2d4chan - User contributions [en]

Armor

2022-07-17T02:26:51Z

2601:143:8200:6E70:3D4E:454:91F3:5AAF: /* Types of Body Armor */

'''''Armor''''' (also spelled Armour) is a protective layer of material used to protect something from damage. Some types of armor includes armor for buildings, armor for vehicles and armor for personnel (generally referred to as body armor). Putting armor on people or putting them in [[Rhino|metal boxes]] to keep them safe is important because we can be [[Rip and Tear|killed]] by sharp rocks or branches or basically anything else at all except grass and leaves. In fact not [[Wikipedia:Bamboo#Weapons|even]] [[Wikipedia:Toxicodendron_radicans|those]]. This is because because our skin is not armor and it [[FAIL|sucks]]. This article will focus mostly on body armor.

[[File:ERA man.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Here you see a highly advanced tactical soldier well equipped for battle with the latest in ERA technology]]

== Types of Body Armor ==
Numerous forms of body armor have been developed over the millennia by civilizations with various levels of technology and resources on hand. Every single one of these died out in Europe by the 18th century, not, contrary to popular belief, because they were useless - forged iron or steel plate armour was still very effective at deflecting bullets, as shown by the armour European Cuirassiers wore well into the 19th century; in fact they were proof marked by a single dimp in the plate itself, made by firing a flintlock pistol at point blank at them - but equipping the increasing numbers of soldiers of the standing armies that became the norm after the Thirty Year War and the reforms undertaken during the long reign of Louis XIV. of France was simply too costly; the levied and mercenary forces prior to and during this war bought their equipment out of their own pockets. Efforts to make personal armor for the lowly Infantryman cheap and efficient enough never really stopped, but were almost met with failure, either because the results proved to be too heavy, too unreliable or too expensive, most of the times all three. Modern body armor works different insofar as they dissipate the force of a bullet hitting them like a big pillow, (spreading the kinetic energy over a relatively large area instead of outright making the bullet bounce off, also causing the bullet to get stuck in vest instead of going -plink!-) but some of the force will still get through and, as many military and policemen (and women) can attest, the sensation of getting hit while wearing a Kevlar vest is not very pleasant, to put it mildly; the remaining force is still sufficient to break bones or cause internal damage if you're unlucky. Still, a treatable, if painful, wound is of course still preferrable over a lethal one.

