And THAT is sad. I would not want to live in a world without The Beatles.
- 1
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Fundamental competence? The crisis has only grown while he's in office, probably even most Labours can see that. Where is MacDonald's mind at?
The strikers want a government, any government, that can actually get stuff done. It doesn't matter in the end if it's Conservative, Labour, Liberal, or Communist.
Why no one seemed willing to acknowledge the change, I have no idea. The King's left the country, Westminster and half the country is occupied. But no one seems to want to face facts.
In the end it comes down to those to outcomes: peaceful revolution or civil war. The status quo can't return after all that's happened.
The fact that this major event is an afterthought is telling. With everything else going on, suffrage is minor news.
Cynically, MacDonald wanted a bunch of loyal, newly enfranchised voters. Labour's poor showing in the election was a demoralizing blow.
Wait, she could serve in Parliament but wasn't allowed to vote in elections? What an odd quirk. Especially since being a legislature requires one to vote on bills.
- 1
My reading of events in British government in the 1920s and early 1930s would seem to indicate this was the normal state of affairs IN OUR TIMELINE...I can only imagine how much worse it would be in this one...
- 1
I wanted to comment about @DensleyBlair's comment a few pages back about the foundation of this AAR and how possibly ridiculous it might have seemed from the game to have 4mil communists in Britain being ever willing to rise up and defeat the Army. I have to say, it is not necessarily unheard of: they may not be diehards but simply people who feel put out enough to actually show up (generally half to three quarters of a fight in politics), and show out for whomever is giving some semblance of leadership... and based on a response, it hardens people who survive the first several scuffles. Once in these situations the people see the force amalgamated against them, they generally radicalize rapidly, and so it--at least to me--does not seem out of the realm of possibility that even a semi-competent leadership rides the wave appropriately to rise up. The soldiery doesn't particularly want to shoot their own people--hence generally why forces from outside the areas are usually brought in to deal with rabbles--and if their morals are pushed too far, at least some of them will hang it up and join the other side.
All to say the confluence of factors could absolutely wind up with such an uprising.
All to say the confluence of factors could absolutely wind up with such an uprising.
- 1
Glad to see its back up and running DB.
May have to fire up the old engines
May have to fire up the old engines
- 1
- 1
Oh no...
A campaign centered around incompetence spun as competence?
Wow...that...is a disaster.
Ah yes, one of the problems with Marxist / Leninist / Stalinist thought...no deviations allowed from holy orthodoxy...
<Shakes head at the stupidity>
A strong case to be made that Mosley is a tool by the more perceptive of the elite bourgeoisie to control events...
Let's not forget that both sides are already using violence...and both understand that whoever controls the state apparatus can use that as a tool for their violence.
Damning Churchill for it while not damning the workers leaders for it is definitely a double standard.
We are talking about a revolution here, not an orderly transfer of power according to agreed upon rules...
Which is hilarious because the actual coup is proceeding under Mosley...without needing to go to extremes, the bourgeoisie has already co-opted the revolution!
- 1
The most efficient government is absolute rule. But does Mosley consider himself a king? Maybe not openly, but I don't doubt he'll take any opportunity he can get to advance his own interests. And I also don't doubt that he's very secretive with his plans.
As happens to everything. Everything moves from high energy, to stats quo, to low energy. Government is not immune from this natural law.
- 1
Terribly sorry for that, old chap. Evidently I carried on writing when I should’ve taken a break.Then it was a rare incident of unclearness in the writing, because that does make more sense.
My feeling is the report will go “here is what you need to do if you’d like reform of the coal industry to achieve X, Y or Z” and then the ministers will have to pick X, Y or Z. I don’t think it’s any more of an abdication of responsibility than any other instance of, for example, the government acting on the report of a Royal Commission. But yes, of course when it all goes wrong the politicians can hold their hands up and point to the civil servants. An inescapable fact of life in any universe, alas.
Yes, I’m well aware of Invergordon. Good reference.
I hope I’ve not given the impression generally in the first part that it is only the coal workers claiming to be suffering. The coal industry was in a particularly dreadful state, and having the most powerful and militant union they were always going to be at the vanguard, but the point of a general strike of course is that its organisers and participants recognise that the central problems of exploitation are widespread. The coal issue was only the impetus, and as we have seen many more in this world (though not so much in our own) decided to take the chance to voice their own anger.
The kings in Canada will be revisited before long. It is not a particularly edifying story.
Amen.And THAT is sad. I would not want to live in a world without The Beatles.
“The Beat Institution” survive long enough to reach roughly the Revolver stage of development, but John leaves after this. Previously I had the idea that Paul corralled the other two into recording some sort of Sgt Pepper–style project, but I don’t think I ever wrote about it. The Kinks became far more interesting to me.
