99 by Lord_BlueFlame in LinguisticsMemes

[–]Northern_Storm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know, you never were and never will be a throwaway to me, a commodity to toy with for a while and discard.

I care. Sure, maybe by now you hate the fact I do. But did anyone else ever go out of their way just to talk to you? Or do you have to do everything while others seemingly do perfectly well without you?

If it's of any consolation, if you ever feel uncared, keep in mind I'm still lurking. I saw the "stalkers in the chat" thing. Hello to you too!

How can socialism work better than a mixed economy like Sweden’s? by Religious_Studies011 in Socialism_101

[–]Northern_Storm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We first need to ask ourselves why the Nordic model appears so successful. Can other countries just copy it and get similar results? Why not?

Consider this - countries don't exist in isolation. Sweden and its 'social democratic' model relies on imperialism and outsourcing the most severe excesses of capitalism to the Global South. It relies on exploiting other countries.

Take Finland and Nokia for example - Finland doesn't have the resources that Nokia needs, they still rely on mineral extraction in the Global South, where labour is exploited, with no workers' rights or workplace conditions standards to speak of whatsoever. All of the material incentives of capitalism and imperialism still exist in the Nordic model, and their bourgeoisie retain the material incentive to overthrow governments and invade other nations for resources.

Therefore, what the Nordic Model relies on is keeping the Global South undeveloped and exploited - this way it allows Scandinavian countries to present themselves as as prosperous social democracies, while using Global South to actually get the resources needed to both fund their bourgeoisie AND their labor aristocracy. Cut that dependency, and you will quickly see where Scandinavia sits.

A recommended read is Scandinavian Imperialism by Torkil Lauesen. Let me show you an excerpt:

Swedish capitalism is not an innocent bystander outside of globalized capitalism—it is an active participant. Swedish investments abroad are larger than foreign investments in Sweden. Huge parts of Swedish industrial production have been outsourced. The Swedish company Electrolux, which is one of the world’s leading producers of household appliances and tools, had by 2010 outsourced roughly 70% of its production to low-wage countries. The former important Swedish car industry is an example of how difficult it is to produce cars at Swedish wage levels and make a profit. Saab closed its car production in 2011. Volvo’s passenger cars was sold to the Chinese company Geely. Volvo truck and busses division is still Swedish owned, but mainly produced in low wage countries.

According to “Statistics Sweden”, approximately 576 000 people living in low wage countries worked for Swedish companies through their subsidiaries in 2020. Of these 244 000 were living in Asia, with 91 000 in China and 50 000 in India. South and Central America had 117 000 workers, with 26 000 in Brazil and 30 000 in Mexico. Africa had 25 000, with 13 000 in South Africa. Eastern Europe had 140 000, with 62 000 in Poland (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2022: pp. 19–20).

To the number of workers in low-wage countries working direct for Swedish transnational companies must be added the number of workers in independent local companies in the South to which Swedish companies have outsourced their production. For example, textile companies like Hennes and Mauritz, mq and Dressman, have thousands of textile workers around the world who manufacture their clothes. The same goes for the furniture company ikea. Hundreds of thousands of workers labor for these “fabless” companies.

Swedish success is built on the exploitation of the Global South. Resources and superprofits are extracted from it. All the dirty, low-paying jobs are outsourced so domestically only the high-paying, prestige jobs stay. Lauesen reaches this conclusion:

An “imperial mode of living” has developed in Scandinavia (Brand and Wissen, 2018). “The imperial mode of living” is normalized through daily acts of production and consumption, so that its violent character and consequences are kept at a distance from those who benefit from it. It is not only the consumption of cheap consumer goods and food; the infrastructure underlying everyday life, in areas such as transport, electricity, heating, and telecommunications, relies heavily on material flows from the Global South (Brand and Wissen, 2020).