*'''Leather armor''' - not just any leather would do; soft leather offers no protection against blades. You need specially treated leather to be effective. Another name for this is "cuir bouilli" or "cuirbouille". The exact method of creating is unclear, as simply boiling leather in water (as the French name implies) will result in leather that’s hard but highly brittle (like diamond) to the point it can be snapped with one's bare hands. The best guesses are that animal glue and/or oil were involved. The high biodegradability (and, to many vermin, tastiness) of leather, especially with period natural treatment, has created a near total lack of historical examples surviving. Whatever it is, what is for certain is that this was the result was not flexible like a modern leather jacket, but would have a fairly solid shape (one possible method of creating it resulted in leather sturdy enough it could actually be used to ''chop wood''). The general consensus is that it had less presence in Europe (though there are surviving inventory accounts that confirm it existed). Meanwhile, in the East (both middle and far) it did exist (with inventories and accounts confirming Chu and Zhou armories using rhino or water buffalo hide), it wasn't that much widespread either and disappeared once other materials were obtainable. These circumstances became more prevalent as metalworking became more accessible. On the Central Asian steppes or in areas with large amounts of livestock, the leather was more widespread as lamellar or scale armor. This was likely a matter of resource availability as the nomadic tribes had little access to metal outside of trading and would prioritize using it for tools, swords, speartips, and arrowheads instead. Regarding the tribes in the Americas (some examples include the Tlingit, Chukchi, and Yupik or the Plain Indian's hair-pipe breastplates) as well as the Polynesian and Austronesian islands, where metalworking was noticeably diminished or not present, leather armor was relatively common while bone, shell, and coins were used as external reinforcing elements. Some examples include the Baju/Baru tribal war garb (made from hide, turtle shell, &/or crocodile skin) in the Nusantara Archipelago in Austronesia. On the other hand, all these regions gradually phased out leather once they gained reliable supplies of crafted metal or firearms via trading or learning metalsmithing. While phased out as as a primary form of protection, Buff coats were still made of leather and retained to act as cushioning underneath metal breastplates. It also served as slashing protection for exposed joints or in cases where wearing metal armor was inconvenient.
** Real-life note: while sometimes seen on TV and in video games, there is no such thing as studded leather armor as mentioned below in Brigandine's section. Think about it. How does adding a metal studs cause a significant increase to the armor's effectiveness? You will see this mistake in many RPGs. This idea probably came from people misunderstanding some of the other kinds of armor that use cloth as a binding agent on the outside.
*'''Padded cloth armor''' - Cloth bundled in sufficient thickness was one of the first forms of armor, since bronze armors tended to be too expensive or too heavy to be widely used. Cloth continued to be used mostly as padding underneath metal armor, to help absorb blows and all through the middle ages continued to be the go to protection for men-at-arms in lieu of expensive metal plate or mail. Despite what you might think it (obviously) provided one of the best protection against percussive strikes, second only to full plate (which have padded cloth integrated into it), surprisingly high level of protection against slashes and swings, unless the blade is razor sharp (most historical blades weren't that sharp) and while it barely ever provides full protection against piercing weapon heavier than a shortbow arrow, it does lower the depth of penetration, often turning instantly lethal wounds from glancing stabs or slashes to survivable if debilitating, or even surface damage, with an added bonus of often catching enemy weapon (although given in most times where blades get stuck in padded cloth after stabbing through, they pierce deep enough to kill so it's more to the benefit of your companions than yours). Sometimes confused with Brigandine armor (which externally appeared to be made of cloth with metal studs but also contained overlapping metal pieces). Besides the Gambeson and some Austronesian Baju/Baru war jackets woven from hardy fibrous plants, some other historical examples include:
** The distinctive ancient Greek armor called "Linothorax" (literally meaning linen torso): believed to be made out of quilted linen with glue laminate and is presumed to fall under this category, though historians can't be entirely sure as no full examples survived the centuries. Lighter versions known as "Spola" were worn by the Greeks and Macedonians.
** A gambeson is unlike most “soft” armor in that we actually have a fairly good understanding of its construction due to some 15th century writing detailing how to make it (deer skin with a ~30 layers of linen).
*** Aketon is roughly equivilent to a gamebeson, being made of raw cotton (which is not the soft, smooth, fluffy stuff the clothes you're wearing are made out of) rather than linen. Generally assumed to be a corruption of the arabic word for cotton.
** A hard, quilted, and 2 inch-thick form of cotton armor was used by the Mesoamericans such as the Aztecs, Toltecs, and the Tlaxcalans. Called ”Ichcahuipilli” in the Nahuatl, it was often hardened with resin-like substances like brine salt. In combat, it was effective against obsidian-edged Macuahuitl/Macana sword-clubs and arrows. They were also effective enough that Spanish Conquistadors sometimes adopted them for use in the summer to avoid being baked alive in their steel cuirasses. Other related armor include decorated sets called "Tlahuiztli." Similar thickly padded cotton tunics were worn by Incan nobles and Muisca warriors in South America (with the former using small wooden planks to reinforce the back).
** An early bulletproof form of cotton armor worn by the 19th century Joseon Koreans called “Myeonje baegab.” It was invented when they confronting Western armies at the same time the Western powers began probing expeditions into Qing China and Tokugawa Japan (pre-Meiji Reformation). While effective against low velocity bullets from black powder firearms, it was prone to being burned from incendiary hazards like explosions or red-hot shrapnel.
** Various early forms of pistol-proof armor were documented that were made from layers of silk but were usually expensive and restricted to wealthy politicians or nobles (for example, [[The World Wars|Franz Ferdinand]] ironically was believed to have owned one but wasn't wearing it on his fateful final day, though as he was shot in the neck it wouldn't have made a difference).
*'''Paper armor''' - this one sounds crazy, but apparently it was actually a thing in 10th Century China. The Mythbusters tested it out and it might have been actually effective... at least, so long as it does not get wet, a bit of of an issue considering human beings tend to sweat when under the stress of matters of life-and-death. Indeed citizen, this is testable by you! Obtain a notebook and ensure it is tightly closed. Then, stab it with a knife as hard as possible. Apparently, it was also used by some ethnic tribes in China as late at the 19th century while interlayered with cotton and was good against smoothbore muskets and bayonets but not breech-loading rifles.
*'''Wooden armor''' - either based on wooden planks held together or overlapped with fibre in a manner similar to mirror armor, brigandine, and lamellar, or alternatively composed of woody rods interwoven like a thick basket (similar to rattan shields in Asia) into the form of cuirasses and shields called rod-and-slat armor, these types of armor were known to be used in pre-colonial natives in Austronesia (such as the Kiribati) and the Americas (such as among the Inca, Haida, Iroqouis, & Tlingit tribes). Like leather armor or cotton armor, there are very few preserved copies due to wood’s tendency to rot away when exposed to wet climates with most accounts coming from written records by colonial explorers. While effective against the wood, bone, and stone based weaponry used indigenously in the region, it inevitably disappeared once metal weapons or firearms were introduced by Western explorers.
**”Bamboo armor” - basically wooden armor, but with the advantage in that you can shape bamboo more easily. Bamboo is also notable in the sense that it has a high strength weight ratio. It also is rather weather resistant.
*'''Scale armor''' - An early form of armour, sporting overlapping metal (cuirbouille and lacquered leather were also used) plates arranged in a similar fashion to roofing tiles, which were riveted/sewn onto a backing cloth or leather and oftentimes loosely laced together in rows. One of the earliest examples of armour, used predominantly in Eastern cultures most distinctly used to deck out their early heavy cavalrymen and horses both in this. These "Cataphracts" were said to be able [[Awesome|to get showered in arrows without getting hit]]. Used by Rome as the lorica squamata, apparently simultaneously with mail. The art of ''Grandes Chroniques de France'' shows (at least) helmets with such an appearance existed in Europe as lower class armor in or before 1270.
*'''Mirror armor''' - an early form of plate, this was a small round bronze plate attached to the torso. Besides physical protection, it was also believed to ward off the supernatural. The plate itself was frequently a supplement over a suit of mail, but plenty of poor warriors throughout ancient history made due with hoping that no one would hit them around the single non-encompassing plate they strapped to their chest (beats having no armor).
*'''[[Mail]]''' - the iconic armor made of interlocking rings. One of the most common and effective type of armor from the ancient world to the middle ages. Flexible and easy (though time-consuming) to make, it was widely used by many cultures. It was also significantly easier to repair, as a break could easily be mended by replacing a few rings, whereas a hole in plate armor might require a complete replacement. While fairly effective against foot soldiers, the crossbow and the lance charge required knights to wear extra armor over mail for additional protection. In the modern era, they are used for non-combative roles, such as shark suits, butcher's gloves, animal control, and dealing with high-power electrical wiring (because electrons "slide" along the mesh rather than penetrate", admittedly the mesh must be very tightly made). Some nations still use mail armor to supplement riot gear. Note that it MUST be backed with leather or something stiff, otherwise knives will drive it into the body. Just for the love of god: don't get shot. The British tested this in WW1 and the bullets ends up dragging the links into the body with it. They did wind up using it to protect crew inside a tank from spalling that was reliably created from even non-penetrating hits against its armor (early tank armor just wasn't very thick, and the issue lessened by the time of World War II's technological advances in tanks).
