Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

[Bookmark1995]

One thing about the UASR that does bring up for me is that because the UASR has no intellectual property, corporations won't be able to hoard scientific or mathematical discoveries made by their employees. I must disclaim that this is a bit of a conspiracy theory of mine, but I think there are probably countless major discoveries OTL that the world doesn't know about because they're locked up behind some corporation's trade secrets. With how long Disney has been able to hold onto Mickey Mouse, it's clear that corporations are capable of keeping ownership of ideas away from the public for many decades. It's impossible to know if this actually happens at the scale I'm imagining, but it is likely both possible and something corporations are incentivized to do - my belief is that this is the single largest factor suppressing innovation OTL. The UASR and Comintern generally won't have this problem, which could lead to huge advances in the pace of technology, e.g. why the Internet expy gets built so much earlier than OTL.

Click to shrink...

This is a flaw of OTL capitalism: many corporations with a vested interest in the status quo will stifle innovation that challenges their bottom line. I read that one of the reasons hemp was banned was that its ubiquity and hardiness threatened many industrialists. Also, OTL renewable technology was stifled by politicians backed by the fossil fuel industry. Reagan pulling the plug on renewable technology and yanking down the solar panels is one GLARING example of this kind of thing.

But this is my big question: if you are in a socialist society that has abandoned money in favor of vouchers, how do you incentivize innovation? I am not trying to be a property rights absolutist since public goods undoubtedly benefit society. Salk making the polio vaccine-free is one example. But how is one incentivized to produce innovations with no money? Do you get a voucher of some kind if you invent something? Do you free prizes instead?

 

[Libertad]

One thing about the UASR that does bring up for me is that because the UASR has no intellectual property, corporations won't be able to hoard scientific or mathematical discoveries made by their employees. I must disclaim that this is a bit of a conspiracy theory of mine, but I think there are probably countless major discoveries OTL that the world doesn't know about because they're locked up behind some corporation's trade secrets. With how long Disney has been able to hold onto Mickey Mouse, it's clear that corporations are capable of keeping ownership of ideas away from the public for many decades. It's impossible to know if this actually happens at the scale I'm imagining, but it is likely both possible and something corporations are incentivized to do - my belief is that this is the single largest factor suppressing innovation OTL. The UASR and Comintern generally won't have this problem, which could lead to huge advances in the pace of technology, e.g. why the Internet expy gets built so much earlier than OTL.

Click to shrink...

The UASR has intellectual property law, mostly modeled after Soviet intellectual property law. Technology in Reds! is not necessarily more advanced than IOTL for the most part.

I'd like to think that Americans are beginning to wake up, albeit slowly, to the repercussions of extreme wealth concentrations. Still, this semi-ideal world can only exist in our minds until we can reject the worship of money itself.

Click to shrink...

The problem is not (only) money. The problem is property.

 

[Bookmark1995]

The UASR has intellectual property law, mostly modeled after Soviet intellectual property law. Technology in Reds! is not necessarily more advanced than IOTL for the most part.

Click to shrink...

So, how does Soviet intellectual property law work within a democratic society? And does it encourage innovation, or does it stifle it?

The problem is not (only) money. The problem is property.

Click to shrink...

That too: too much is held by too few hands, but whenever someone tries to remedy this, a massive chunk of the population is conditioned to think these policies are "communist liberalism" that will ruin their chances of becoming billionaires.

 

[Miss XTC]

any criticism of it..
bad faith or good faith.
in universe or out of it.

