So we know Bukharin is still alive and is living insome cabin in the middle of bump fuck nowhere, so that begs the question, how would each of the Soviet reunifiers like deal with him if they found him?
Obviously the non Soviet ones would just execute and or exile him if he's really lucky aside from maybe Men, who I could potentially see attempting to convert Bukharin and have him repent as a weird inversion of what happened with Puyi in OTL.
I am going to beat his state capitalist ass
Considering that the ML defense for the Capitalist relations that existed in the USSR was in order to build the "productive forces" in the USSR, the Right Opposition under Bukharin followed this defense with wanting to continue the NEP and the alliance/collaboration between the peasantry, petty Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.
In large part you could make the argument that Bukharin and the Right Opposition has influenced Deng Xiaoping thought and the course that modern China has taken over the past 50 years, so why continue to support Stalin who would go on to purge the Right Opposition after they were closely allied against the Left Opposition alongside with "abolishing" the NEP?
I'm trying to play with Bukharin's focus tree but when I complete the focus to make concessions to foreign powers, which should give me decisions to choose, no new decisions at all appear.
Am I doing something wrong?
So why is he vilified in the real ml's community?
Taking aside that I have no idea why paradox decides to make things randomly determined as it's extremely frustrating and gamey, how do I take over as bukharin peacefully through the coup? It says I've got an 80% chance yet I've restarted several times in Ironman and now still cannot assassinate Stalin by savescumming. I'm starting to think it's bugged.
I know he was opposed to Stalin in some aspects, and was later found guilty of a number of crimes during the Moscow Trials. Did he deserve to die? What was his general ideology? How is he remembered by Marxist-Leninists today?
Thanks for the help, any replies are appreciated!
How in the absolute HELL am I supposed to assassinate Stalin? I've done the NKVD Infiltration and plan for the coup and no matter how many times I save scum he survives. What's the optimal way to handle Stalin's schizo moments?
Is there a Secret-Event where Nikolai Bukharin will meet with his Daughter?
Like In the 2WRW Submod, there was an Event for Novosobirisk where Nikolai Bukharin meets his Daughter.
Like Bukharin is alive and His Daughter, not only manages to restore the USSR, but also managed to make it a Strong and also Idealistic Libertarian Socialist Country. Like Man must have a massive Ego Boost
Like I dont care what dad you are, having your own offspring, not only manage to reunify the Country you Shattered apart, but also makes it Stronger and Democratic, I think ANY Dad/Mom would be proud off.
R5: Basically as the title say I got the DLC last night started trying Bukharins Coup but I was spreading my influence which spiked Stalins paranoia and I got Beria in then I realize I shouldn't have since it blocks the coup. So take 2, I rushed down the focus tree to get the NKVD coup then launched the coup as quickly as I could and did nothing else but all this did was launch the civil war, should I do all of the surplus focus trees? Well I don't know because I had to go to bed for work and I only had a few hours to play but I would really like to get my Bukharin run going tonight if possible.
What do we know about the time of Bukharin as leader of the USSR? i am speaking i terms of Economy, World Conflicts, Society, Policies etc
After the coup the paranoia system disappears however the negative national spirits remains and there doesnβt appear to be a way to remove them, there is no timer either
I'm a sucker for worldbuilding and, in this particular context, the guys at Kaiserreich nailed it every time. It would be cool to see a new version of the current TNOTL with changes related to the updated lores on some elements (like Goebbels' assassination and the upcoming Italian rework).
What are the end differences in Trotsky and Bukharinβs focus trees
The current Russian warlord geography requires at the very least that Magadan have been constructed by Bukharin. But Magadan's existence and purpose are wholly tied up with "Stalinism" as we know it-- it was populated by prisoners taken during the collectivization and purges, and they were set to the task of dying in droves to eke out whatever resources possible (Kolyma gold for example). It was a Gulag town, run by the NKVD as a transport and administrative hub for the entire Arctic northeast, which was essentially cordoned off for their use and exploitation. At their height, Arctic cities' populations were in the hundreds of thousands, and the initial population base was deported there from elsewhere-- these include Vorkuta, which far from being a few camps was a massive iron-mining city. Also Norilsk but I don't think it exists, or it's at least a quiescent part of Tomsk.
There's plenty of other fields in which the tension between 1) Bukharin is leader for lore reasons 2) that probably didn't change certain basic features of the system 3) even if it did, we already have a certain image of the IRL Soviet Union... creates differences in understanding on what the military, economic, and social legacy of the USSR is for the warlord era. The Gulag issue, for those devs and writers who are working on the Russia/worldwide leftist lore (and I know this is already being done, the Central Asia leak gave us a definition of Bukharinism as Socialism In One Country + NEP), is one way to bring together a lot of issues/questions, because it sets a few overall priorities.
Who goes to the Gulags and why?
New Economic Policy: Peasants own their land, pay taxes in kind (X amount of grain) or in domestic-money, and then sell their remaining produce to either private retailers or the state "grain procurement" boards. The state sets its price, and sets targets for how much grain it wants; it sells grain in the cities to recover domestic-money/play the benevolent distributor of sustenance at low prices, but just as important is selling grain abroad to get foreign-exchange money and buy industrial equipment. Grain policy is in fact the main pillar of not only agricultural but also industrial policy since it's these profits that allow the importation of foreign industrial machines and techniques, on which you can then create homegrown replicas and innovations. The only thre
... keep reading on reddit β‘He and Kamenev get purged so early Iβd have to beeline to their focus to save them, so Iβm curious if they are worth the trouble. Alternatively, are their leader buffs interesting enough to justify picking them over Bukharin?