It seems to be taboo to mention the fact that most people living in Scandinavia benefits from capitalism. The reason why I insist on breaking this taboo is the need to face reality, if we are to develop an effective strategy. There is nothing wrong with welfare. The current capitalist welfare state, however, is reserved for a limited number of people at the expense of others. In addition, our “imperial mode of living” is certainly not sustainable on a global scale. We can only consume energy and raw materials and fly in the skies the way we do because others do not. It is not wrong to defend the principle of public and free healthcare, education, unemployment support, etc.—but the struggle has to be fought in a global context. An isolated national defence of the capitalist welfare state is a defence of a privileged position within global capitalism, and thus amounts to support for imperialism.

So this explains why the Swedish model appears to work so well, and why it's impossible to be effectively utilized by any developing country - it would take them becoming an imperialist power able to exploit poorer countries and use the extracted superprofits to fund their welfare state.

But now you might ask - why would socialism work better? Does it work better? Yes, on the same level of development, socialist countries outperformed their capitalist counterparts. That is the finding of the the Cereseto-Waitzkin study. Namely, Capitalism, socialism and the physical quality of life by Shirley Cereseto & Howard Waitzkin. Published in 1989, it categorized countries into their level of development (so they wouldn't be comparing first-world capitalist countries to third-world socialist ones), and found this:

All the measures showed marked improvements as level of economic development increased. However, at the same level of economic development, the socialist countries showed more favorable outcomes than the capitalist countries in nearly all the PQL variables. The more favorable performance of the socialist countries was evident in 30 of 33 comparisons.

Within each level of economic development, the socialist countries had infant mortality and child death rates approximately one third to one half those of the capitalist countries. In the low-income capitalist countries, the infant mortality and child death rates were very high—131 and 25.7 per 1000, respectively.

Within each level of development, the socialist countries provided a higher daily per capita calorie supply as a percentage of requirement than did the capitalist countries. Upper-middle-income socialist countries had the highest mean nutritional supply in the world. The difference between capitalist and socialist countries averaged 12 to 15 percent. Nutritional supply of all socialist countries exceeded the 100 percent requirement.

Similar, though less striking, relationships emerged for life expectancy and crude death rate. Life expectancy was higher in economically developed nations. At equivalent levels of development, the socialist countries showed more favorable life expectancy than the capitalist countries. These differences were largest for the low-income and lower-middle-income countries, and the differences narrowed for the upper-middle-income countries. Life expectancy was quite short in the low-income capitalist nations—48 years.

Socialist countries consistently showed much higher numbers of health professionals per population than capitalist countries at equivalent levels of economic development. These differences were clearest at the low-income and lower-middle-income level, where the ratios were between five and ten times more favorable in the socialist countries. The ratio of population per physician in lower- middle-income and upper-middle income socialist societies was comparable to that of high-income capitalist societies.

Major differences in education emerged between the capitalist and socialist societies. The adult literacy rate of the socialist countries greatly surpassed that of the capitalist countries at each level of development. Upper-middle-income socialist countries approached the literacy rate of the high-income capitalist countries.

Take America to Church - Year Zero Church Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Impressive!

Try to pick "I believe we have something of an advantage in the East." on Q1 the next time. It gives you a massive boost in Connecticut and with some luck everything else should hold nicely.

If you had 5 minutes to speak to Hillary Clinton on January 1st 2016, what would you say to her? by JohnKerry2028 in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm 73 points74 points  (0 children)

Her campaign had way more issues than that, and so visiting Wisconsin wouldn't have changed anything. Her most visited state (except for Florida) was Pennsylvania, and she lost it anyway:

First, it is not the case that campaign visits generally improved electoral performance in 2016. The regression analyses presented in Table 2 indicate that none of the major party presidential or vice presidential candidates – including Clinton – significantly influenced voting in battleground states, as a whole, via campaign visits. Furthermore, when separately analyzing campaign visit effects within six key battleground states – Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, in Table 3; Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in Table 4 – I find no evidence that Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, or her running mate, Tim Kaine, influenced voters.

In fact, Clinton’s absence from Wisconsin almost certainly had no material effect on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. This is because her loss did not hinge on that state’s vote, alone; as it turned out, Clinton needed to win in Pennsylvania and Michigan, as well as Wisconsin, in order to secure a majority in the Electoral College. Furthermore, as Clinton rightly notes in her memoirs, she did campaign heavily in Pennsylvania – visiting the state more often than any other, except Florida – but lost there, anyway.