Click to shrink...

literally every major criticism of the TL can be boiled down to these factors:


1) "i hate this TL because communism is bad"
the most surface level, shallow critique. there are a lot of liberals and conservatives who are baffled by the idea of a successful communist bloc since "communism equals no food or iphone" and they see the tl as an ideology wank
2) "the uasr is too american"
commonly said by certain types of self proclaimed "third worldists" (read: white people with really grody dreadlocks) and anarchists, they're usually hung up on the uasr not giving independence to puerto rico and hawaii and talk about the uasr still being "colonialist". some even believe that the very idea of a communist america is absurd because the bourgeoisie labor aristoKKKrats of ameriKKKa can never have a revolution.
3) "the uasr is not american enough"
there are some people who are convinced that any form of american socialist revolution has to be draped in the stars and stripes and carried by a bald eagle, and are mad that the uasr doesn't keep the founding father cult or the original flag. (there was one person on the ah.com thread who sincerely asked why the uasr even bothered to change the flag because "cuba didn't change their flag")
4) "the uasr is imperialist!"
under traditional Leninist theory, the UASR is not imperialist because imperialism is a form of capitalism. NEXT!

 

[Libertad]

So, how does Soviet intellectual property law work within a democratic society? And does it encourage innovation, or does it stifle it?

Click to shrink...

The same way that the Soviet Union's political, economic and social institutions were all adapted by the UASR along with many of the country's legal codes, norms, instruments and policies throughout the 1930s and early 1940s.

Soviet intellectual property law is far more "democratic" than the Western models of today.

You are forgetting that the UASR is still a "communist state" or "Communist Party-ruled state".

What you have to understand and think about deeply is that the UASR is not this idealized liberal socialist United States of America with Red clothing. Rather, the UASR is the Soviet Union if it has the world's largest capitalist economy.

This false dichotomy of the UASR = democratic and the USSR = authoritarian has to stop.

The UASR is a very authoritarian and a very democratic state all at the same time. The only reason you call it "democratic" is because you see all of this from a liberal lens where the ruling communist party has open factionalism, the press is relatively free, there are tolerated non-party oppositionists and a relatively wide degree of ideological diversity and that the workers' state does not send hundreds of thousands of perceived opponents of the government to the gulag (which the UASR definitely has, GULAG is just an abbreviation of the Main Directorate of Correctional Labour Camps, and the UASR has correctional labor camps).

But on the other hand, you are forgetting the post-civil war mobilization conditions, the Red Terror, the open repression of the reactionary Democrats and Republicans, the unlimited state of emergency that suspends civil liberties since 1939, the Sons of Liberty insurgency and the need to squash the organization to pieces, the vast expansion of the security and surveillance apparatus, the centralization of the political and economic system, the dissolution of the codified constitution and "rule of law" in favor of unlimited soviet power, universal labor and military conscription, directive brute force planning instruments in order to push for communization, the paramilitary nature of law enforcement and policing, Communist Party control of the military, not to mention the invasive militarism and the ruling party-state machinery that deliberately gerrymander election outcomes to its favor; all of which a liberal or a libertarian (left or right) of OTL would balk at.

And if you think this is all just temporary because of the civil war or because of the fascists or because there's a world war and that the Second Cultural Revolution is some version of OTL 1960s that becomes successful and it will one day turn the UASR into this imagined libertarian socialist utopia with communist characteristics, I'm afraid to tell you it's not the case. Some of the above will change but most of what I listed are permanent. They're there to stay, granted that part of the reason why is because of an ongoing Cold War.

You and I are not going to feel very comfortable living in such a society.

That too: too much is held by too few hands, but whenever someone tries to remedy this, a massive chunk of the population is conditioned to think these policies are "communist liberalism" that will ruin their chances of becoming billionaires.

Click to shrink...

No, we're not agreeing on this. My problem is not about concentration of wealth or property in a few hands. My problem is such a phenomenon is inevitable as long as there is money and property. This is not some redistributionist socialism. We are not the same.

The middle stratum of the American population, maybe, but there's something very wrong in thinking that the working class is somehow fully indoctrinated to the idea of them being "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". The working class just wants to have basic economic security, despite how distorted that idea might be.

