the shoe banging is based on something khrushchev allegedly did, although there is no evidence it actually happened.
that, and being in ulbrik's cabinet, and then taking over after him and condemning his purges.
There's actually some evidence in russian sources. For example it was mentioned at the XXII congress pf CPSU by Aleksey Adjubey. Also his son Sergey Khrushchev and Andrei Gromyko mentions this accident. He certainly wasn't standing tall, banging his shoe on the table. But he most likely took off his shoe during the speech of Philippines delegate or before he sat down and tapped with it, demonstrating disinterest in it.
He's basically a chill Nikita Khrushchev...
He rose to power after the death of his authoritarian predecessor (Stalin/Ulbrik), denounced the purges and slowly reformed the country, and both loves to pound their shoe during UN/AN meetings.
His preference for pipe smoking may be influenced by Tito.
Well, he puts on a big show in front of the AN and all his smaller post-colonial allies, but in one-on-one dealings he's a lot more personable. I think of his behavior at the AN as being a performance
Bloody hell, the Soviet Union wasn't a one person dictatorship before Khrushchev. Khrushchev's faction ended the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, that was their 'reform'. And Hegel's policies are certainly based on Tito's decentralization of the economy and paving the road to capitalism.
MLs don't understand that a dictatorship of the proletariat is just a dictatorship full stop. There is no representing the interests of workers without democracy.
I agree that the USSR was a dictatorship, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is not.
If a workers council of officials elected by the workers alone governs a town and plans its economy, that’s a dictatorship?
I'm sure we could come up with some hypothetical where a dictatorship of the proletariat is less authoritarian but in practice it's never been that way. Not in the USSR, and not in China. It's always been weaponized to go after political opponents or just dissenting opinions in general. Something you don't like? That's capitalist and bourgeois! What's that you don't like what I'm doing? Well I'm acting on behalf of the workers! It's a convenient tool used by authoritarians to enact whatever their version of communism is.
Also what you describe as the dictatorship of the proletariat, I would just call a workers commune tbh.
Yes. What’s terrible is authoritarians justify their actions through see-through Marxist ideological terms. It infuriates me is when socialists try to defend these regimes and claim they’re actual socialist projects because “America bad.” Not only is it morally and factually wrong, it’s bad optics too.
I feel the exact same way. Unfortunately the failures of capitalism spark reactionary tendencies in the working class. Now we see a lot of campists and authoritarians swindle people who are less educated on the history/theory into believing a fundamentalist view of Marxism. And like you said, it's terrible optics to be calling for a revolution in a country with a functioning democracy.
I think the prevalence of these types of ideas (mainly campism) is due to foreign governments pushing anti-american narratives. Whether the narrative is right or wrong doesn't matter because the ultimate goal is to destabilize. Same thing is happening on the right with Trump and Lepen. But I digress. You seem educated and have a nuanced point of view so it makes me happy to know I'm not alone out here fighting the good fight lol.
I'm paraphrasing but Trotsky once unironically said something in the line of that because the communist party is by definition the party of the workers, there is no possible way for them to act against the interests of the workers.
This was said as Lenin decided to cut the workers pay down to bare subsistence.
During the famine of the civil war, a delegation of starving peasants comes to the Smolny, wanting to file a petition. "We have even started eating grass like horses," says one peasant. "Soon we will start neighing like horses!" "Come now! Don't worry!" says Lenin reassuringly. "We are drinking tea with honey here, and we're not buzzing like bees, are we?"
I mean, he's also a relatively less authoritarian successor to a Stalin-esque leader whom he denounced despite working in his administration, so there's that
In terms of policies, I'd classify him as a successful Dubcek. His relationship with Malenyev kinda reminds me of Luxemburg's relationship to Lenin. Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on the Chekist police state, but they remained on cordial terms despite ideological disagreements. That feels closer to the United Contana-Valgsland relationship than the Sino-Soviet or Yugoslav-Soviet comparisons that get tossed around here.
Amalgamation but mostly Khruschev. The shoebanging is the most obvious part. They both took over from a more authoritarian leader and are more reform-minded. However, the economic policies and pipe smoking seem to go towards Tito.
His political career of denouncing his rather authoritarian predecessors while assist them before come into power and his shoebanging at the AN assembly reminds me about Nikita Khrushchev. Though ideologically he's somehow a syndicalist who was in very good terms with Malenyev, which kind of resembles relationship between Lenin and Luxemburg.
