Conservatives value order as a social end. Conservatives are the old guard, the arbiters of the status quo, the defenders of tradition and enemies of change. Conservative parties in the Victorian era were markedly different from today's conception of conservative (at least the Anglo-American conception). Conservatives upheld tradition above all else, being reluctant to enact any reform that would threaten the old ways. This means different things for different societies. In an absolute monarchy, the conservatives are likely more "conservative", defending the crown and its values, likely leaning towards moralism, jingoism, residency, state capitalism, and protectionism. In a more liberal nation like Britain or America, conservatives may simply be defending the way things have always been, or perhaps defending the historic role of the state against new liberal ideas of freedom. Expect these parties to sometimes uphold more liberal principles such as free trade, limited citizenship, pluralism, and even laissez faire.
Liberals favor liberty as the most valued social end. The liberal movement of the 19th century was an extremely important one. The liberals of America and Europe opened up these nations to trade, capitalism, and responsible government. Liberals were a diverse bunch, supporting a wide array of ideas and often conflicting with one another. Universal among them was some vague notion of expanding liberty, in a specific area or broadly. Liberals were often the forward-thinkers, the people who opposed the old state-dominated order and sought to unleash human potential by throwing off the chains the bound people down. Liberals were the cornerstones of the abolitionist movement, the Corn Law repeals in England, the end of the Second National Bank in America, and many more projects aimed at reducing government power over peoples' interactions with one another.
Victoria 2 Anarcho Liberal
Liberals are often found among capitalists and clerks, and sometime clergy or artisans. Other pops can of course also be liberal, but this is circumstantial. Liberal parties can be difficult to play in Victoria 2, as they often severely limit player options in a variety of fields. This is counterbalanced by reductions in factory costs and a few other perks, but the advantages often seem to be outweighed by the disadvantages. Most players will probably avoid liberal parties because they basically remove economic management as a game component. This can be useful to new players though, or to experienced players who enjoy the idea of a liberal nation and want a bit of challenge.
Anarcho liberals are the more radical cousin to the liberals, taking the idea of human liberty to its logical extreme. While liberals tended to be reformers, often intellectuals or men of power who sought to correct the irrationalities of the illiberal order, anarcho liberals were something else entirely. Advocating the end of the state as an entity and free and equal existence of all men, anarcho liberals can be expected to unflinchingly support the most liberal of positions.
Anarcho liberals are available fairly early in the game, unlocked in 1848, the year of serious political upheaval in Europe. Anarcho liberals face many of the same problems and advantages as liberals, but more consistently present these problems because of their more consistent support of liberal positions.
Anarcho-liberalism is an ideology that emphasizes anarchy and the exaltation of the free market. Whereas regular liberals seek to establish governments that respect their people's freedoms, anarcho-liberals - believing that governments shouldn't exist at all - seek to remove as much state power as possible.
Anarcho-liberal rebels are likely to rise from members of a nation's primary and accepted culture groups, especially in areas where anarcho-liberalism (or, to a lesser extent, regular liberalism) is the dominant ideology. A desire for political reforms will also encourage anarcho-liberal rebellions.
And this would be fine, except for the fact that not all pops have a good outlet for their militancy. So you get liberal, educated pops living in a democracy signing up with the Anarcho-Liberals (since the Jacobins don't apply within a democracy), socialists signing up with the Communists and conservative pops signing up with the Reactionaries... all of which can seem more than a little strange (ie. "I'm a liberal and angry about the lack of freedoms and voting rights-- that's it! Dictatorship for everyone!") So PDM has expanded the list of rebel groups to cover more nationalities and ideologies, and adjusted some of the existing ones (like the Anarcho-Liberals) so they make a bit more sense.
Liberal: Clerks and capitalists are naturally liberal. Craftsmen tend to be liberal until socialism appears. Liberal political parties in power will fire the liberal string of inventions for Ideological Thought if they have not fired already, increasing plurality and converting POPs to liberal ideology.
Anarcho-liberal: This is the extremist version of liberal. Liberals with high militancy will usually become anarcho-liberal. An anarcho-liberal party in power will fire the liberal string of Ideological Thought inventions if they have not fired already. In the late game, there are events based off of Mass Politics which will lower plurality a few points. An anarcho-liberal party in power can peacefully coup the government and rewrite the constitution into a presidential dictatorship.