 

[Bookmark1995]

literally every major criticism of the TL can be boiled down to these factors:


1) "i hate this TL because communism is bad"
the most surface level, shallow critique. there are a lot of liberals and conservatives who are baffled by the idea of a successful communist bloc since "communism equals no food or iphone" and they see the tl as an ideology wank
2) "the uasr is too american"
commonly said by certain types of self proclaimed "third worldists" (read: white people with really grody dreadlocks) and anarchists, they're usually hung up on the uasr not giving independence to puerto rico and hawaii and talk about the uasr still being "colonialist". some even believe that the very idea of a communist america is absurd because the bourgeoisie labor aristoKKKrats of ameriKKKa can never have a revolution.
3) "the uasr is not american enough"
there are some people who are convinced that any form of american socialist revolution has to be draped in the stars and stripes and carried by a bald eagle, and are mad that the uasr doesn't keep the founding father cult or the original flag. (there was one person on the ah.com thread who sincerely asked why the uasr even bothered to change the flag because "cuba didn't change their flag")
4) "the uasr is imperialist!"
under traditional Leninist theory, the UASR is not imperialist because imperialism is a form of capitalism. NEXT!

Click to shrink...

It's not really a reasonable argument; it is an emotional statement with the cadence of an argument.

What you have to understand and think about deeply is that the UASR is not this idealized liberal socialist United States of America with Red clothing. Rather, the UASR is the Soviet Union if it has the world's largest capitalist economy.

Click to shrink...

I understand that. But how does that affect intellectual property?

And if you think this is all just temporary because of the civil war or because of the fascists or because there's a world war and that the Second Cultural Revolution is some version of OTL 1960s that becomes successful and it will one day turn the UASR into this imagined libertarian socialist utopia with communist characteristics, I'm afraid to tell you it's not the case. Some of the above will change but most of what I listed are permanent. They're there to stay, granted that part of the reason why is because of an ongoing Cold War.

Click to shrink...

I never got that impression. It feels like a society that bends toward extreme individualism but also extreme collectivization, with a person being able to live as they want, but also having to perform incredible duties in the name of the common people.

You and I are not going to feel very comfortable living in such a society.

Click to shrink...

I am not comfortable with the "whole permanent revolution" thing. Of course, this stems from my disillusionment with America OTL as a global policeman, but perhaps the UASR is better at regime change.

But on the other hand, you are forgetting the post-civil war mobilization conditions, the Red Terror, the open repression of the reactionary Democrats and Republicans, the unlimited state of emergency that suspends civil liberties since 1939, the Sons of Liberty insurgency and the need to squash the organization to pieces, the vast expansion of the security and surveillance apparatus, the centralization of the political and economic system, the dissolution of the codified constitution and "rule of law" in favor of unlimited soviet power, universal labor and military conscription, directive brute force planning instruments in order to push for communization, the paramilitary nature of law enforcement and policing, Communist Party control of the military, not to mention the invasive militarism and the ruling party-state machinery that deliberately gerrymander election outcomes to its favor; all of which a liberal or a libertarian (left or right) of OTL would balk at.

Click to shrink...

But the Revolt of the Cadres implies that the people at the bottom can force the people at the top to hit the breaks. And some chapters depict those prisons as being fairly humane, on top of the death penalty being heavily rolled back.

Or does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" not exist in the UASR?

No, we're not agreeing on this. My problem is not about concentration of wealth or property in a few hands. My problem is such a phenomenon is inevitable as long as there is money and property. This is not some redistributionist socialism. We are not the same.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it has to be that way.

The middle stratum of the American population, maybe, but there's something very wrong in thinking that the working class is somehow fully indoctrinated to the idea of them being "temporarily embarrassed millionaires". The working class just wants to have basic economic security, despite how distorted that idea might be.

Click to shrink...

Well, the most recent election gives me that impression, as do the votes in parts of the South.

 

[Miss Teri]

how do you incentivize innovation

Click to shrink...

By prioritizing pure science and discovery. Because that's how innovation generally comes around.

