've read way too much alternate history but the Tibet one definitely happened in the Great Crusade Thread. I definitely remember that one.
Soviet International Communist Front, Sovetskij Internacionalnyj Kommunisticheskiy Front
Abbreviation
SICF, SIKF
Founded
1955
Split From
All-Union Communist Party (Bolshevik)
Secretary-General
Natalia Magnat
Leader
Alexander Tarasov
Ideology
Militarized Internationalism
Cultural libertinism
Council Communism
Factions:
Bolshevik-Leninist
Zapatismo
Cosmicism
Political Position
Far-Left (USSR, International)
Color
Bright Red
The Soviet International Communist Front (Russian: Sovetskij Internacionalnyj Kommunisticheskiy Front) is one of the major political parties in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The party originated from the "Internationalist Opposition", a faction of the All-Union Communist Party led by military leaders Mikhail Frunze, Georgy Zhukov and Nikolay Kuznetsov, originally formed in 1950 to encourage the Party to revitalize the Soviet Union's role in spreading the International Revolution and to reconcile the goals of the Red Army and the Communist Party, pushing the two to become more closely aligned. Partly, this was motivated by the transition to an all-volunteer army following World War II, leaving veterans concerned about the commitment of the Party towards supporting veterans of the World Revolutionary War. However, such efforts were stonewalled by the Party itself, still largely staffed by Stalin or Molotov loyalists. They did, however, gain the support of students (many of whom had studied in the UASR) and ethnic minorities (particularly Central and Western Asians) for their support of reversing at least some of the Russian chauvinism of the Stalin years.
In 1955, spurred on by Molotov's reluctance to increase Soviet involvement in the Horn War (seen by many of the party's veteran base as a betrayal of the sacrifices made during the Great Patriotic War), Frunze, Zhukov, and Kuznetsov announced, much to the shock of international observers, that they would formally split from the VKP(b) to instead form their own party, the "All-Union Communist Party (Leninist)", or "Leninists" to "restore the Soviet Union as the vanguard of the revolution". Taking advantage of the loosening of election restrictions under Molotov, the SICF would challenge the Communists in the 1956 legislative elections, becoming the first major independent party to do so since 1919.
In another shocking turn of events, the SICF would actually win those elections, forming the first non-Communist Party Supreme Soviet, with Frunze as Chairman. Frunze would follow through on his promises, making a firm commitment to VOSCOM and announcing that the USSR would fight for revolution wherever it may arise. Frunze's chairmanship would see the Red Army take a larger role in policy formation. Frunze's military policies would come to define the doctrine of "Militarized Internationalism", later refined by the American Liberation Communist Party, and would lead to, among other things, commitment to support Kurdistan in its conflict with the Kingdom of Iraq and the deployment of Soviet volunteer forces to assist Ho Chi Minh's revolutionaries in Indochina.
However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, Frunze sought to also return the USSR to its revolutionary roots on a domestic level. To that end, he reduced the size of the bureaucracy and made reforms to the election process to make them significantly more democratic and relevant to even the most remote of villages. More visibly, he would also reverse most of the culturally repressive policies enacted by Stalin and Molotov. He would release many political prisoners, repealed the ban on homosexuality, and would lay the foundation for an independent press and non-party endorsed media and organizations. Many works by dissidents like Yevgeny Zamyatin and Mikhail Bulgakov would finally receive Russian translations and American media would no longer be censored when imported.
Frunze and successor Konstantin Rokossovsky reforms would culminate in a new Soviet Constitution in 1959, which would heavily reformed the Soviet system, aligning closer to the American system and decentralizing the Soviet government. Even after the Communist Party regained control of the Supreme Soviet in 1964, the slim margins caused Premier Alexei Kosygin to include Leninist members as Commissars, continuing their influence in politics.
In 1960, to distinguish themselves from the Communist Party, they would take on the name the "Soviet International Communist Front", and call their Left Communist ideology "Bolshevik-Leninism" to mark a change from the Stalinist affiliated "Marxism-Leninism".
While originally a primarily culturally moderate party of veterans, the SICF came to be the main party for the militant counterculture of the 60's and 70's through its student members. During Premier Alexander Yakovlev's tenure between 1979 and 1985, a cadre of commissars would move the SICF version of Militarized Internationalism closer to the American version, creating the modern version of the party.
In the present, the SICF has a plurality in the Soviet of the Union, and has been forced into a power-sharing alliance with the relatively more moderate (on military and foreign policy issues, at least) Soviet Radical Vanguard Party. Thus, Party Leader Alexander Tarasov is now Deputy Premier in the government of RadVan Soule Omorova.
Ideology
The SICF and its predecessor, the Internationalist Opposition, are viewed as the originators of the political doctrine of "militarized internationalism" as it exists in the modern day. While this ideology was quickly adopted by similar splinter parties in the socialist bloc that emerged in the wake of the Horn War, the doctrine is considered by historians and political scientists to have begun developing within the Internationalist Opposition at the start of the 1950s.
The initial idea behind "militarized internationalism" rested on the idea of enforcing international revolution with force and through aggressive confrontation to heighten the contradictions in the Liberal Capitalist order, mostly through means of heightening military confrontations such as proxy wars and insurgencies. It also seeks to support proletarian governments embattled with reactionary, fascist, or liberal militants through both soft means to weaken the initial cause of violent resistance with aid and development and hard means to destroy such groups. With a prominent example of this being the targeting of Islamic Republicanist groups in Iran and Showa loyalists in Nippon. The Internationalist Opposition, drawing on Vladimir Lenin's original vision for the Soviet Union, felt that Communist Party had lost its way, abandoning the world revolution and the sacrifice of Soviet soldiers during the Great Patriotic War in favor of short term domestic gains. This became especially apparent during the Horn War and the Andean War, with Molotov being hesitant to send more force to the conflict out of fears of another general European war erupting.