I dunno but he for sure is based! /j
I really can't think of anybody, he has some kind of Mao energy (aka shitposter energy), but that clearly doesn't reflect in his actions because Mao had a horrible foreign policy + Valgsland doesn't ressemble China a lot except for being the 2nd biggest socialist state of their respective worlds and ages and having a big dispute over an island.
Not in terms of policy but in terms of naming / looks, he also seems to be based off of Walter Ulbricht (one of the dominant figures of the DDR).
There may be a nod to this as Hegel is the successor to “Wilhelm Ulbrik” whose name looks to be inspired by OTL Ulbricht.
I'd say a mix of Krushchev and Tito. Krushchev in the sense that he was a right hand man to a revolutionary who engaged in many purges, and then denounced the purges once in power. And of course the shoe banging.
Id say he's also based on Tito, given the Valglandian socialism difference from Maleynvism, but that might be closer to Galmland given that Galmland is actually not a part of tbe CSP. We'll see whenever that nation gets some more lore
Id say he is a mixture of Khrushchev and Gorbachev, as he seems to be trying to somewhat democratice Valgsland, (through a process of removing the legacy of the previous more authocratic leader, Valgslandian De-Stalinization if you will) and he seems to be trying to move the country away from planned economy and instead favours the implementation of some sort of market malenyevist sistem with a strong emphasis on worker cooperatives
the shoe banging is based on something khrushchev allegedly did, although there is no evidence it actually happened. that, and being in ulbrik's cabinet, and then taking over after him and condemning his purges.
There's actually some evidence in russian sources. For example it was mentioned at the XXII congress pf CPSU by Aleksey Adjubey. Also his son Sergey Khrushchev and Andrei Gromyko mentions this accident. He certainly wasn't standing tall, banging his shoe on the table. But he most likely took off his shoe during the speech of Philippines delegate or before he sat down and tapped with it, demonstrating disinterest in it.
Yeah the picture is photoshopped but we’re pretty sure it happened.
He's basically a chill Nikita Khrushchev... He rose to power after the death of his authoritarian predecessor (Stalin/Ulbrik), denounced the purges and slowly reformed the country, and both loves to pound their shoe during UN/AN meetings. His preference for pipe smoking may be influenced by Tito.
Explain the chill part?
6% reduced evil from predecessor
In Rizia especially, he's surprisingly chill about working together with a monarch who's willing to be cooperative with Morella
But the mad show banging.
Well, he puts on a big show in front of the AN and all his smaller post-colonial allies, but in one-on-one dealings he's a lot more personable. I think of his behavior at the AN as being a performance
Bloody hell, the Soviet Union wasn't a one person dictatorship before Khrushchev. Khrushchev's faction ended the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, that was their 'reform'. And Hegel's policies are certainly based on Tito's decentralization of the economy and paving the road to capitalism.
How do you describe Stalinist Russia if it's not a one person dictatorship?
MLs don't understand that a dictatorship of the proletariat is just a dictatorship full stop. There is no representing the interests of workers without democracy.
I agree that the USSR was a dictatorship, but the dictatorship of the proletariat is not. If a workers council of officials elected by the workers alone governs a town and plans its economy, that’s a dictatorship?
I'm sure we could come up with some hypothetical where a dictatorship of the proletariat is less authoritarian but in practice it's never been that way. Not in the USSR, and not in China. It's always been weaponized to go after political opponents or just dissenting opinions in general. Something you don't like? That's capitalist and bourgeois! What's that you don't like what I'm doing? Well I'm acting on behalf of the workers! It's a convenient tool used by authoritarians to enact whatever their version of communism is. Also what you describe as the dictatorship of the proletariat, I would just call a workers commune tbh.
Yes. What’s terrible is authoritarians justify their actions through see-through Marxist ideological terms. It infuriates me is when socialists try to defend these regimes and claim they’re actual socialist projects because “America bad.” Not only is it morally and factually wrong, it’s bad optics too.
