Regarding to the government I still don't understand it. Sorry.
You vote to elect a council, the council elects the one above it, and so on.
The Great Crusade (Reds! Part 3)
- Thread starter Aelita
- Start date
You vote to elect a council, the council elects the one above it, and so on.
Oh ok.
But in that case I don't like it too much because shouldn't it be the people voting to elect all the councils?
I would agree. This process tends to be exactly the environment where bureaucratism thrives. Even if there is fairness in how delegates are selected by party. This only treats the mobilized masses as important in the lowest level and defeats the value as Soviets of governing bodies heavily dependent on the active participation of the masses. I don't think it breaks down on higher levels until you get to a truly national stage. Where it would be next to impossible (and at which point delegation would be necessary). Given the number of internal borders being redrawn, it wouldn't be hard to say that a republic must be restricted in population to enough so that they could sustain a more direct relationship between the people and the republic level governments.
So, is the Canadian/UASR border at this time in this timeline something akin to the OTL communist/capitalist boundaries, or is it a fairly peaceful and undefended border?
Yeah. I agree. Why did Jello do that though?
The former. It'll get more tense during the Cold War.
I will add that it's neither meant to be perfect nor permanent.
That said, it's a multi-party system, using guarantees of proportional representation.
So Canada is full of FBU military personnel, and nuclear weapons?
Here's more info:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=9659822&highlight=Canada#post9659822
Craaaap, that's the second update post I had that was eaten by the site when firefox crashes on me.
Obviously a plot by the FBU Imperialistic scum to deny the glory of Communism!
I wasn't too far into the MST and I still have the forum posts for the scandinavian theater for world war two.
Fine, then it was a Nazi plot to crush Communism for the glory of the Fatherland.
The non-American anglophone countries in general tend to be the most rhetorically against Communism. The American-Canadian border is pretty rife with mines and bunkers and troops from all around the empire. I'd expect Canada's demographics to change quite a lot as soldiers from say; India or elsewhere in Europe settle down and start families. In practice, America and Canada still maintain large trade relationships despite their rhetorical hostility.So Canada is full of FBU military personnel, and nuclear weapons?
Places like Australia on the other hand, don't have to moderate their tone out of fear of having an enemy right next door and are pretty rabidly anti-communist. (Australia was and is a pretty conservative place to begin with) Australia goes from seeing America as a friend to basically as much of a threat to Australia as Japan in the interwar period and I do plan on having an Australian write an alarmist novel about an American invasion of Australia in the 30s.
New Zealand on the other hand...nobody cares about what New Zealand thinks anyway
.I was the one who made that flow chart all those many years ago, and it's certainly outdated now.
Well, the Fundamental Principles of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat say:
And the basic law of the UASR simply says:
Plus, membership in a political party is more involved and involves more direct participation and influence from the average member ITTL than in OTL USA or USSR, and perhaps membership across the various parties is greater as well, ensuring that it might not be just the party heads choosing candidates for the lists whom the masses then simply affirm as their delegates, and that more of the population has a say in the affairs of the parties.
But still, yeah, not perfect, certainly, especially in the era of the Party-state. But it'll change.
Well, the Fundamental Principles of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat say:
as a way to ward off the extreme version of this possibility.
And the basic law of the UASR simply says:
In the post Jello_Biafra linked to earlier, we see that the 'manner established by law' for the 1934-46 period or so (up until the split in the WCP) involves:
This and the short term limits, the preservation of immediate recall, the guarantee of proportional representation, etc., are intended to stop the bureaucratization that they (and us) are worried about. See right before that:
Plus, like Jello said above (and we see in their linked posts), this seems to only be a temporary arrangement (and it seems like it'll change during the Cold War, and probably with the Second Cultural Revolution?, but there's a moratorium on discussing this at the moment), this method seems like it might only last until the WCP splits shortly after the war.
Plus, membership in a political party is more involved and involves more direct participation and influence from the average member ITTL than in OTL USA or USSR, and perhaps membership across the various parties is greater as well, ensuring that it might not be just the party heads choosing candidates for the lists whom the masses then simply affirm as their delegates, and that more of the population has a say in the affairs of the parties.
But still, yeah, not perfect, certainly, especially in the era of the Party-state. But it'll change.
I presume it would be some sort of internal organization of the party (that might evolve into a caucus) that promotes scientific socialism, which means that it might promote a more pragmatic policy for the party. At least if you accept that scientific socialism adheres to the scientific method, and that decision-making be based upon evidence.
It's a higher education institution with a very specialized purpose. During the party-state period, it was established to 1) train party cadres for activism and government work and 2) conduct research in social science and political economy.
It's not as ridiculously hidebound as its OTL counterparts from the East Bloc. It's sort of like the strange mirror image of a Catholic university. It's a first rate education institution, but it is heavily focused on politics, economy, sociology, philosophy; everything else kind of ends up tacitly serving that. Post WW2, it's going to moderate a little, but it will definitely be the sort of place that only people already involved in the cause will want to go to.
It's other role is to teach foreign students, from both allied and "enemy" countries, activism, organizational methods, political administration, propaganda, etc.
Scientific socialism was a common name for orthodox Marxist socialism, so it could well end up being a Labor Communist Alligned think tank.
Is it an institution with branches across the nation, or just one institute in a single city.