Since then, the SICF has consistently advocated for military force in most and stronger ties with other Comintern nations. It has also been a strong advocate of nuclear arms, keeping them as a potential ace card to intimidate the capitalist world. Paradoxically, SILCF governments have also presided over disarmament agreements between the blocs, with some speculating that they intended to taunt and embarrass pacifist opposition by showing that superior strength can allow for peace better than mere protest ever could.
Originally, the party was relatively moderate on cultural issues. An Old Bolshevik, Frunze was nevertheless concerned about the image of the USSR internationally, even amongst Comintern nations, for its repression of works that would go on to great acclaim in the capitalist world (and even America), its extensive censorship of literature and films, and the reversal of some progressive policies under Stalin and later Molotov.
The Red Army had cooperated extensively with its American counterpart throughout the Second World War and had also exposed itself to the cultures of the other members of the Vladivostok Compact. English had become a virtual necessity to learn in the RKKA throughout the war, and many a Soviet veteran had been inundated with American culture and the more relaxed culture of the Workers and Farmer's Revolutionary Army. The Stalin-Molotov era restrictions which saw the Russian dubs and translations of American media heavily censored were intolerable to many to return to, especially in the joint-occupation of the defeated Axis powers where Soviet soldiers would frequently intermingle with American, Latino, and Chinese troops in eastern Germany, Romania, Hungary, Northeastern Italy, Bolivia, Paraguay, Turkey, and Japan.
Thus, Frunze loosened many of the restrictions, allowing a number of banned works to finally see publication in their native language. American movies, TV shows, and comics were no longer bound by strict censorship, and most importantly, bans on abortion and homosexuality were reversed. Frunze also released many political prisoners. Whilst these changes were small, they eventually led to a cultural renaissance often called "The Cultural Leap". The student wing of the party would also ascend into prominence because of these changes, with student leaders going on to define revolutionary cultural policy that would go beyond even contemporaneous American counterculture leaders, with policies that would see most bourgeois elements finally eliminated.
The SICF initially largely supported the status quo in terms of the basic structure of the Soviet government. However, with the influence of the student movement and the American Liberation Party, they soon embraced councilism, and spearheaded the extensive decentralization of the Soviet government, empowering local soviets and hewing the USSR closer to the American model of democracy.
These three have defined the party's ideology, and secured its primary support base of veterans, many student organizations, and Soviet minorities (particularly Central Asian) for generations, as well as making inroads with retirees, defense workers, and artists. However, a growing number have fled to RadVan, believing the SICF slow on the issue of state abolition.
Fractions
The SICF fractions largely reflect those of its American counterpart, the Liberation Communist Party, though with different names and slightly different ideologies.
Frunzeites- Named for Marshal Frunze, represents the "mainline" ideology of the party. Despite their name, they largely represent the student portion of the party led by Alexander Tarasov. Unlike the relatively moderate Frunze, they are pro-cultural revolution and pro-councilism. Despite this, the main throughline is their strong inclination towards militarized internationalism. Are the dominant fraction, with Tarasov being a member.
Zapatismo- The Zapatismo fraction. The fraction of the Central Asian and Mongolian minorities, notable in its strong support of decolonization conflicts and empowering working people in the Global South through military, economic and political support. A smaller, but more vocal fraction occasionally at odds with the Frunzites
Cosmicists- Also known as Bogdanovists. Equivalent to the Ereists in America. Came into prominence during the space craze under party leader Mirosław Hermaszewski and the Communist premiership of Tatiana Kuznetsova (the first person to walk on the moon in 1970). Strongly believes in the philosophy of cosmicism or attempting to expand humanity's reach to the stars and significantly improve human bodies in preparation for this. Can be described (charitably) as "Marxist-Transhumanist". Also strongly adheres to the work of Alexander Bogdanov, thus their alternate name. Increasingly the center of "transhumanism" thought as well as "uplifting" thought (AI, animals, etc.)
General Secretaries (1955-Present)
Georgy Zhukov (1955-1964)
Nikolay Kuznetsov (1964-1967)
Petro Grigorenko (1967-1975)
Kiva Maidanik (1975-1980)
Shamil Gubaidulin (1980-1985)
Valery Sablin (1985-1994)
Alexander Tarasov (1994-2005)
Svetlana Savitskaya[1](2005-2010)
Natalia Magnat (2010-Present)
Chairpersons (1955-Present)
Mikhail Frunze (1955-1960)
Konstantin Rokossovsky (1960-1966)
Vasily Kuznetsov (1966-1970)
Anatoly Chernyaev (1970-1974)
Nikolai Ogarkov (1974-1978)
Alexander Yakovlev (1978-1985)
Alexandra Biryukova (1985-1990)
Sergey Akhromeyev (1990-1994)
Natalya Magnat (1994-2000)
Mirosław Hermaszewski (2000-2005)
Alexander Tarasov (2005-2010, 2019-present)
Nina Khrushcheva (2010-2019)
[1] Second Person to walk on the Martian surface in 1996
-----------
Special thanks to @Magnimik for the leaders of the party and many suggestions that improved the piece and @rajavlitra for the flag
This was a wonderful read. I've been curious about the Soviet Unions politics after the WWII and this is full of great details. Especially cool to see that at least two people have walked on Mars. Can't wait to get to that when we do!
Looks like the Soviet Union headed in a far more positive direction. So is Marxism-Lennism as we would understand it relevant anywhere in the modern day?