Also, what has your guys' experience been with the new supply system? No Steps Back really does seem like a whole new game for the supply system alone.
For how much Maoists compare him to Deng I donβt see many people in MZT circles discussing him. What are your guysβ thoughts?
Was reading a piece by Bukharin about the label of "State capitalism" in the early USSR, and I found a lot of similarities to that of the modern day PRC. Was interested in hearing thoughts of people on this as an analogy to contemporary Chinese political economy
OTL: Bukharin and Zinoviev are both killed during the Moscow trials.
ATL: It is the 'right' of the Communist party that is able to marginalize and ouster Stalin, then Trotsky. Bukharin has the support of the economists and NEP. In many ways, the Marxist Right prefigured the later principals applied by Deng Xiaoping in PRC China. How does the USSR fare if it is (a) marginally more democratic and (b) led by a Politburo more interested in economic growth than Marxist purity and collectivization?
I tried my first play through of the new soviet focus tree and decided to overthrow Stalin with Bukharin. After reading and deciding who I should sacrifice, and narrowly avoiding Stalinβs paranoid wrath, I revolted only to find out Bukharin was dead. And Stalin never did his focus for offing him. Is there and event or another focus that would kill him? Because I never noticed one.
The lore behind the reason why the NEP failed in the soviet union is less than well polished and reads more like a tankie lionizing Stalin's central planning approach as the only way the Soviet Union could industrialize. Saying stuff like how industrialization failed because greedy kulaks hoarded grain and intentionally caused famines in order to increase profits (something that is eerily close to how Stalinists explain away the Holodomor) and how once smallholder farming was collectivized only then did the USSR gain the crop output needed to start to industrialized under a second centrally planned 5 year plan. This doesn't really make much sense, and flies in the face of what happened In reality where collectivization of soviet agriculture did the opposite of increasing output but instead, it left a permanent decrease in farm output that the soviet union never recovered from even after the peasants were "pacified"
I think a better approach to the soviet union lore would be that Bukharin kept the NEP but kept it on a suffocatingly short leash that strangled any kind of benefits that could be obtained from it. Explain it as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, being ideologically committed to Vanguard-led socialism and paranoid of reactionaries and saboteurs plotting to bring an end to their regime constantly repressing the NEP when externalities occurred that didn't fit their vision.
some examples:
a business owner is quite successful and is the first to become the equivalent to a millionaire = the state implementing a wealth cap and increasing taxes.
Private firms in an industry begin to outpace a state-owned firm threatening to kick it off its throne and decrease state control of that industry = the central government increases investment into the state firm and gives it special privileges that give it a significant leg up on the competition, the private firms are unable to compete and go out of business.
businesses still collectively gain more market share in the economy and thus have more sway over economic decision-making through lobbying= laws are passed silencing private interest lobbying power and making it so that business owners can not join the communist party.
Despite repression from the central government, private interests are still making headway in local governments and are able to cause some governments to open up more in the hopes of promoting economic growth and increasing their prominence within the greater soviet union.
... keep reading on reddit β‘
In the timeline of The New Order: Last Days of Europe, Bolshevik ideologue Nikolai Bukharin became de-facto leader of the Soviet Union instead of Joseph Stalin.
Bukharin was an idealistic leader, if perhaps an authoritarian one. His attempt to manage the economy with a light hand through the New Economic Policy failed, and as a result the war against the Nazi menace was lost, and his Union shattered.
Bukharin's shadow is cast over each and every warlord state in Russia in its own way. But the two I want to talk about are Tomsk and Buryatia, namely how one of them will inevitably end up repeating the mistakes that led to the authoritarianism and fall of the Union in the first place, and how one of them will not. And you might be surprised which is which.
Tomsk, officially the Central Siberian Republic, is an idealistic republic set, appropriately, in central Siberia. At beginning of the game, it is led by Boris Pasternik, but since it is a republic, once he dies it can have several different leaders depending upon who is elected.
Buryatia, officially the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, is a warlord state that is rebelling against the last pathetic, legal remnant of Bukharin's Union, which is based in Irkutsk and is led by the chief of the NKVD, Genrikh Yagoda.
Buryatia is led by Valery Sablin, an idealistic young commissar who used to serve under Yagoda before becoming disillusion with his authoritarianism and rebelling in order to try and revive Leninism and start the October Revolution anew.
At game start, Tomsk is already a republic with a functioning government, albeit an emergency one with extraordinary powers. It has a legislature, an established bureaucracy, and a well-liked and respected president.
Buryatia is, despite the language it uses to describe itself as a free socialist republic, a totalitarian dictatorship with massive powers vested in the head of state, government, and party, Valery Sablin. In fact, when people playing the game refer to something that they did as Buyratia, they usually refer to it like Sablin did it personally; his name is more synonymous than the name of the state he commands.
It would seem that we can already see which one is fated to repeat the mistakes of Bukharin. And yet...
The system of government that Tomsk utilizes is quite unusual. Instead of political parties that compete in elections, political power in the republic is instead split between Salons, which are collections of artists, scienti
... keep reading on reddit β‘
Considering everyone's background, such as their roles in the 1917 revolution and the party, the civil war, or any characteristics, how could Kamenev have made a stronger leader over the others? Especially considering the other contender's weaknesses.
Just curious.
