Source
r/Kaiserreich•
SomeArtistFan

So why is Subhas Bose socialist in this timeline?

Question

Bose in OTL was fairly politically ambiguous in some regards but is from what I've learned generally labeled either a simple nationalist or a fascist, since he did cooperate with Japan for an independent India

So I wonder why he's socialist in this timeline? I know that both the princely states and the bharatiya commune are opposed to imperialism which would draw Bose toward them, but that doesn't directly make him totalist (there's quite obvious parallels drawn between him and Mao in some aspects)

So why is it? Did the developers just decide that Bose changed his ideological stance because the situation called for it? That's not unreasonable of course, I'm mainly just interested

Posted Jan 31, 2022, 11:59 PM UTC

248
arcehole•

Bose worked with Germany and Japan only to further his own goal of a free India. He had wanted to work with the Soviets first initially. He self described himself as socialist and wanted a socialist leadership for India mostly, hence why he is socialist

25
joncnunnThe cure for 70 day focuses is Revised National Focus Times•

All of India is being reworked. While India now has a new leader, the progress report on it from last year should still be fairly close to current plans.

In the meantime, what you are seeing in game is old lore.

21
El-Extranjero•

Kennedy confirmed during a dev stream that Bose is still going to be a Totalist, although we don’t know if his Forward Bloc is just a faction within the INC or its own party.

10
AdminwithRageObamationale•

That's a sentence I never thought i'll see.

4
skrutty26UOB x Swedish Commune x West Indies Union•

Bose was a socialist in our timeline, was part of the nationalist left-wing of the Indian National Congress. However, independence was his priority, which is why he allied with the Japanese to form the Indian National Army. In KR timeline, Totalism is basically the equivalent of fascism

14
El-Extranjero•

Bose was a socialist and Left-wing nationalist, and was sympathetic to both communism and fascism. OTL, he called for a synthesis of communism and fascism, which actually makes a perverted kind of sense from a Hegelian perspective (communism meets its antithesis in fascism, and their contradictions are overcome via the creation of a new synthetic ideology). Given that Hegelianism is at the root of Marxism, and basically all non-liberal, Left-wing thought post-1900 (with the possible exception of anarchism), it’s really not surprising.

6
TonyGaze👏 Don't 👏 use 👏 KR 👏 to 👏whitewash 👏 imperialism 👏•

which actually makes a perverted kind of sense from a Hegelian perspective (communism meets its antithesis in fascism, and their contradictions are overcome via the creation of a new synthetic ideology)

... wat? The dialectic, neither the Hegelian or Marxist one, is as simple as thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Quite contrary, Hegel berated Kant for being so simplistic. It isn't a question of combining, but rather, a question of sublation. A mix of fascism and communism, which, on a political level, which we shall not go further into here, has all sorts of contradictory implications, is on a philosophical level, completely impossible. The theoretical basis of communism is so far removed from the philosophical basis of fascism. They're opposed, but that doesn't mean that the resolving of their opposition is a mix. That would be not just a perverted, but an outright vulgar and mistaken approach to dialectics.

9
Ildiad_1940John Nance Gamer•

It was Fichte, not Kant, who came up with that formula and was criticized for it by Hegel.

2