*'''Plated Mail''' - Also known as Mail and Plate armor or splinted mail, this is not what some sourcebooks refer to as platemail, which is basically just plate armor worn over a mail hauberk. Plated mail integrates metal plates into the rest of the mail pattern, ranging from large rectangular plates on areas like the chest, to small plates arranged like fish scales on areas that require more dexterity, such as near the shoulders and back. A form of transitional armor in Europe alongside brigandine as knights gradually shifted from full mail to plate armor, it was popular with medieval Slavs, Eastern Europeans, Persians, Indians, and other Asian kingdoms.
*'''Laminar armor''' - armor made from overlapping bands of metal. A predecessor to full-body plate armor, most famous example is the ancient Roman [[wikipedia:Lorica_segmentata|Lorica Segmentata]], though it was less prevalent among the Romans than is usually portrayed and mail remained in use among the Romans' frontline infantry, even in the Segmentata's heyday. Other examples existed such as the Dendra armour from Mycenaean Greece, some Warring State Period samurai armor once muskets were in use, or Renaissance Polish Hussars but the latter was held together by sliding rivets rather than leather strips and laces used in Greek and Roman versions of the armor.
*'''Lamellar armor''' - <s>Essentially scale armor sewn together</s> Not exactly. It's an armour made from overlapping pieces of leather, ivory/bone, or metal, each piece being laced side-by-side to create semi-rigid rows, which then are laced together to form a complete suit of armour. This form differs from other "overlapping plates" types of armour in that it is self-contained and does not rely on backing material to keep the all the pieces together (unlike Scale or Brigandine). Again it is one of the oldest types of armour (being found in places as widespread as Mesopotamia, Europe, the Central Asian Steppes, Pre-Columbian North America, and even the Arctic Circle) and was still in use as recently as 1930s.
*'''[[Samurai]] armor''' - depending on the period, it could be lamellar, laminar, or even western plate (but not wood. That has no basis in history). The helmet (kabuto) had a distinct shape that often featured ornaments and even a removable facemask (Darth Vader's helmet is said to be a hybrid of a kabuto and a German stahlhelm). Also notable for featuring one or two large [[pauldrons]] (called ''sode'') on the heavier models that protected the entire upper arm, and were used as small shields to absorb impacts while leaving both hands free for weapon handling. ([[Power Armour|Sounds familiar, huh?]])
**'''Ashigaru armor''' - Worn by conscripts, it featured the same kinds of breastplates, a lesser helmet (which was sometimes made of wood) and some minor stuff but was overall less complete than samurai armor. Eventually became a standardized, mass-produced design used by everyone after [[firearms]] made their entrée, relegating the heavier samurai armors to symbols of status.
*'''Brigandine''' - a.k.a "Corazzina,” “Coat-of-plates,” and “Jack of Plate” armor. Brigandine is a "poor man's plate" and was quite popular in medieval Europe as part of "transitional" armor alongside plated mail (when knights began transitioning from full mail to plate armor), when worn in combination with mail and metal splints covering the limbs. While it may not provide as sturdy protection compared to full plate, it was very easy to make and repair. Also, while not as flexible as mail, it had more rigid protection against blunt force trauma. In essence, it was a compromise between the two while also being cheaper. Even after nobles and knights began using full plate armor, it was still kept as a form of armor for all rank-and-file men-at-arms; even seeing use in the New World by colonists against the natives’ arrows. It was also widespread across all of Eurasia with evidence of its existence seen as far out as as Turkey, India, Russia, China, and even Japan. Often confused with "studded leather armour" or the padded cloth gambeson. In modern day warfare, ballistic vests with trauma plate inserts made from metal or ceramic on the front, back, and sides of the body are spiritual successors to this form of armor. <s>Construction-wise, it’s essentially an inverted suit of scale armor with the backing cloth on the outside</s> Not quite. Underneath the cloth and over the padding, a "brig" is built from overlapping plates of various sizes and shapes, riveted onto a leather or cloth "jacket", but it differs from other "overlapping plates" armours in that:
** A) the plates are *usually* bigger and shaped according to where they go on the armour (scale and lamellar mostly use same-sized, same-shape plates),
** B) they are riveted (or sewn in the Jack-of-Plate’s case) inside the leather/cloth and not on the outside and
** C) the plates are '''not''' linked together in any fashion and fully rely on their fastening to the backing to keep them where they're supposed to be.
*'''[[Plate armor]]''' - armor made from single, solid pieces of metal. Bronze plate armor had been used in ancient times, but was limited to helmets and sometimes breastplates due to the weight of the armor. Full suits of plate armor were not possible until improvements in smithing allowed for large bars of steel to be hammered out into single pieces. A popular misconception about full plate is that it's very hard to move in, to a point it's exclusive to cavalry. While this is true for a '''tourney plate''' specifically designed for maximum protection in jousting tournaments, an actual battle plate was designed with maximum mobility in mind, and it was not uncommon for a knight (or later an officer) to do a somersault or dance with his lady while testing his new plate armor. During and after the Renaissance, mass produced '''munitions plate''' armor appeared; this was usually a partial suit of armor that protected the chest, shoulders, and upper leg; it was partially effective against harquebus fire and early grenades but fell out of use as muskets proliferated.
*'''Jack Chains''' - if you were too poor to afford proper plate armor, you could at least add some metal reinforcements to your gambeson called Jack Chains. These were essentially gauntlets, elbow plates, and shoulder guards linked together by chains and attached to the arms so that one could, at bare minimum, block slashes to their sides without getting cut, or use it as a improv shield against incoming sword attacks.
*'''Makeshift Armor''' - Not really a set of armor in the traditional sense, generally makeshift armor is what ever one could scrounge up to make a protective wear. In the modern day, this is a protestor (think 2014 Ukraine Revolution) go to for long term engagement. Generally, motorcycle and safety helmets alongside heavy thick jackets, protective sports gear, or motorcycle gear would be the go to, as well as whatever one can strap to themselves. Don't be wearing something that might shatter easily though if you expect to be shot at, because that might manage to injure you even worse with the flying bits.
*'''Flak Jackets''' - The first standard-issue modern body armor to be developed, Flak Jackets were developed in WWII out of high-strength nylon to protect aircrews from fragments fired from flak cannons in conjuncture with manganese steel plates. While good against shrapnel and pistol rounds, it was still ineffective against rifle bullets. Before the invention of Kevlar and ballistic vests, this was the only kind of body armor available to modern soldiers expected to walk.
*'''Early 20th century armor''' - in WW1 and 2 many nations began experimenting with various forms of body armor to deal with shrapnel. This included steel breastplates, lamellar and steel plates in canvas carriers. This was more experimental than anything else. The biggest users of body armor in WW2 were the soviets who issued "steel bibs" to their soldiers. These could stop shrapnel fire and pistol bullets (a big deal given that Sub Machine Guns were a common infantry arm for urban combat) but were on the heavy side and were restricted to urban warfare or motorized infantry.
*'''Ceramic armor''' - Originally descended from the ceramic “Chicken plate” armor worn by helicopter gunship crews, it is typically, high-strength ceramic plates (typically made from boron carbide) are used as an energy-absorbing component in some ballistic vests (otherwise the wearer would suffer blunt trauma and internal bleeding from a bullet impacting the vest). A common myth is that Ceramic trauma plates shatter after only a 1-2 hits. This somewhat of an exaggeration, although generally plates are certified to take one well aimed steel-cored 7.62x63/53 mm rifle round (in layman's terms, a armor piercing sniper bullet) straight in and anything more you get out of it is pushing your luck. These are some of the best plates for infantry.
*'''Ballistic vests''' - "bulletproof" armor vests able to stop bullets of varying sizes and speeds. For "soft" armor, the use of high-strength fibers that "catch" the projectile, thereby slowing them down enough to prevent them from penetrating, are used, typically for security guards, low-intensity combat areas jobs, and cops. For "hard" armor, ceramic/metal/ultra-high-strength plastic/combination-of-the-previous may be used in the form of solid plates. Body armor may come in as either a standalone vest (i.e. "soft" kevlar vest) or a carrier (which can further more simply be a holder for a solid plate or a combination of "soft" and "hard" armor). Options of groin, neck, and shoulder protection may be included with the vests but aren't used unless you're in a SWAT team or fighting in close quarters in a building.
**'''Ballistic Visor''' - A visor of transparent, bulletproof, plastic. Despite its weight, bulk and making it impossible to use a standard rifle properly, it's only really suitable against low powered handgun rounds and thus it sees little use outside of European SWAT counterparts.
*'''Blast suits''' - full-body armors capable of absorbing the heat and shrapnel of a bomb blast. The only part that isn't protected are the hands, since wearing thick gloves is detrimental to manual dexterity. So if a bomb goes off, you may be maimed and lose parts of your hands - but at least you're not dead or torn to ribbons by shrapnel! May also include a closed air supply in the case of biological or chemical bombs. Commonly worn by EOD technicians.
*'''[[Power Armor]]''' - As of current, we already have prototype exoskeletons, but they're one of the many inventions that isn't in common use purely because of current limits on battery power (all current examples are plugged into a power source). There isn't as much a need for such strength in direct combat like in fiction, as it's designed more for load-bearing in mind, allowing for bigger, heavier guns and/or more ammo. However, that could include allowing the user to wear heavier armor as well. Generally speaking, the servos and external components are rather exposed. Think STALKER's exoskeleton for modern military exoskeleton prototypes. Frankly, you're more likely to find these systems being used by workers in a factory or maintenance depot than on the battlefield, and that will likely remain the case until the power situation is figured out. A rare case of mundane utility winning out over combat potential for first time deployment.