Regime of Reaction: You can bypass the plurality penalty for a Monarchy if you fulfill two conditions. First, you must have a Reactionary political party in power. Second, your POPs must have Reactionary as their ideology. When this happens, the POPs with Reactionary ideology will ignore the plurality increase to militancy based on form of government. Furthermore, they will remain Reactionary as long as your ruling party is Reactionary and their consciousness and militancy remains low. You may even promote them to other kinds of POPs and they will remain Reactionary. POPs that are not Reactionary will still get the militancy increase based on plurality; however, you are still in very good shape if 75% of your country is Reactionary. This makes it possible to ward off the political tides of liberalism and socialism, provided you keep your POPs politically unaware and economically prosperous.
Proletarian Utopia: A Proletarian Dictatorship can bypass the plurality penalty if it fulfills two conditions. First, you must have a Communist Political party in power. Second, your POPs must be Communist. Once these conditions are met, your Communist POPs will ignore the plurality increase to militancy based on form of government. They will also remain Communist so long as you keep the Communists in power and keep your POPs' consciousness and militancy low. Just as a Regime of Reaction can ward off the tides of liberalism and socialism, so to can the Proletarian Utopia provide a solid alternative to laissez-faire capitalism.
Fascinating article. I never really got into the victoria games, preferring to stick with the Europa Universalis line, but this is really quite interesting and makes me think I was missing out. Oh well.
One correction: Higher consciousness makes POPs more liberal and more socialist, not more likely to support their own interest. If you want to democratize a monarchy you want to raise the consciousness of your aristocrats since they will be the majority of your enfranchised population and raising their consciousness will make them more liberal and more supportive of extending franchise to the lower classes.
For the curious, as consciousness rises, it acts as a multiplier for the needs of the population. Therefore the demand gets higher and prices rise. This makes sense. A literate middle class man has higher QoL expectations than some some equally wealthy illiterate individual simply because he is aware of the wealth around him in his nation. This means that more liberalized and open nations will have more demand and higher prices than authoritarian ones. Very interesting.
Latin American feminism, which in this entry includes Caribbeanfeminism, is rooted in the social and political context defined bycolonialism, the enslavement of African peoples, and themarginalization of Native peoples. Latin American feminism focuses onthe critical work that women have undertaken in reaction to the forcesthat created this context. At present, the context is dominated byneoliberal economic policies that, in the environment of globalization,have disproportionally impacted the most vulnerable segments ofsociety. Against this political backdrop, Latin American feminism isgrounded in the material lives of people, often women, as it exploresthe tensions engendered by the confluence of histories that generaterelationships among gender, citizenship, race/ethnicity, sexuality,class, community, and religion.
The use of the themes of gender and empowerment was further deployedby newly democratized states. Feminist activists found themselves in adifferent relationship to the state as it adopted the language ofgender. Once a vehicle of repression, especially undermilitary rule, Latin American feminists now had to contend with adrastically different engagement with the role of the state, one thathad co-opted the very terms of a movement that was initiated inopposition to its repression. Newly formed liberal democraciesunderstood women as potential markets for modernizing and development,thus deploying the language of gender and empowerment (Alvarez 1998:271). However, the way in which the state managed poverty as part ofits modernizing mission was mired in individualism with little focus oncommunities.
Political and economic transitions influenced the development offeminist ideas. Activism became institutionalized and the feministmovement grew in various directions. As the 90s came to a close, whatstarted out as a spontaneous social movement with radical ideas aboutpatriarchy, militarism, and democratization found its way into thehalls of institutions and organizations that stifled feminist activism.The institutionalization of feminism was so profound that its politicalpromise seemed lost. However, as the opening of the 21stcentury demonstrates, this was not the case. Institutionalization wasnot without critique, and the early 2000s marked the emergence of newvoices that took liberal dominant feminisms to task by focusing onanti-neoliberal and decolonial critique which began to call out thehegemonic practices of Latin American feminisms. 2ff7e9595c
Comentarios