|
|
Post by pyotrtolstoy on Jun 25, 2009 0:07:01 GMT 3
I consider myself an eRussian patriot but also a communist. However, I have realized a slight dilemma. Is eRussian expansion into capitalist nations justified? Or is it imperialistic? Does it act in the best interests of eRussia? And, since every nation has a pockets of communists are we justified in attacking any nation?
Honestly, I would love a great eRussia, but not at the cost of our ideals and honor. Does co-operation with the bourgeois to expand eRussian borders into capitalist nations allow the proletarian class to be exploited by the war machine? I can honestly go either way. We dream of a great eRussia and a strong communist government. We dream of global communism. But is the goal of eRussia to spread communism through conquest? And even if eRussia controls the world communism may not. Being a eRussian patriot and Communist puts me in very tough position. It seems as though we must always settle for the lesser evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duncomrade on Jun 25, 2009 11:45:59 GMT 3
I think we have to provide some kind of warfare just because its the only option left after a socialist society is providing for everyone's needs. There are three main parts of eRepublik: economy, politics and warfare. I think the vast majority of eRepublikans won't be satisfied with just socialist economics and politics, even though socilaism would provide a much more invloving experience for everyone compared to capitalism. Without the ability to play with one's lifestyle in eRepublik there's only one option available after a socialist society has achieved the feat of providing for everyone's needs - warfare.
Having said that, I don't think we can spread revolution solely by war because
1) governments in eRepublik require the support of the majority. eRussia, or any country, would quickly find itself outnumbered if it expanded too fast before the population can be indoctrinated. The state doesn't have the ability to repress certain sections of the population so we would easily be defeated in elections if the majority of our empire is composed of angry subject peoples.
2) declaring war on a nation, even if it is for the benefit of the working class, would ruin our international relations. If the local population isn't supportive of socialism then we would also engender their animosity. We must win the hearts and minds of the majority of the local population before we can have any hope of holding onto conquered territory.
The best methods of spreading revolution would be propaganda, funding foreign communist parties and PTOs. Of course, fighting in wars of liberation or defending allies would be completely justified and increase our reputation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyotrtolstoy on Jun 25, 2009 18:30:00 GMT 3
Yes. We can't generalize any war, they must be looked at on a case by case basis, I suppose.
|
|
Riza Karabasan
Internationale 
I Love Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Posts: 139
|
Post by Riza Karabasan on Jun 26, 2009 6:44:42 GMT 3
As far as we see, rather than political power, economical power is on the front line for a socialist struggle. So invasion like Jihad will not help Russia, infact it will crack GOSPLAN perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duncomrade on Jun 28, 2009 4:40:59 GMT 3
Yes, agreed, comrade Riza.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyotrtolstoy on Jun 28, 2009 20:38:28 GMT 3
Yeah. It's just, when PEACE was planning on invading the USA, would it have been right for us to join them? Or should we have stayed neutral?
|
|
maksim
Peoples' Commissar 
Posts: 448
|
Post by maksim on Jun 30, 2009 13:18:52 GMT 3
We should supply the American resistance force with all our weapons and gifts, if that is the case. We are still anti-imperialistic. Even if the U.S invaded us doesn't mean we have to occupy them in return.
|
|
