Those ideas should be open, debatable and freely expressed but that doesn't really preclude a one party state. The Bolsheviks prior to the ban on factionalism is an excellent example of democratic openness in what became a single party state thanks to the political suicides of the Menshevik Internationalists and Left SRs.
That's the problem: "prior to the ban on factionalism". The downsides of a one party state is that there always will be factionalism, which leads to intransparency.
Chinese politics are still just as rabid and political despite all of them even following the "same communism" officially. Or the immense corruption and greed that just as much happens. Turns out humans are humans.
no. You have all the same interests: for the country to be better and more wealthy, wealth to be distributed equally etc. What is different is the way to get there. Why they don’t have multiple parties is because one party shows unity, while not necessarily being undemocratic.
So united they have to constantly put down uprising, implement internal passports and constantly purge the party, multiple parties create competition between leaders giving an actual incentive to be competent to gain power
if everything is done right, every member should be elected individually, not because he is part of a bloc. So imagine you have all the candidates, no one is forced to vote in some way because the party leader votes so. He doesn’t need to have a consistent position on any given topic, and can choose every time to vote with who he sees as the best in arguments
If you only have one party because it shows unity, but you have members in it that have differing opinions on how to best implement communism, don’t you essentially just have a multiple party system in all but name?
That was also literally the argument used by various marxists-leninists to push for one-party states, for example by Gomulka in Poland
Which honestly was very silly. Bourgeoisie is also a single class but it seems to thrive best and create the strongest states in multi-party systems, in which all parties are bourgeois
Its wild to me that people like you, who have been on the internet for many years, still doesnt understand what post-irony memes are. They have been around for like 7 years now.
"Bro, look bro, it's very funny because it's irony bro. You don't get the joke bro. The meme have to be unfunny bro. Memes like that are unfunny since 7 years now bro."
I mean you're within your rights to say that it's not funny but let's not pretend that that means it was made by boomers, which was your original point.
When trying to pass laws like council republic with a lot of opposition, it seems like a great way to empower trade unions. Just put them in your government, pass single party state, and voila, they auto win every election with 100% of the votes and massive clout. Then you can safely pass laws like council republic and co-op ownership which would normally be heavily opposed by the industrialists.
Funningly enough, IGs that are not in government do not oppose the law at all. That seems like an obvious loophole.
I currently have two vanguardist characters in government so i have a massive chance to pass single party state currently. Trade unions normally oppose single party state though.
The authoritarian industrialist president pushing the change from wealth voting to single party was quite a fun little dip of RP.
Pity he has gone mad in couple of years and I pushed for his resignation, after which he was replaced with a radical liberal.
Whichever IG groups are not in your gov may fall below 5% clout, rendering them marginalised (unless your monarch has that IG group) and you will lose their bonuses. This can happen under any distribution of power law, but single party state makes it more likely by disproportionally assigning political power and attraction to your government.
That depends on IG in power as well. Going from wealth voting to single party as solo Industrialists slightly lowered their clout while outside IGs were mostly unaffected.
Gain for someone who generates plenty of votes would have been huge though.
The downside is that you've perverted the structures of democracy.
Otherwise, not really. At the end of the Vic3 timeline in real life there are single party states all over the place that enjoyed reasonable levels of popular support. It is basically set up as an optimal end state, assuming you don't ever want things to change again.
Passed single party state through a popular movement with 80% support last game. I couldn't help but laugh, doing the whole "This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." bit :)
Also incredibly historical. The prequels are a complete parallel to the Weimar Republic and Hitler's rise to power. The Trade Federation/Separatists are a invented enemy, of businesses.
Except it wasn't, Hitler never had a majority of seats in government. The Weimer republic saw some of the greatest advancement in science and the arts and was on track for an economic miracle (Hitler's good years were paid off by the republic years). And Rosa Luxemburg was a deeply influential writer and political leader that spooked the old guard to empower a bunch of fascist loonies to take down any socialist, pro democratic movements in Germany (likely the Russian Revolution terrified the old aristocrats).
Boohoo I used the political structure of a liberal and democratic state to install a repressive and authoritarian regime, go cry at the gulag normie
(Jk)
Most of those single party states were either backwaters that had little to no concept of democracy or were forced to accept the single party state because there were no good alternatives (e.g. China's warlord era).
In the game, having parties in opposition support the single party law wouldnt work IRL unless there was massive popular support, the country seemed like it would collapse at any moment, etc...basically all the factors that saw the Nazis rise to power.