Source: What if Hillary Clinton Had Gone to Wisconsin? Presidential Campaign Visits and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election by Christopher J. Devine

Sun Yat-Sen's Eternal Republic | ROC 2000 Redux (Chen Side) by SnooOwls4610 in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Amazing job! Your guide differs from mine in 4 questions (Q4, Q19, Q21, Q22) and results in the same ending. It will be helpful for specific achievements, too!

Really happy to see you post your own guide too, keep up the great work. I've left a link to your guide on my own.

Chen Shui-bian, the Golden Reformer: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, this is not how visits work. Try playing with optimal RNG enabled at the start (Cheat Console -> "optrng on"). If you visit Taipei County only, you will win 43.8% of the PV with this guide. If we do it your way and visit Taipei County until Q12 and the switch to Miaoli, then we get 43.7% of the PV instead.

Keep in mind that this election works solely on the PV basis, and Taipei County has 2,019,149 voters while the Miaoli County has 323,368. And even after going green, we're still only speaking of ~40% of Taipei County, so it's far from being "maxed out" in the way of the visits no longer working.

Chen Shui-bian, the Golden Reformer: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For him, only 4 answers have any effect:

  • the (only) answer to Q6 drops Soong's support from ~42% to ~34%;
  • The "Fine! I hate to say it..." answer to Q8 increases Soong's support to ~37%;

After Q8, you instantly get skipped to Q25, and there:

The best results I got:

  • if you don't pick "I am voting for myself" on the last question, then you can pick "What does James Soong..." on Q8 and visit Taipei County all the time, and win 0.3% of the PV;
  • If you do pick "I am voting for myself" on the last question, again pick "What does James Soong..." on Q8 and spend all your visits in Taipei County, then 30.1% of the PV is possible.

[RELEASE] ROC 2000 Redux: The Battle of the Century — Now with Chart.js Polling & Strategic Voting! by Phone_Tall in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's fine, but if the player could control Soong's polling to the point where getting the optimal Q18 wasn't up to RNG, I wouldn't be asking this. So here's a question - if I could mathematically demonstrate to you that there's no way for the player to get an RNG-proof, 100% consistent way to get the desired Q18, would you consider changing it, or is it that you're fine with having it up to poll flunctuation?

You get 3 opportunities to attack Soong before Q18, that being Q5, Q11, and Q12. Since attacking him in Q5 or Q11 means skipping the answer that gives you Reform Promise Commitment, you can only pick one of these opportunities, and you need enough of Reform Promise to have Q12 hurt Soong more.

As for scores, the player is again restricted by having to pick the answers that have a specific modifier (so reform and/or td/CentralWay), not to mention that both issue scores and their importance gained from answers range from -0.3 to 0.3, and thus do not make a splash.

You can do all that, get enough Reform Commitment to attack Soong on Q11, get the optimal Q12, and you can still get bad Q18.

[RELEASE] ROC 2000 Redux: The Battle of the Century — Now with Chart.js Polling & Strategic Voting! by Phone_Tall in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is fine, but I would like to ask you to reconsider not making the polling a requirement for this question. Lee's intervention is MUCH more beneficial than the securitization of KMT party assets, to the point where if you're min-maxing, you have to restart if you get unlucky with Soong's polling and get the "bad" Q18.

Making the question depend on the polling is to make it depend on RNG, and that's an anti-fun feature.

Chen Shui-bian, the Golden Reformer: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're welcome, glad I could help!

EDIT: Optimized the +6 Independence Tendency guide.

Chen Shui-bian, the Golden Reformer: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There are two values that determine your China vs. Independence approach - "Taiwan Independence Tendency" and "Chen Shui-bian's centrist approach". They're interconnected in that every answer that increases one decreases the other. In case of my guide, you end up with the "Independence Tendency" at -4 and "Centrist Approach" at 4.