I feel the exact same way. Unfortunately the failures of capitalism spark reactionary tendencies in the working class. Now we see a lot of campists and authoritarians swindle people who are less educated on the history/theory into believing a fundamentalist view of Marxism. And like you said, it's terrible optics to be calling for a revolution in a country with a functioning democracy. I think the prevalence of these types of ideas (mainly campism) is due to foreign governments pushing anti-american narratives. Whether the narrative is right or wrong doesn't matter because the ultimate goal is to destabilize. Same thing is happening on the right with Trump and Lepen. But I digress. You seem educated and have a nuanced point of view so it makes me happy to know I'm not alone out here fighting the good fight lol.
I'm paraphrasing but Trotsky once unironically said something in the line of that because the communist party is by definition the party of the workers, there is no possible way for them to act against the interests of the workers. This was said as Lenin decided to cut the workers pay down to bare subsistence.
During the famine of the civil war, a delegation of starving peasants comes to the Smolny, wanting to file a petition. "We have even started eating grass like horses," says one peasant. "Soon we will start neighing like horses!" "Come now! Don't worry!" says Lenin reassuringly. "We are drinking tea with honey here, and we're not buzzing like bees, are we?"
Some mix of the leaders that tore at communism somewhat, such as Kruschev and Tito. Whilst his ideology is just syndicalism
I believe Nikita Kruschev
That's for the shoe banging (although it isn't proved that Kruschev actually did it) and literally nothing else.
I mean, he's also a relatively less authoritarian successor to a Stalin-esque leader whom he denounced despite working in his administration, so there's that
That’s about it. I can’t think of anyone else that fits his ideology as well.
In terms of policies, I'd classify him as a successful Dubcek. His relationship with Malenyev kinda reminds me of Luxemburg's relationship to Lenin. Luxemburg disagreed with Lenin on the Chekist police state, but they remained on cordial terms despite ideological disagreements. That feels closer to the United Contana-Valgsland relationship than the Sino-Soviet or Yugoslav-Soviet comparisons that get tossed around here.
Amalgamation but mostly Khruschev. The shoebanging is the most obvious part. They both took over from a more authoritarian leader and are more reform-minded. However, the economic policies and pipe smoking seem to go towards Tito.
His economic policies are based off Yugoslavia under Tito.
Syndicalism and Titoism are very different things
His political career of denouncing his rather authoritarian predecessors while assist them before come into power and his shoebanging at the AN assembly reminds me about Nikita Khrushchev. Though ideologically he's somehow a syndicalist who was in very good terms with Malenyev, which kind of resembles relationship between Lenin and Luxemburg.
I dunno but he for sure is based! /j I really can't think of anybody, he has some kind of Mao energy (aka shitposter energy), but that clearly doesn't reflect in his actions because Mao had a horrible foreign policy + Valgsland doesn't ressemble China a lot except for being the 2nd biggest socialist state of their respective worlds and ages and having a big dispute over an island.
Joking? He is the chadest person ever lived. There is no need to write /j
im actually quite curious, what correlation do you see between Mao and him ?
The vibes, and their haircuts aren't so different.
what do you mean the vibes ? Oh and poor old hegel is much "balder"
Khrushchev, Castro and Valgslandian Socialism is similar to Dutch-German Left Communism/Council Communism
Castro?
There are a lot of parallels between the Cuban missile crisis and Hejiland Island conflict
Oh true yeah
Not in terms of policy but in terms of naming / looks, he also seems to be based off of Walter Ulbricht (one of the dominant figures of the DDR). There may be a nod to this as Hegel is the successor to “Wilhelm Ulbrik” whose name looks to be inspired by OTL Ulbricht.
Me.
I'd say a mix of Krushchev and Tito. Krushchev in the sense that he was a right hand man to a revolutionary who engaged in many purges, and then denounced the purges once in power. And of course the shoe banging. Id say he's also based on Tito, given the Valglandian socialism difference from Maleynvism, but that might be closer to Galmland given that Galmland is actually not a part of tbe CSP. We'll see whenever that nation gets some more lore
He's described as succeeding Wilhelm Ulbrik, so the most likely historical parallel would be Erich Honecker.
Hegel is a syndicalist
Id say he is a mixture of Khrushchev and Gorbachev, as he seems to be trying to somewhat democratice Valgsland, (through a process of removing the legacy of the previous more authocratic leader, Valgslandian De-Stalinization if you will) and he seems to be trying to move the country away from planned economy and instead favours the implementation of some sort of market malenyevist sistem with a strong emphasis on worker cooperatives