== Modern Body Armor ==
With modern technology and all it's amenities, a large choices of body armor exists on the market (the NIJ level approved list for body armor products consumes 212 pages on a PDF file, and that's just stuff the manufacturer has paid the considerable expense to have tested by the NIJ instead of in-house). That said it is good to know what levels of protection for both ballistic and melee threats are. The advent of modern style body armour came at the beginning of the Cold War, when military equipment became ever more complicated to handle and expensive to make. These two factors put an incentive in place for the military leaders of the world to invest more resources into the training of its Soldiers, but also to protect this training and money invested into it (as of writing this passage, the cost of the training alone is estimated by the Pentagon to range between 20-40.000 US-Dollars ''per soldier for just basic training''), as well as the outrageously expensive equipment they are carrying. Compare this to previous wars like World War 2, where 90 days were deemed sufficient enough to teach some basic tactics and the workings of an M1 Garand and whatever specialty gear the individual soldier was issued. Point being: The advancements in weapon lethality also made Soldiers much less expendable (ironically enough) than their previous incarnations.

[[image:NIJ Ballistic Protection Rating.JPG|thumb|250px|right|NIJ Ballistic Standard]]
[[image:UL 752 Bullet Resistance Chart.PNG|thumb|250px|right|UL 752 Ballistic Standard]]