If anything, the profit motive stifles innovation, because it limits what research can be done and gives people less time to come up with truly novel things. Instead, we get variations on the same consumer goods

 

[Miss Teri]

literally every major criticism of the TL can be boiled down to these factors:


1) "i hate this TL because communism is bad"
the most surface level, shallow critique. there are a lot of liberals and conservatives who are baffled by the idea of a successful communist bloc since "communism equals no food or iphone" and they see the tl as an ideology wank
2) "the uasr is too american"
commonly said by certain types of self proclaimed "third worldists" (read: white people with really grody dreadlocks) and anarchists, they're usually hung up on the uasr not giving independence to puerto rico and hawaii and talk about the uasr still being "colonialist". some even believe that the very idea of a communist america is absurd because the bourgeoisie labor aristoKKKrats of ameriKKKa can never have a revolution.
3) "the uasr is not american enough"
there are some people who are convinced that any form of american socialist revolution has to be draped in the stars and stripes and carried by a bald eagle, and are mad that the uasr doesn't keep the founding father cult or the original flag. (there was one person on the ah.com thread who sincerely asked why the uasr even bothered to change the flag because "cuba didn't change their flag")
4) "the uasr is imperialist!"
under traditional Leninist theory, the UASR is not imperialist because imperialism is a form of capitalism. NEXT!

Click to shrink...

Worst is :"People were mean to me on the Discord, so I'm just going to lie about the TL in extreme bad faith, so people who haven't read it deliberately get the wrong impression" (Yes, that really happened)

 

[Bookmark1995]

By prioritizing pure science and discovery. Because that's how innovation generally comes around.

If anything, the profit motive stifles innovation, because it limits what research can be done and gives people less time to come up with truly novel things. Instead, we get variations on the same consumer goods

Click to shrink...

I understand. Planned obsolescence is another example since companies are incentivized to create shoddy goods so people will buy more of them instead of building things that last.

But my question is, how do you reward people for innovation in a moneyless society? If you don't give them cash, what do you give them so they'll be encouraged to make more innovations?

Worst is :"People were mean to me on the Discord, so I'm just going to lie about the TL in extreme bad faith, so people who haven't read it deliberately get the wrong impression" (Yes, that really happened)

Click to shrink...

Again, it isn't an argument, but whining fabricated as an argument.

I do have legitimate concerns about the UASR, but I can say them with dignity and respect.

 

[Born in the USSA]

I personally prefer the raven as a replacement to the eagle as a national symbol. Also @Bookmark1995 intellectual property as we would understand it has no legal backing in the UASR so far as I recall, though certain developments are (democratically-accountable) state property and have stricter controls

 

[Halocon720]

To be fair, there are also people who are skeptical of the short duration of the revolution due to the state of infrastructure in America in the 30s, especially the lack of the Interstate. And I would categorize the UASR and USSR as imperialist in some respects, for example with the UASR's Latin American AURs (they joined willingly, so the story says, but how much of that was due to perceived pressure from the American titan?) and postwar Okinawa (which, from what I've read, really only stays with the UASR because they can't decide whether to go independent, rejoin Nihon, or stay with Americas, so the third option, which is the status quo, wins out).

I actually had an idea for a plot point where Jacques Roumain, IOTL a Marxist writer and ITTL the leader of red Haiti, essentially destroys his political career by entering the Union in exchange for protection against domestic and Dominican reactionaries; "the man who wrote Masters of the Dew keeping Haitians from being the masters of their own dew," so to speak.

Edit: also Poland being in the USSR, even with a lot of autonomy, would likely be seen as imperialism in-universe, of course by rightists but I'd wager some leftists as well, due to Poland's history with Russia.

 

[Bookmark1995]

I personally prefer the raven as a replacement to the eagle as a national symbol. Also @Bookmark1995 intellectual property as we would understand it has no legal backing in the UASR so far as I recall, though certain developments are (democratically-accountable) state property and have stricter controls

Click to shrink...

