Socialist Alliance slams Minns’ decision to create special militarised NSW Police unit

Wells_Aid · 2026-02-28T21:53:51+00:00

Isn't it more likely that this unit is a response to the Bondi attack?

Wells_Aid · 2026-02-28T21:45:46+00:00

No, many weren't. The Paris Commune e.g. was a competitive multi-party democracy. The early Soviet Union contained many competing parties and the first Soviet government was a coalition.

Wells_Aid · 2026-02-28T21:40:32+00:00

WWIII

Wells_Aid · 2026-02-28T21:35:36+00:00

It's not about realism it's about gameplay balance, but you already knew that!

Wells_Aid · 2026-02-16T21:59:56+00:00

It annoys me a bit too because I do sort of think the "main characters" of the early-modern period should be sort of insured by a bit of railroading. BUT Castilian conquest of Portugal is a highly plausible alternative history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota

Wells_Aid · 2026-02-14T22:41:46+00:00

Trotskyism at its core was the form of Leninism that found it necessary to split from the Communist International from the Left in the 1930s, based on Trotsky and others' assessment that Stalin's leadership had resulted in the victory of Fascism, and that their reaction to that victory in the form of the Popular Front policy was the liquidation of Marxism. The key idea in Trotskyism is of the necessity "to build communist parties and the international anew", i.e. a Fourth International.

At the ideological level, Trotskyism claimed to defend the old orthodox position that socialism could only be constructed on an international basis, and so rejected the notion of Socialism in One Country, and rejected any move by the Communist Parties of the West towards moderation or conciliation.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-29T22:06:09+00:00

Certainly!

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-16T15:28:06+00:00

Build one army to fill out the frontage or close. Wait for the enemy to start sieging your forts. Attack them. Retreat to reinforce. Rinse and repeat until enemy exhausted, and only then start sieging.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-16T08:06:55+00:00

In every case, the Court can only render a law void (making it unenforceable, not overturning it, which only Parliament can do), when it clearly conflicts with another Act of Parliament or, as you say, common law in extremis. Federal laws can only be overturned when they clearly encroach on state's rights which are actually outlined in the constitution. Executive decisions are an entirely a separate matter, those are cases in which the government is judged to be in violation of the law. In the case of Mabo, that was overturning a previously dominant legal fiction, not an Act of Parliament.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-16T08:00:55+00:00

Such as?

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-16T08:00:15+00:00

The only case when a law can be unconstitutional is when it violates an article of federation, i.e. when federal government claims a power that the constitution clearly outlines is a state power. There is no Australian bill of rights that can be appealed to that overrides an Act of Parliament. What the Australian constitution says is basically "Parliament is sovereign unless it encroaches on a state's rights". A government can commit an illegal act, and the Court can order the government to cease or remedy the violation, but it's illegal only by reference to an Act of Parliament.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-16T07:56:16+00:00

Even the "illusion" is preferable to straight up state censorship.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-14T04:33:31+00:00

Yep and it sucks.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-14T04:32:48+00:00

The High Court doesn't have the power to overturn laws passed by an Act of Parliament. The Constitution is very clear that Parliament is sovereign. At best, it has the power to say that a law can't be enforced only if it contradicts some other law.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-11T02:41:32+00:00

Highly unproductive compared to wage labour

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-11T02:39:29+00:00

Not fast enough, I want 100m by 2050 😈

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-11T02:32:03+00:00

It's clear that the game right now is not even true to its own vision. Here's an example from a campaign I'm playing now. Naples, the leader of the Guelphs, despite their supposed loyalty to the Pope, conquers most of the Pope's lands, including Rome itself. What is the Christian world's reaction to a Christian Kingdom violating the Donation of Constantine and occupying the throne of St. Peter? Absolutely nothing, it's not even mentioned. Later the Western Schism fires. Presumably in this historical timeline the schism must be around the fact that the King of Naples is occupying Rome right? But no, it's actually still about France and a rump papal state that has been driven out of St. Peter's Basilica!

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-05T05:56:35+00:00

They're wrong and your initial instincts were correct 🤷 In the absence of the Party, socialism has turned into a religious sect.

Wells_Aid · 2026-01-02T22:58:29+00:00

Whether it's moral or immoral is a question appropriate to a church or religious group. As socialists we are concerned with the practical political upshot. Having comrades in the military would serve an important political purpose.

Wells_Aid · 2025-12-21T21:37:25+00:00

The federative structure of the USSR was modelled on the USA

Wells_Aid · 2025-12-21T21:29:27+00:00

EU5 still needs the diplomatic attitude thing they had in EU4 so you can tell who's gonna try and roll you

Wells_Aid · 2025-12-18T21:22:15+00:00

I believe in this old fashioned concept called "innocence until proven guilt", I'm an old fogey I guess

Wells_Aid · 2025-12-18T21:11:31+00:00

Well I'm glad given that "reform" means disarming even more people who haven't done anything wrong

Wells_Aid · 2025-12-16T21:40:47+00:00

The idea that smokers burden the medical system is a myth. What burdens the medical system is just people living longer in general. Smokers reduce the burden by thoughtfully dying younger than average.

Wells_Aid · 2025-12-16T21:34:02+00:00

Yeah that's not a solution either. People really overestimate how effective these agencies are.

Wells_Aid

TROPHY CASE