*'''Ballistic threats''' Aka bullets most of the time. Soft body armor (aka Kevlar, UHMW Polyethylene, Dyneema, etc) that is rather flexible, but also vulnerable to high velocity threats. Thus most body armor of that class is relegated between II to IIIA. From there on out, it's hard body armor, which usually consists of some sort of metallic (usually steel, but titanium and high-strength aluminum are options too), ceramics, and composites. NIJ Standard III to IV stop those threats. Technically, though only rated up to 30-06 AP rounds (IV), some plates of body armor offer higher than IV. Some have even shown to stop a .50 BMG round, though the likelihood of one surviving such a shot from the sheer force of it hitting them even without going into them is still in question. Particularly when that burst of energy can still rupture organs or shatter bones. Standard helmets only go up to level III
** Since some common threats are ''just'' above certain ratings, like 55 grain 5.56 from a 20 inch barrel penetrating level III or 5.7 pistols beating most soft armor, the NIJ system is currently undergoing an overhaul. While most western countries use NIJ rating standards, at least as a secondary, Russia has its own, completely unconnected, system for rating armor.

*'''Stab threats''' Protects against low energy stabbing objects (aka knives and maybe some small swords). Stab and piercing vest should not be trusted for higher level threats such a two handed weapons such as an pickaxe, sledgehammer, axe, spear, and even affixed bayonets. Even a knife in the hands of someone who can put an unusually high amount of force into stabbing can defeat a stab vest. However it is still great for stuff people would likely to conceal where rapid quick jabbing is likely to occur. Of course there is probably protective gear such as riot gear that could be more withstanding of heavier two handed threats, but it's likely best to not take a pickaxe to the chest in the first place.

Overlap between the two categories is minimal. Metal ballistic plates will stop knifes, though said plate covers minimal body area and is typically heavy. Soft armor is one or the other, though one could be worn over the other at the cost of bulk.

[[image:NIJ Stab level.PNG|thumb|200px|right|NIJ Stab standard]]

== Modern Materials ==
For soft armor vests, the original materials used to make the dozens of layers that catch bullets and absorb their energy were either silk, cotton, or nylon. Ultimately, they were replaced with high strength synthetic polymer fibers with Kevlar being the first invented in the the 1970's. It's been competing ever since with over a dozen rival polymer formulas.
The standard hard armor trifecta of UHMWPE (essentially dense polymers ratched up to 11), Steel/titanium, and Ceramic usually places Ceramic at the top. As ceramic is not vulnerable to steel-core or fast-moving threats, it does not fold to M855 and M193 at the NIJ III level like UHMWPE and Steel do, respectively. What makes metals and UHMWPE appealing for plate inserts over ceramic is cost reduction and (assuming the plates haven't been penetrated yet) reusability. On the other hand, metal plate inserts need to be coated with high strength resins and polymer covers to prevent metal fragments from ricochets and spalling from hitting soldiers in the face or limbs.