So how does UASR society incentivize people to innovate and create inventions that benefit society?

Edit: also Poland being in the USSR, even with a lot of autonomy, would likely be seen as imperialism in-universe, of course by rightists but I'd wager some leftists as well, due to Poland's history with Russia.

Click to shrink...

Does Poland become like Catalonia: a territory that is constantly trying to secede, but it never gets off the ground? Are the Polish people more accepting of communism, or like OTL, is it pretty much forced upon them?

 

[Libertad]

I understand that. But how does that affect intellectual property?

Click to shrink...

Copyright law of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I never got that impression. It feels like a society that bends toward extreme individualism but also extreme collectivization, with a person being able to live as they want, but also having to perform incredible duties in the name of the common people.

Click to shrink...

You didn't understand what I'm talking about, then. You are fully immersed in this good guy vs bad guy view of geopolitics and history.
And so you are quite deep in this personal version of American exceptionalism, "socialist" version.

I am not comfortable with the "whole permanent revolution" thing. Of course, this stems from my disillusionment with America OTL as a global policeman, but perhaps the UASR is better at regime change.

Click to shrink...

And you just contradicted yourself telling us that you understand what I'm talking about. You are again in this UASR = Red USA but better than real USA (now in terms of "regime change").

It's subconscious in my opinion.

But the Revolt of the Cadres implies that the people at the bottom can force the people at the top to hit the breaks. And some chapters depict those prisons as being fairly humane, on top of the death penalty being heavily rolled back.

Or does the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" not exist in the UASR?

Click to shrink...

So you didn't understand why the Revolt of the Cadres even occurred. It's not some "democratic" people's revolt against an increasingly authoritarian government. "Humane prisons" are still prisons and just because there are correctional labor camps does not mean that conditions could not be humane. The death penalty has nothing to do with the discussion and the only reason that you've mentioned "innocent until proven guilty" is because you are thinking of Stalinist show trials.

I don't think it has to be that way.

Click to shrink...

It's because you are not a communist. That's ok.

Well, the most recent election gives me that impression, as do the votes in parts of the South.

Click to shrink...

It reeks of the same "basket of deplorables" attitude towards working class Trump voters shown by Democrats.

To be fair, there are also people who are skeptical of the short duration of the revolution due to the state of infrastructure in America in the 30s, especially the lack of the Interstate. And I would categorize the UASR and USSR as imperialist in some respects, for example with the UASR's Latin American AURs (they joined willingly, so the story says, but how much of that was due to perceived pressure from the American titan?) and postwar Okinawa (which, from what I've read, really only stays with the UASR because they can't decide whether to go independent, rejoin Nihon, or stay with Americas, so the third option, which is the status quo, wins out).

I actually had an idea for a plot point where Jacques Roumain, IOTL a Marxist writer and ITTL the leader of red Haiti, essentially destroys his political career by entering the Union in exchange for protection against domestic and Dominican reactionaries; "the man who wrote Masters of the Dew keeping Haitians from being the masters of their own dew," so to speak.

Edit: also Poland being in the USSR, even with a lot of autonomy, would likely be seen as imperialism in-universe, of course by rightists but I'd wager some leftists as well, due to Poland's history with Russia.

Click to shrink...

And this is exactly what XTC is saying earlier. A mix of exhibit 2 and 4.

 

[Halocon720]

Copyright law of the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You didn't understand what I'm talking about, then. You are fully immersed in this good guy vs bad guy view of geopolitics and history.
And so you are quite deep in this personal version of American exceptionalism, "socialist" version.



And you just contradicted yourself telling us that you understand what I'm talking about. You are again in this UASR = Red USA but better than real USA (now in terms of "regime change").

It's subconscious in my opinion.