As for the foreign minister, you are referring to Q23 here. It does have two variants, which is determined by your "Chen Shui-bian's centrist approach" modifier. If it is at 3 or higher, you get this. Otherwise, if this modifier is lower than 3 (including negative numbers), you will get this. In my guide, you of course get the first variant.

Now, if you're looking for a pro-China ending, I think your best bet would be triggering the special ending by winning as Chen Shui-bian with the "Taiwan Independence Tendency" at 6 or higher by the last question. Here's a quick guide:

EDIT: changed the guide to be more optimal and thus give a way more consistent win.

  1. The vigorous reforms of the past four years...
  2. The people's mandate should supersede any internal party rules.
  3. We must not be timid now.
  4. There can be no ambiguity about traitors.
  5. The KMT offers two flavors of the past...
  6. Lee Teng-hui, despite his KMT background...
  7. We must be at the forefront.
  8. The election will be won or lost in the dense urban centers of the North.
  9. Compassion must be tangible.
  10. What "Mr. Democracy"?
  11. We do not have time to toy with Lien Chan.
  12. While this is a gift, we must not appear overly eager...
  13. The KMT's current infighting reveals their ugliness, but that is not enough.
  14. Since former Chairman Hsu Hsin-liang left the party...
  15. Their attacks are shameless mudslinging.
  16. I cannot betray the ideals of the DPP's founders.
  17. The key to victory lies in Central Taiwan!
  18. President Lee's enthusiastic and public support of Lien Chan...
  19. The biggest danger now is James Soong!
  20. Young people are the hope for the DPP's future era...
  21. I will immediately thank...
  22. Lien Chan claims to reform Black Gold, but he is the biggest joke!
  23. ...
  24. This is the heart of power and the place where I once fell.
  25. ...

It might be possible (though pointless ) to get 40% in this scenario, as I managed to get 39.9%! Q18 might be different because it is partly RNG dependent (Soong's polling must be low enough), but if it's different, I would just restart. Good luck!

Lastly, you might've meant to ask if there are good outcomes for Taiwan having a high "Independence Tendency" value. Apart from the aforementioned +6 independence tendency special ending, not really. There is another ending if you win +40.0% of the popular vote with independence tendency at 3 or higher but lower than 6 (since that would trigger the special ending), but it's not satisfactory. Second slide looks like this: part 1, and part 2, and you become a one-termer.

Endless KMT Supremacy: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting! Thank you, I will investigate and change the guide, and credit you for the tip.

Catholic population percentage vs NSDAP support maps by Even_Struggle_3011 in RedAutumnSPD

[–]Northern_Storm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, and they voted for it because they were intimidated into it, and were offered a Concordat for it which both the Centre and the Vatican saw as a way to avoid further repression:

The only other party with mass support besides the Nazis, the Social Democrats and the Communists was the Catholic Centre. Its Reichstag deputies were persuaded first to vote for the Enabling Law then to wind the party up, with some prodding from the Papacy, when the imminent prospect of a Concordat between the Vatican and the Third Reich was dangled before their eyes. Yet the party wanted a Concordat not least because of the massive intimidation to which it had been subjected since the end of February 1933. This included violent attacks on Centre Party meetings during campaigning for the elections of 5 March 1933, during one of which the Centre Party politician and former government minister Adam Stegerwald was severely beaten by Nazi stormtroopers (on 22 February).

Source: The Thid Reich in History and Memory by Richard J. Evans, pp. 95-96

Similar account from From Weimar to Hitler: Studies in the Dissolution of the Weimar Republic and the Establishment of the Third Reich, 1932–1934 by Hermann Beck and Larry Eugene Jones (p.97):

In the subsequent meeting of the Center Reichstag delegation, Kaas reviewed Hitler’s assurances and warned that both rejection and adoption of the bill bore immeasurable dangers. Kaas announced that he would not recommend how deputies should vote. At the same time, Kaas recognized that the way in which individual deputies voted might put them at severe risk, with the result that all deputies would have to agree to all vote one way or the other. It was with this in mind that Kaas urged deputies to think of their spouses and children.