== Yurop and Russia ==
Outside of the US, there are standards like VPAM and GOST, HOSDB and SK. Of these, the HOSDB is the only one not designed for military and civil use, while the rest are comprehensives intended for both military and civil protection.

==Anatomy of armor==
[[File:HenryVIIIArmor.jpg|right|thumb|300px|You thought we were joking about the dick armor?]]
Basic terminology of the different parts of armor. Unless you were very wealthy, such as a knight, not everyone had every part of their body covered in armor.

*[[Helmet]] - protects the head, one of the most common pieces of armor.
*Gambeson - padded cloth armor suit worn underneath metal armor to absorb blunt force and protect the wearer from the armor itself (metal and boiled leather aren't nice to unprotected humans skin, especially under extreme temperatures). Later variants often reinforced with sown-in mail in places actual metal armor above it have gaps and joints.
*Cuirass - protects the torso. If its made from a single piece of metal, it is a breastplate. Most breastplate are associated with full-body steel plate armor, but ancient Greeks had a bronze version called the "heroic Cuirass", or the Roman "Lorica Musculata", often molded with fake muscles and various decorations.
:*Plackart - lower torso reinforcement that would overlap with a breastplate for extra protection, and connected to the faulds. The reason for this reinforcement is to act as a cushion for blows to the chest, as there is enough space between the plackart and curiass that it acts as additional padding to prevent soft tissue damage underneath. Also enabled wearers to bend their torso sideways due the breastplate and backplate resting on the shoulders and around the ribcage while enveloped by the plackart around the midriff like a Russian matryoshka doll. Meanwhile the plackart and faulds being fastened around the hips enabled wearers to bend forwards, sideways, and backwards.
:*Faulds - a metal skirt attached to the breastplate, allowing some leg protection while offering mobility. Alternately, if the Faulds are in two pieces (one for each leg), they're known as Tassets. If a separate piece protects the ass, it's called a culet.
:*Lance Rest - the lone offensive feature of armor (aside from the rare spikes), enables holding using a lance with less energy wasted on sliding around. Makes the energy transfer so efficent that lances can actually break when used.
*Gorget - protects the neck and nape. With certain helmets, such as the Sallet, the gorget protected the lower head where the helmet did not.
**Bevor - a related piece of neck armor. Unlike the Gorget, these did not surround the entire neck but covered the front of the neck at the throat and chin. If segmented by folding laminate plates, it was called a Falling Buffe.
*[[Pauldrons]] - protects the shoulders. The real life versions are nowhere near as big as those on space marines.
**Spaulder - Armor used to protect the upper arm between the vambrace and the pauldron. Later replaced by the simpler Rebrace (also called an Upper Cannon).
*Gauntlets - protects the hands.
*Bracers (also call vambraces or braces) - protects the forearms and wrists.
**Manica - Armor that covers an arm, used primarily by the Romans. Typically used to protect the sword arm when it leaves the safety of a shield, but gladiators are known to have worn just it and the attached pauldron.
**Couter (also called Cowter or Elbow Cop) - essentially a metal elbow guard.
*Greaves - similar to modern shin guards, they protects the legs.
**Poleyn (alternatively called Genouillere) - basically a metal knee guard.
*Sabatons - protects the feet (you don't want some smartass spearman stabbing at your unarmored feet now, would you?)
*Codpiece - Yes, believe it or not, you could get dick armor too. Ordinarily this was just to armor the [[Slaanesh|groin area]] like an athletic cup, but some people like King Henry VIII made [[Kaldor Draigo|massive codpieces]] to show off how well-endowed they were.
*Tabard - Technically not armor, but was the decorative sleeveless coat that would drape over the armor of knights. Besides being used as an identifier through the knight's [[Imperial Knight|heraldry]], it also shielded armor from the desert sun so that the knight wouldn't boil in their own armor. Another related piece of clothing was the Surcoat/Jupon.
**Sashimono - Japanese equivalent. Essentially a way for armor to hold a small flag. Associated more with ashigaru armor than samurai, but samurai did wear them as well.

== Warhammer 40k ==
*[[Flak Armor]]: This is actually a ballistic vest, not Flak armor. Think an ESAPI (or the new XSAPI) plate modeled off of a cuirass. It can withstand stubber fire all across, up to rifle caliber, so consider most modern rifle ammo utterly pointless and it can take a modest beating from lasguns. The problem is, it starts getting shaky at the 12.7mm level, which... Unfortunately for the Imperial Guard, a ''lot'' of stuff can be considered "higher" than said level.
*[[Carapace Armor]]: Better flak armor (the 40K kind which is a ballistic vest) but with much more coverage and better quality materials. Basically the equivalent to full-plated armor made of ceramite and plasteel, it's generally [[Neckbeard|heavier and cumbersome]], but only issued really to those more capable of making the most use out of it.
*[[Power Armour|Powered armor]]: Space marine general issue, as well as several powerful Imperial organizations. Comes with both long term and short term necessities, with high-grade ceramite and admantium for protection, stabilizing and targeting gear to assist, and general life support if the being inside doesn't already have some. Very fancy. Honestly, it has its own article for a reason and this list section would do it no justice.