So you didn't understand why the Revolt of the Cadres even occurred. It's not some "democratic" people's revolt against an increasingly authoritarian government. "Humane prisons" are still prisons and just because there are correctional labor camps does not mean that conditions could not be humane. The death penalty has nothing to do with the discussion and the only reason that you've mentioned "innocent until proven guilty" is because you are thinking of Stalinist show trials.



It's because you are not a communist. That's ok.



It reeks of the same "basket of deplorables" attitude towards working class Trump voters shown by Democrats.



And this is exactly what XTC is saying earlier. A mix of exhibit 2 and 4.

Click to shrink...

I don't find Lenin's argument on that point particularly convincing, and we shouldn't adhere slavishly to his arguments anyway—he did get things wrong. As for point 2, just because America is now socialist doesn't mean that reactions to its actions, especially those in its historical imperial backyard, would instantly change, especially among the general public who bore the brunt of the consequences of America's past imperialism. Also, America hadn't yet achieved lower-stage communism in the 30s anyway, it still had plenty of capitalist elements in its economy, as the TL notes.

 

[Bookmark1995]

You didn't understand what I'm talking about, then. You are fully immersed in this good guy vs bad guy view of geopolitics and history.
And so you are quite deep in this personal version of American exceptionalism, "socialist" version.

Click to shrink...

I don't think I have that attitude. I mean, I did have that attitude when I first read Reds, but now I look at the society with more nuance.

And you just contradicted yourself telling us that you understand what I'm talking about. You are again in this UASR = Red USA but better than real USA (now in terms of "regime change").

It's subconscious in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

So is the USAR's version of regime change far more brutal than OTL? I merely bring up that the UASR is better than spreading its ideology, but is there a lot more blood in that process? Even if its brand of socialism seems more sustainable?

It reeks of the same "basket of deplorables" attitude towards working class Trump voters shown by Democrats.

Click to shrink...

I am aware of that attitude and I condemn it...

But... the people of states like Kentucky continue to vote for people like Mitch...so...

 

[Miss XTC]

Does Poland become like Catalonia: a territory that is constantly trying to secede, but it never gets off the ground? Are the Polish people more accepting of communism, or like OTL, is it pretty much forced upon them?

Click to shrink...

Well, Poland's demographics and Polish nationalism are absolutely fucked by the war, so the USSR is basically showing mercy by giving them the opportunity to be protected by the Red Army.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Well, Poland's demographics and Polish nationalism are absolutely fucked by the war, so the USSR is basically showing mercy by giving them the opportunity to be protected by the Red Army.

Click to shrink...

"Protection" is a very...creative term to describe the USSR in Poland. But is the USSR in general slightly less harsh to Poland due to the UASR leaning on them?

Or is the Nazi exploitation of Poland so bad that even OTL Communist Poland would be an improvement?

Also, has the TTL Allies' explicit refusal to help Poland made an entire generation of Poles hate Britain and France to the point of willingly siding with Comintern? Has Polish society becomes so disillusioned as to be more accepting of the TTL Communist ideology?

 

[Libertad]

I don't find Lenin's argument on that point particularly convincing, and we shouldn't adhere slavishly to his arguments anyway—he did get things wrong. As for point 2, just because America is now socialist doesn't mean that reactions to its actions, especially those in its historical imperial backyard, would instantly change, especially among the general public who bore the brunt of the consequences of America's past imperialism. Also, America hadn't yet achieved lower-stage communism in the 30s anyway, it still had plenty of capitalist elements in its economy, as the TL notes.

Click to shrink...

I understand the skepticism but a lot of it comes from lack of complete information about how the bread is being made, so to speak.

The Arduous March, in itself, should have been an example of how those points do not make sense given America's massive transfers of wealth and resources towards half of the planet. It's easily the largest downward transfer of wealth in history. But maybe some weirdos like neo-Stalinists will continue to rail on American cultural imperialism.

I don't think I have that attitude. I mean, I did have that attitude when I first read Reds, but now I look at the society with more nuance.