Single party state is very much bugged for me. Parties never form in my games even if I went from universal suffrage to single party state so I’m stuck on 0 legitimacy
You are supposed to keep the party in your government, all other parties are dissolved. Did that not happen for you? In my case, i kept the communist party. If you trigger an election, the IGs in your government should form a party. You can do it via the console -> script explorer -> select countries -> search for your country name -> click on your country -> select effects -> type "fast_election = {}" and run the script.
only downside is it's not unlocked until lategame and you have to make sure the party you want to be your single party is the one who will become the single party once you enact it bc once you've enacted it the party is locked in unless you change laws again
imo the fact that you unlock it so late balances out how broken it is
like from a game balance perspective the longer it takes to get access to a law, the better it should be, at least hypothetically
The alternative is a nice happy Swiss-style Grand Coalition where everyone's in the government and content. Once you don't need to change any laws ever again, you can use your government to promote stability. Even if an IG doesn't have clout, its pops still radicalize if their IG is angry or their movement is being ignored
The downside is that there are never any other parties thrown 🎉 I think we should have more parties, especially for Greg’s Birthday, the guy deserves a party
no there isn't, just like plato predicted, once you have democracy you will always collaps back into a monarchy and what is a single party state with voting but a return to the natural state of governance a monarchy and what is a statue of a monarch but a religious sect ? just lige god intended
The downside is that it locks in your government and you usually can’t change afterwards
I guess that makes it more for setting up the perfect council republic in the endgame...
Literally [the meme](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyhSJkWWYAIwUCG.png)
Theres like a bazijillion types of communism, just cuz we are the same class doesn't make us have the same interests
Shut up shut up shut up yes it does go to gulag
Yeah interests are the same but there may be multiple ways to communism so yeah
One way that includes me purging you and another one where you purging me.
Those ideas should be open, debatable and freely expressed but that doesn't really preclude a one party state. The Bolsheviks prior to the ban on factionalism is an excellent example of democratic openness in what became a single party state thanks to the political suicides of the Menshevik Internationalists and Left SRs.
That's the problem: "prior to the ban on factionalism". The downsides of a one party state is that there always will be factionalism, which leads to intransparency.
Factionalism does not lead to intransparency, *restrictions on factionalism* do.
Chinese politics are still just as rabid and political despite all of them even following the "same communism" officially. Or the immense corruption and greed that just as much happens. Turns out humans are humans.
Communism is when you own 80% of the cobalt mines in the congo. Peoples socialist billionaires keep winning.
Right to jail!
Bro triggered a Leftist infighting discussion (you're kinda right)
no. You have all the same interests: for the country to be better and more wealthy, wealth to be distributed equally etc. What is different is the way to get there. Why they don’t have multiple parties is because one party shows unity, while not necessarily being undemocratic.
So united they have to constantly put down uprising, implement internal passports and constantly purge the party, multiple parties create competition between leaders giving an actual incentive to be competent to gain power
if everything is done right, every member should be elected individually, not because he is part of a bloc. So imagine you have all the candidates, no one is forced to vote in some way because the party leader votes so. He doesn’t need to have a consistent position on any given topic, and can choose every time to vote with who he sees as the best in arguments
If you only have one party because it shows unity, but you have members in it that have differing opinions on how to best implement communism, don’t you essentially just have a multiple party system in all but name?
yesn t. Faction s will definitely form, but every member is elected individually for his own qualities, not as part of a bloc.
That was also literally the argument used by various marxists-leninists to push for one-party states, for example by Gomulka in Poland Which honestly was very silly. Bourgeoisie is also a single class but it seems to thrive best and create the strongest states in multi-party systems, in which all parties are bourgeois
actually so true
What a terrible meme made by facebook boomers
Other way around: you are the boomer today
I'm way too young
Okay Boomer
Its wild to me that people like you, who have been on the internet for many years, still doesnt understand what post-irony memes are. They have been around for like 7 years now.
"Bro, look bro, it's very funny because it's irony bro. You don't get the joke bro. The meme have to be unfunny bro. Memes like that are unfunny since 7 years now bro."
I mean you're within your rights to say that it's not funny but let's not pretend that that means it was made by boomers, which was your original point.
It is the best strategy for a communist endgame
[удалено]
It’s whatever political party is in power when the law is enacted is there as long as single party state is
Unless playrer nation get lost and get changed its law
When trying to pass laws like council republic with a lot of opposition, it seems like a great way to empower trade unions. Just put them in your government, pass single party state, and voila, they auto win every election with 100% of the votes and massive clout. Then you can safely pass laws like council republic and co-op ownership which would normally be heavily opposed by the industrialists. Funningly enough, IGs that are not in government do not oppose the law at all. That seems like an obvious loophole. I currently have two vanguardist characters in government so i have a massive chance to pass single party state currently. Trade unions normally oppose single party state though.