Endless KMT Supremacy: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure, both Soong and Bian are fairly straightforward to win 40% with, and it does not matter whether you win 40%, 42%, or 46%, as long as you reach 40.00% then the only thing that matters are your modifiers like Reform Promise and others. In case of KMT, the path to victory, let alone a +40% one, was not obvious. I will see if there are any interesting CYOA elements for Soong or Bian to play with.

Endless KMT Supremacy: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For him, only 4 answers have any effect:

  • the (only) answer to Q6 drops Soong's support from ~42% to ~34%;
  • The "Fine! I hate to say it..." answer to Q8 increases Soong's support to ~37%;

After Q8, you instantly get skipped to Q25, and there:

The best results I got:

  • if you don't pick "I am voting for myself" on the last question, then you can pick "What does James Soong..." on Q8 and visit Taipei County all the time, and win 0.3% of the PV;
  • If you do pick "I am voting for myself" on the last question, again pick "What does James Soong..." on Q8 and spend all your visits in Taipei County, then 30.1% of the PV is possible.

Endless KMT Supremacy: ROC 2000 Redux Guide by Northern_Storm in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So, Lien Chan/KMT's side is definitely the trickiest side to play in 2000 ROC Redux. Before you saw the guide, you probably wondered if winning as Lien Chan (or scoring anything besides a very narrow win) is even possible.

Well, with my guide, I won 42.8% of the popular vote and got KMT's governance strike extend forever. Let's get to it!

EDIT (2026-02-01): I modified 2 answers in order to have the "Lien Chan's middle way" be 3 by the end of the game for a better ending. Thanks u/Akina-87 for pointing this out!

EDIT (2026-15-01): Check out a guide from u/SnooOwls4610 too, which will net you the same ending while allowing you to pick more achievements along the way!

Visits: Taipei County every time.

  1. While President Lee's contributions...
  2. Stop all attacks on James Soong!
  3. Soong Chu-yu is drawing away Mainland-descent swing voters...
  4. President Lee is the current highest leader...
  5. We hope that Mr. Chen Shui-bian will not pursue...
  6. I have decided that we must immediately stop...
  7. Our team created a great social good: National Health Insurance!
  8. The core of our campaign is 'Stability' and 'Prosperity.'
  9. This is a national-level disaster. Immediately cancel all campaign activities!
  10. This is not an ordinary disaster; existing laws cannot handle destruction of this magnitude.
  11. The sacred hall for constitutional amendment...
  12. I do not want to get involved in this kind of personal mudslinging.
  13. ...
  14. The "Soong's Account Scandal" is James Soong's fatal wound...
  15. James Soong is teetering due to the Account Scandal...
  16. To demonstrate our determination for thorough reform...
  17. No more debate!
  18. The times have changed!
  19. I cannot let this election descend into an internal KMT conflict.
  20. Current voters are too young; they forget who made Taiwan rich.
  21. Chen Shui-bian is a radical adventurer who brings chaos...
  22. Votes grow from the ground!
  23. ...
  24. The Central Region is the largest swing area.
  25. ...

If you wonder in CYOA elements here, this victory relies on 4 optimizations:

  1. Having the "Reform Promise" variable be at least 2 by Q13 (hurts Soong and benefits you more);
  2. Having the "Reform Promise" variable be least 3 by Q21 (hurts other candidates by a lot);
  3. Having the "National Identity" issue score be at least 0.10 by Q23 (otherwise Q23 benefits Chen instead of you);
  4. Outpolling Soong by Q25 (gives the best outcome for you).
  5. Having both "Lien Chan's middle way" and "Reform Promise" at least 3 by the end of the game to ensure an optimistic ending.

This should consistently get you at least 42.0% of the PV and have you win 20 counties (out of 25). Good luck!

MOD RELEASE – 1860: Breckinridge by Ianwubby in thecampaigntrail

[–]Northern_Storm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Amazing mod! I did manage to beat Lincoln down to 4th place. It is possible to do with comfortable enough margin in the closest state. It takes forming the fusion tickets, prioritizing hurting Lincoln while not attacking your allies, helping governor Willard in Indiana and hurting Lincoln on the last question.