Click to shrink...

You still have it in spades unfortunately. Maybe less so than before, which I don't think I've even noticed, but it's never truly gone. There's a lot of it in every comment you make on this thread, back in AH and on Discord.

The main problem that you continue to have for now in my opinion is the liberal moralism and looking at history and geopolitics through this "good guys" vs "bad guys" point of view.

I guess it's fine but just want to point it out. I was something like this in the past.

So is the USAR's version of regime change far more brutal than OTL? I merely bring up that the UASR is better than spreading its ideology, but is there a lot more blood in that process? Even if its brand of socialism seems more sustainable?

Click to shrink...

I don't think you even realized what the World Revolutionary War/Second World War is all about...

I am aware of that attitude and I condemn it...

But... the people of states like Kentucky continue to vote for people like Mitch...so...

Click to shrink...

Venturing towards off-topic so I'll just advice that condemning that attitude means that you have to replace that attitude with something else that do get why people vote against their supposed best interest. There are already problems to begin with by looking at all of this through the prism of electoral politics but then again not something I want to discuss at length here anymore.

 

[Miss Teri]

actually had an idea for a plot point where Jacques Roumain, IOTL a Marxist writer and ITTL the leader of red Haiti, essentially destroys his political career by entering the Union in exchange for protection against domestic and Dominican reactionaries; "the man who wrote Masters of the Dew keeping Haitians from being the masters of their own dew," so to speak.

Click to shrink...

I quite like that idea, especially since it gives more insight into how the process comes about.

 

[Adonisus]

The same way that the Soviet Union's political, economic and social institutions were all adapted by the UASR along with many of the country's legal codes, norms, instruments and policies throughout the 1930s and early 1940s.

Soviet intellectual property law is far more "democratic" than the Western models of today.

You are forgetting that the UASR is still a "communist state" or "Communist Party-ruled state".

What you have to understand and think about deeply is that the UASR is not this idealized liberal socialist United States of America with Red clothing. Rather, the UASR is the Soviet Union if it has the world's largest capitalist economy.

This false dichotomy of the UASR = democratic and the USSR = authoritarian has to stop....

Click to shrink...

You should remember that most of those things you talk about are long since gone by the 1960s, and that by then the Red Terror is considered something that is ITTL a shameful chapter of the UASR's history.

 

[Libertad]

You should remember that most of those things you talk about are long since gone by the 1960s, and that by then the Red Terror is considered something that is ITTL a shameful chapter of the UASR's history.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, comrade. The historical assessment on the Red Terror is still going to be somewhat controversial, I'm sure. But as for the rest.... no further comments for now in public without venturing fully into spoiler territory with Troika's endorsement.

 

[Halocon720]

I quite like that idea, especially since it gives more insight into how the process comes about.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I've had a some interest in red Haiti for a bit. I don't know much about the country's history at that time, unfortunately (ironically I just got a book about the Dominican Republic, lol)

 

[Bookmark1995]

I don't think you even realized what the World Revolutionary War/Second World War is all about...

Click to shrink...

I know what it is about, and war isn't pretty.

I am saying when the UASR and USSR reclaim the lands and start building satellite states, is the process more humane than OTL, or is there still the shedding of blood?

You still have it in spades unfortunately. Maybe less so than before, which I don't think I've even noticed, but it's never truly gone. There's a lot of it in every comment you make on this thread, back in AH and on Discord.

Click to shrink...

I don't view it as perfect, nor do I believe the world is black and white.

Venturing towards off-topic so I'll just advice that condemning that attitude means that you have to replace that attitude with something else that do get why people vote against their supposed best interest. There are already problems to begin with by looking at all of this through the prism of electoral politics but then again not something I want to discuss at length here anymore.

Click to shrink...

Neither do I which is why I didn't want to say more than that.