== Armor in Fiction ==

==Gallery==
<gallery>
Image:Musclecuirass.JPG| Greek bronze Muscle Cuirass
Image:Linothorax.jpg| Greek Linothorax, a bronze-reinforced linen armor
Image:Roman Soldier mail.jpg|Roman Mail
Image:LoricaSegmentata.jpg|Roman Lorica Segmentata, a type of Laminar
Image:MirrorArmor.JPG|Mirror armor over a mail shirt
Image:ScaleArmor.JPG|Indian Scale armor
Image:Plated mail.jpg|Indian Plated Mail
Image:Bechter.jpg|Close-up of Eastern-European plated-mail pattern
Image:Koryak.jpg|Koryak warriors wearing traditional lamellar armour
Image:Lamellar.JPG|Japanese Lamellar
Image:Samurai armor.jpg|Japanese Laminar
Image:Gambeson.jpg| European Gambeson, a padded cloth armor used by both commoners and knights
Image:Brigandine.jpg|European Brigandine
Image:visby.jpg|Inside view of some DIYfag's homemade "Visby-pattern" brigandine
Image:Plate armor.jpg|European Plate
Image:FlakJacket.png| Flak Jacket
Image:BallisticVest.JPG|Ballistic Vest
Image:Bombsuit.jpg|Bombsuit
Image:IOTV_(OCP_variant).jpg|Improved Outer Tactical Vest
Image:SPS_(Soldier_Protection_System).jpg|Soldier Protection System, set to replace the IOTV in 2019. Designed with both mobility and protection in mind.
</gallery>

== See also ==

* [[Fantasy Armor]] for one of the usual flame wars involved in "armor".
* [[Armor Save]]

[[Category: History]]

[[Category: Weapons]]

[[Category: Medieval Weaponry]]

[[Category: Armour]]

{{MedievalWeaponry}}

Communism

2022-07-16T18:54:55Z

2601:143:8200:6E70:3D4E:454:91F3:5AAF: /* Note */

{{flamewar}}
{{awesome}}
[[Image:Communismleaders.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Contrary to western propaganda, this is how communism has always worked]]

{{topquote|Under [[capitalism]], man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.|Anonymous radio host from Soviet Armenia; also attributed to Yakov Smirnov}}
{{Topquote|MASH THE DIRTY RED SCUM! KICK THEM IN THE TEETH WHERE IT HURTS! KILL! KILL, KILL! FILTHY BASTARD COMMIES! I HATE THEM, I HATE THEM! AH! AH!|Ordo Xenos Inquisitor John Cleese, responding to the threat of the Damocles Crusade}}
{{topquote|Communism is the corruption of a dream of justice.|Adlai Stevenson I}}

'''Communism''' can refer to two concepts: the society where the economy is collectively managed and organised government is replaced by local communes (hence the name), and the (usually) authoritarian ideology that seeks to instate such a perfect society. Communism in the first sense had been tried in various villages through the early nineteenth century before fizzling out or being suppressed by authorities, but most people are only interested in the second sense, due to its enormous impact on the twentieth century. Communism the ideology is generally associated with oligarchic rule of the "vanguard party" and a degree of central planning; it was the state ideology of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, as well as a few minor powers such as Yugoslavia and Vietnam, during the Cold War. It is still, albeit in a very modified form, adhered to in a few countries today, such as the People's Republic of China, North Korea and Cuba.

In many ways, it is the opposite of [[capitalism]], both of them along with [[nazi|nazism]] are considered by some historians as diverging branches from [[humanism]].

==Overview==
[[Image:Boris_Yeltsin_in_Texas.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Boris Yeltsin visits a Randall's in Houston.<br>Two years later the Soviet Union was dead.<br>Communism < Jello Pudding Pops]]
The ideology of communism is highly diverse, as numerous thinkers have proposed different definitions and pathways to a communist society, yet most modern communists, in one way or another, derive their ideas from the writings of Karl Marx: hence, it is Marxist communism that will be discussed here. Even then, a full explanation is far beyond the scope of this wiki, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism Wikipedia] might be a better bet if you want to get into the philosophical and economic details.

Most non-Marxist communists are more anti-authoritarian (e.g. Kropotkin, Makhno), so they are sometimes classified as [[Malal|anarchists]] instead. However, even Marxist communism is not homogenous, ranging from the more extremist (Hoxhaism, Stalinism aka Marxism-Leninism) to more moderate (Titoism, Kadarism, classical Marxism), sometimes mixed with nationalism (Juche), liberal capitalism (Dengism) or - ironically given communism's recurring [[Imperial Truth|anti-religion]] tendency - ''Catholicism'' (Liberation theology). Perhaps the reason why there are so many different variations of communism is because Marx and Engels' blueprint is so vague in many places (it didn't help that Marx died before finishing Das Kapital) that it lends itself to a dizzying array of interpretations, for better or worse.