We do get Buddy Holly living past 22, mind. A bit of consolation.
Truthfully, he and most of the rest of the cabinet have probably had a total mental break by now. I doubt they’re functioning at a standard level.
Yes, absolutely. This will prove fatally true.
It is totally bizarre. One of those quirks of parliamentary history that defies any attempt at rationalisation.
Thank you for this very insightful intervention, Wraith. Evidently over the last six years I’ve grown much more pessimistic in my outlook (but then I live in Britain, so who can blame me). I’m sure when I started this beast I took this logic as perfectly valid with barely a second thought.
I think your thoughts on the soldiery are particularly valid here. My view was always that when I came to it the troops weren’t going to shoot their own – especially after they’ve already done so on two occasions since the outbreak of the strike and been crucified for it. As @TheExecuter reminds us, pay and conditions for the ranks were pretty awful, and eventually they’re going to tell the officer class what’s what. The British are not a soldiering people, really, so my sense is all those other things like “duty” and “honour” (and certainly not “glory”) don’t really come into it that strongly.
Good to see you again, KH. And just in time for us to reach the Seventies at long last. I still need to decide what form I’m going to write the next volume, but drop me a PM if you fancy talking Nixon!
You know, I think in six years you’re the first person actually to articulate plainly what I’d attempted to make quite obvious. Exactly as you say, there is little need for MI5 – though certainly the rhetoric of being a target would only help Mosley consolidate his grip on power against “outside influences”.
A new Cromwell. He fully believes what he sees as his righteous destiny to transform Britain, and he doesn’t mind what he’s called so long as he gets to hold onto power.
- 2
Significant opposition to the idea of the death of democratic rule then...
I wonder how that fact is glossed over by the historians...
The prince here bears some share of blame. He could have taken steps to demand that Parliament properly sit. That he did not is telling...
Legitimate?
What happened in Night Flight does NOT allow anyone to claim legitimacy.
Yet another example of something I detest of leftist political party thought in the 20th century...the deliberate misuse of language for manipulation.
Now, we see all the parties doing it...
But I just want to reiterate here...calling the events of this day as evidence of legitimacy is a bald faced lie.
At this point, I fully expect a civil war to begin...of some kind.
I also fully expect the remnants of Empire to spurn England like they would spurn a rabid dog.
- 1
In fairness, if I’d known how 1979 would eventually turn out I would have written this whole episode a lot differently. Really, with this level of anti-revisionism it should’ve taken place about twenty years earlier. But that’s one of the pitfalls of plotting as you go along.
It is little surprise that Nazi-sympathising, constitution-shattering Edward is found wanting in this respect.
Not by the standards of the liberal Enlightenment, sure. But there are others forms of legitimacy.
Mind you, quibbling about proper due process is hardly going to help the ancien régime in the face of a coup.
The deliberate use of language for manipulation existed long before 20th century leftism, and regrettably as we continue to see survives long after it too.
There will be more fighting, yes.
- 1
So...a genocide, essentially.
Given what happened historically with this banal wording...this phrase fills me with sadness and anger.
So...a group not representative at all...only representing a small subset of the population...
Lie.
Given that the ability to voice dissent is a KEY PART OF A DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK, the nature of the new government is shown by the deeds, not the words.
The goal is to pretend democracy, but not deliver it.
A proper legislature? By ignoring over half the voters views? By even ignoring more of the leftist voters views?
A justice system established by a group that seized power in a bloody coup?
Lies.
Lie.
Closed party lists...lol.
Sure you can vote, but not for who you want.
Aren't we awesome?
Lies.
Lies.
And the demonization of all opposition begins. It is fairly certain that most opposition was not actually fascist...but that's not how it is perceived or labeled by the tyrannical government in London.
I'm sure the 'justice' system enacted a nice genocide against those unpersons based on their adherence to the antiquated idea that they should have some say in their own government.
Despicable.
- 1
To be clear, because there are forum rules against discussion of certain topics, this sentence refers to the expropriation of private property from “the capitalist class”. It absolutely does not refer to killings or physical violence.
In fairness, we’re talking about a country where working class men only won the vote a decade before, and working class women a few months ago. Only within the last decades too have people begun to challenge seriously the idea that unelected aristocrats should be able to veto government business. Conceivably there were people alive in 1929 whose grandparents would remember a time when a significant number of seats in the House of Commons were personally controlled by the owners of the land their constituencies included.
The new system may be flawed, but let’s not pretend that the system it replaced was a paragon of democracy.
I’m not saying I think it’s a good thing. I’m saying that it’s an academic argument. The vast majority of governments in history, I dare say, haven’t derived their legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
Is what Mosley and his allies are doing an illegal coup? Of course it is. Is crying foul about legitimacy going to do the anti-revolutionary government any good? In their eyes it allows them to claim a moral advantage, I suppose, but no, it’s not getting them out of the fix they find themselves in here. Far better to do something unimaginable to many in the British ruling classes at the time, which is accept what is now the case and try to do something material about it.