You should remember that most of those things you talk about are long since gone by the 1960s, and that by then the Red Terror is considered something that is ITTL a shameful chapter of the UASR's history.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, comrade. The historical assessment on the Red Terror is still going to be somewhat controversial, I'm sure. But as for the rest.... no further comments for now in public without venturing fully into spoiler territory without Troika's endorsement.

Click to shrink...

Yes, but the point is, the UASR is a society that willing to be honest about its own flaws, unlike the OTL Soviet Union which created a culture of lying and coverups that built up until Chernobyl, literally and figuratively, blew the lid on so many things.

I never thought the UASR was a perfect society, but considering its incredibly tolerating of things, you take a more severe view of it than you have to.

 

[Libertad]

I know what it is about, and war isn't pretty.

I am saying when the UASR and USSR reclaim the lands and start building satellite states, is the process more humane than OTL, or is there still the shedding of blood?

Click to shrink...

I can't say. We will get there eventually. But reading at a version of it from AH should have given you an idea.

I don't view it as perfect, nor do I believe the world is black and white.

Click to shrink...

That's not what I am talking about, but whatever. It's ok.

Neither do I which is why I didn't want to say more than that.

Click to shrink...

Ok.

Yes, but the point is, the UASR is a society that willing to be honest about its own flaws, unlike the OTL Soviet Union which created a culture of lying and coverups that built up until Chernobyl, literally and figuratively, blew the lid on so many things.

I never thought the UASR was a perfect society, but considering its incredibly tolerating of things, you take a more severe view of it than you have to.

Click to shrink...

Your mistake is thinking that I am being critical. I'm not even being critical of the UASR's "authoritarian" features. I'm just pointing them out because you are glossing them over like they're not there or that they've been solved or that they will be solved completely or that there's an evolution that happened that made things "better" in the future and it's all part of that regrettable past, that kind of thing, when the fact is that all of those well-meaning fantasies of an incredibly tolerant society are not going to happen as long as the Cold War is not over.

It's a gentle reminder so that people are grounded on this. There are skulls that were cracked and bashed into the wall. Things are bloody. Things are now ugly and they will continue to be ugly. And the "good guys" did it too. They're involved in them. They've cracked heads wide open and produced corpses too.

And that tolerance that you are talking about has its limits. The domestic political environment is harsh on anyone working outside the Party. In 1934, 1944, 1964 and 2024. Maybe that's not fair but that's the way it is.

 

[Miss XTC]

"Protection" is a very...creative term to describe the USSR in Poland. But is the USSR in general slightly less harsh to Poland due to the UASR leaning on them?

Or is the Nazi exploitation of Poland so bad that even OTL Communist Poland would be an improvement?

Also, has the TTL Allies' explicit refusal to help Poland made an entire generation of Poles hate Britain and France to the point of willingly siding with Comintern? Has Polish society becomes so disillusioned as to be more accepting of the TTL Communist ideology?

Click to shrink...

The former is just projecting OTL into TTL. This is a different Soviet Union. The Poles just want to be fed.

Your mistake is thinking that I am being critical. I'm not even being critical of the UASR's "authoritarian" features. I'm just pointing them out because you are glossing them over like they're not there or that they've been solved or that they will be solved completely or that there's an evolution that happened that made things "better" in the future and it's all part of that regrettable past, that kind of thing, when the fact is that all of those well-meaning fantasies of an incredibly tolerant society are not going to happen as long as the Cold War is not over.

It's a gentle reminder so that people are grounded on this. There are skulls that were cracked and bashed into the wall. Things are bloody. Things are now ugly and they will continue to be ugly. And the "good guys" did it too. They're involved in them. They've cracked heads wide open and produced corpses too.

And that tolerance that you are talking about has its limits. The domestic political environment is harsh on anyone working outside the Party. In 1934, 1944, 1964 and 2024. Maybe that's not fair but that's the way it is.

Click to shrink...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz-qL1KfC-0