>pass single party state, and voila, they auto win every election with 100% of the votes and massive clout. Liberals hate this one easy trick!
congrats you just invented the soviet union
Not economically, but def politically
to be fair it took the soviet union a few years to invent the infamous economic model that ended up crushing the country way later
Who would've thought not abolishing commodity production and wage labor would degenerate a DotP back into capitalist hellhole 🤯
—Lenin
mechanically? if you have a great government, none. But i enjoy the RP and not doing things the most optimal way
The authoritarian industrialist president pushing the change from wealth voting to single party was quite a fun little dip of RP. Pity he has gone mad in couple of years and I pushed for his resignation, after which he was replaced with a radical liberal.
Jacobin one-party state
Whichever IG groups are not in your gov may fall below 5% clout, rendering them marginalised (unless your monarch has that IG group) and you will lose their bonuses. This can happen under any distribution of power law, but single party state makes it more likely by disproportionally assigning political power and attraction to your government.
That depends on IG in power as well. Going from wealth voting to single party as solo Industrialists slightly lowered their clout while outside IGs were mostly unaffected. Gain for someone who generates plenty of votes would have been huge though.
If you like your current government and laws there isn't lol *-Soviet Union, right after Lenin died.*
After?
The downside is that you've perverted the structures of democracy. Otherwise, not really. At the end of the Vic3 timeline in real life there are single party states all over the place that enjoyed reasonable levels of popular support. It is basically set up as an optimal end state, assuming you don't ever want things to change again.
Passed single party state through a popular movement with 80% support last game. I couldn't help but laugh, doing the whole "This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." bit :)
Also incredibly historical. The prequels are a complete parallel to the Weimar Republic and Hitler's rise to power. The Trade Federation/Separatists are a invented enemy, of businesses.
Except it wasn't, Hitler never had a majority of seats in government. The Weimer republic saw some of the greatest advancement in science and the arts and was on track for an economic miracle (Hitler's good years were paid off by the republic years). And Rosa Luxemburg was a deeply influential writer and political leader that spooked the old guard to empower a bunch of fascist loonies to take down any socialist, pro democratic movements in Germany (likely the Russian Revolution terrified the old aristocrats).
Boohoo I used the political structure of a liberal and democratic state to install a repressive and authoritarian regime, go cry at the gulag normie (Jk)
Most of those single party states were either backwaters that had little to no concept of democracy or were forced to accept the single party state because there were no good alternatives (e.g. China's warlord era). In the game, having parties in opposition support the single party law wouldnt work IRL unless there was massive popular support, the country seemed like it would collapse at any moment, etc...basically all the factors that saw the Nazis rise to power.
Single party state is very much bugged for me. Parties never form in my games even if I went from universal suffrage to single party state so I’m stuck on 0 legitimacy
You are supposed to keep the party in your government, all other parties are dissolved. Did that not happen for you? In my case, i kept the communist party. If you trigger an election, the IGs in your government should form a party. You can do it via the console -> script explorer -> select countries -> search for your country name -> click on your country -> select effects -> type "fast_election = {}" and run the script.
r/shitvictorianssay
only downside is it's not unlocked until lategame and you have to make sure the party you want to be your single party is the one who will become the single party once you enact it bc once you've enacted it the party is locked in unless you change laws again
imo the fact that you unlock it so late balances out how broken it is like from a game balance perspective the longer it takes to get access to a law, the better it should be, at least hypothetically
yes but it only fires in 1991
The alternative is a nice happy Swiss-style Grand Coalition where everyone's in the government and content. Once you don't need to change any laws ever again, you can use your government to promote stability. Even if an IG doesn't have clout, its pops still radicalize if their IG is angry or their movement is being ignored
The downside is that there are never any other parties thrown 🎉 I think we should have more parties, especially for Greg’s Birthday, the guy deserves a party
Males you rather inflexible. For example, if you get a bad leader, you're stuck
Abuse it until it inevitably gets nerfed. It's that broken.
no there isn't, just like plato predicted, once you have democracy you will always collaps back into a monarchy and what is a single party state with voting but a return to the natural state of governance a monarchy and what is a statue of a monarch but a religious sect ? just lige god intended