- 1
Except it absolutely does refer to violence...
This is exactly why I talk about lies here so vehemently.
The idea that expropriation of private property on this scale will not result in violence is a lie.
Indeed.
My issue is the framing of this new state of affairs as something it is not.
The 1929 constitution is demonstrably LESS democratic than the system it replaced.
Was the current system flawed? Yes.
That is not sufficient justification for the new system.
I didn't want to commentate on all of the words praising the new government as somehow delivering what the electorate wanted...because it was clearly lies. The electorate wasn't allowed to express it's own opinion. Mosley and the others didn't know and didn't care what the electorate wanted.
It's a lie to claim otherwise...and that is what they did...indulge the lie.
The sad reality is this is how most governments work.
Its an argument based on a lie...any government claiming legitimacy without the consent of the governed is lying.
The fact that this is a common lie does not somehow make it not a lie.
Rolling over and accepting the lie is not the best course of action. Avoiding necessary conflict just gets you to be the victim of the state violence we talked about at the beginning of the chapter.
Sure, folks will tell you collaboration is better...but is it? Or is that another lie?
I find that most people have no concept of how thoroughly and near universally they are lied to by almost everyone...
- 1
these arguments could happily be fixed by a certain crew of "plumbers"
- 1
I do think @DensleyBlair has really captured the exact way this type of government behavior is documented and propagandized for future consumption.
His portrayal of how the regime justifies it's past actions is chillingly accurate, IMO.
I do not think the author of the AAR is advocating for these things...since the whole way the story is told is through quotations from various forms of media that tell the story, as those fictional authors would want it told...
It just riles me up a bit because it's the same way we are lied to today about what our governments are doing and why...
It's almost too real!
- 1
To be fair, it is hard when living in the moment to know whether a crisis is an interruption or the start of a new era. The upper classes obviously have an interest in preferring the former interpretation, but there's also a sort of optimism there. A "Keep calm. Carry on. Everything's alright" sort of thing. Even if they had perfect knowledge of the future, they would still not want the current era, which has benefited them so much, to end.
I'm sensing an eventual confrontation. Compromising can only get you so far (as MacDonald and Labour learned previously). That same principle applies to the new government of the Commonwealth. Either the PLUA will win (which has already been hinted at) or the CPGB will.
What if the sky falls? What if the Sun doesn't shine? What if a leviathan swallows you whole?
You can't live your life based on hypotheticals.
I wonder if Animal Farm exists in this universe. Maybe if there's ever a break between the USSR and Commonwealth over doctrine, it still could.
I'm not sure about 1984.
- 1
To be clear when I say “accept the situation” I don’t mean accept the lie. I just mean accept that “this is how the world is now” and take that as your starting point for action, rather than get lost in the weeds debating technicalities.
As you pointed out before, reason only works in politer circumstances. There does come a time when force has to match force.
Make it so, comrade.
Thank you. I did always set out to write this so that you get a sort of “period-appropriate” sense of the time. So in darkest Mosley times you get propaganda and are left guessing at the rest.
Some of the dates I’d change in hindsight; as I mentioned above, the Seventies don’t really work anymore as a time of state secrets, for example. But broadly the rest still holds.
I’m glad you say this, if only because I’m the sort of person who’s anxious enough not to be able to tell! Sometimes I do worry people think I’m writing as myself – especially as I know this work can inspire an emotive response.
This was very much an intention too, actually, though I’m not sure how many picked up on it. A lot of things that take ultimately place in the Commonwealth timeline are things that took place more or less the same way in British history. Taking them away from the context of assumed liberal democracy somehow throws state failures into harsher light.
Very true. Scarily so in fact, given, well… *gestures at the state of the world*
Very wise jak!
- 1
- 1
What is also an interesting thought process is to review if things like Fascism and National Socialism...or even socialism itself...are as different as they claim to be.
Humans are, after all, marvelously deceptive...and the target victim of most deception is the mind of the person attempting the deception.
Most lies are told to yourself by yourself.
AH has a way of illuminating some of these deceptions.
- 1
I just want to thank you for the excellent musical time capsule in this episode.
It's always interesting to me how music such as this (and even rock & roll later) were considered so scandalous by the standards of the time. Yet it is just building incrementally on whatever genres came before: bop, jazz, swing, calypso, blues, bluegrass, country. All of them are effectively slight variations on the same style of music.
The 60s are going to be an interesting time in this universe with Mosley and censorship being torn down and new music/thought/writings being born, along with a growing younger generation. I wonder if the Commonwealth will have a "Vietnam" for them strive against.
- 1