Marxism originates with the work of (newsflash) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Engels was the working son of an industrialist, while Marx got a PhD in law and spent much of his life in academia and radical politics; this arguably makes them the world's first [[Gretchin Revolutionary Committee|socialist justice warriors.]] These two developed their economic theories as a response to the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Marx observed that while the mechanization of production was a good thing since it generated a lot of wealth, he believed it was [[Rage|grossly unfair]] since said wealth was accumulating in the pockets of only a few [[Games Workshop|fucking rich pricks]] and most other people lived in Victorian poverty. He further saw this as another step in a long historical trend in which a class that owned the means of production (i.e. factories, land, etc.) exploited and dominated a lower class that had to sell its labor power to survive (by working in said factories, land, etc.) even though they had no say in how the means of production could be used and had a better claim to it on account of being the class that actually used the means of production.

Marx viewed society as being on a very clear cut path of social evolution with clearly defined phases, based on his interpretation of Hegelian philosophy (we suggest you look that up yourself, it's much too complicated to make into a pithy explanation here). Every phase represented a different form of economy and social hierarchy, and, while starting out "progressive", would eventually [[Imperium of Man|fall into degradation]] as it exceeded its limits. At this point, this decayed socio-economic system would have to be overthrown and replaced with a more just and advanced one, starting a new phase: Marx considered the Fall of the Roman Empire (transition from individual slavery to land-based feudalism) and the revolutions of the 19th century (transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism) to be the moments when such a transition occurred. He believed that capitalism was rapidly approaching its own collapse and replacement.

The new social order, Marx believed, would be collectivist, atheist and classless: as industrial production required people to work together on a large scale, so too would the new system of government. The new society would start out more authoritarian (socialism) before its government would eventually dissolve (communism proper). The economy would be controlled by the workers rather than by individual shareholders, competition would be discouraged in favor of a more cooperative and collective-oriented mindset, and religion (which Marx considered an obsolete "opiate of the masses"- although contrary to popular belief he did not actually oppose its existence) would fade away when it was no longer needed to distract people from the poor conditions they lived in. Most importantly, the new order would end the traditional state of affairs in which one class dominated all others through its control of the means of production and allow for true equality and prosperity for everyone. It is for this reason that no Communist party has claimed it has actually ''created'' a communist society, as according to their ideology they are simply guiding society through its socialist phase until true communism can be achieved at an unspecified future time.

However, Marx and Engels never gave a clear outline of how such a society could be created or what it would look like, either because they believed the workers would decide that or [[Profit|they had no idea or plan for how to achieve it]]. The the first one to put it into practice on a national scale (Vladimir Lenin) gave it a distinctly authoritarian spin which only got worse with Stalin. It should not be surprising that even in Marx's own time there were many opposing views of how a communist society would be created and maintained since he failed to give a method to accomplish it.

As a whole, most forms of Marxism are highly skeptical of liberal democracy (albeit supportive of the democratic process itself and direct democracy in particular), as it is considered to be corrupt and easily manipulated by the wealthy (unlike in direct democracy of course! The media would surely NEVER be owned by the wealthy who...would...manipulate...the masses... oh...); similarly, they dismiss the process of slow reform advocated by social democratic ideology as a mass of half-measures intended to preserve a broken system instead of replacing it. In its place, communists propose the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Before you jump to conclusions, Marx considered all forms of government to be a form of dictatorship in that one class held absolute power over all others; in this case, the class in question would be the workers, who would use the innately authoritarian power of the state to ensure that a worker-controlled democratic decision-making process would not be opposed by reactionary elements attempting to re-establish the old order. According to Marx, this dictatorship would last only long enough to eliminate the differences between classes- as the state's existence is due to said class differences, this would eventually lead the state to dissolve when it was no longer needed...somehow.

One of Marx's most prominent socialist rivals, Mikhail Bakunin, made the prediction that a dictatorship of the proletariat wouldn't "wither away" as Marx expected, but instead would serve as the foundation of a new ruling class that would dominate and exploit the proletariat just like the capitalists did: rather than class differences leading to the creation of the state, it was the state itself that allowed class differences to exist. As a result, using the power of the state to end class differences would only perpetuate them further.

In Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and their offshoots, the dictatorship of the proletariat takes form of the "vanguard party", consisting of the most "class-conscious" individuals. This party would be given near-absolute power over society and economy, so that transition towards socialism and eventually communism would proceed properly. As such, most communist states using the Marxist-Leninist model and its relatives have been dictatorships, headed either by charismatic despots (Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot), or by the party oligarchy (modern China, late USSR). While other forms of communism exist that do not follow the vanguard party model, they are too lacking in influence to have ever been implemented on a national scale so we can't really say what they'd be like. It should also be noted that Marx and Engels themselves doubted the idea that a small revolutionary party could represent the will of the working class, an idea originally espoused by one of his other contemporaries.

===Issues===
One of the (many) major flaws in communist ideology is that its economic theories simply cannot be translated into the real world. For all the bullshit and genuine problems that happen in the free market (or the corporation-dominated form that exists today, at any rate), it still has the advantage of solving what economists call the ''economic calculation problem''. To make a long story short, free markets work by allocating resources to where they are most needed and will produce the most value for people, and they are able to do this through ''price signals''. In a free market, nobody really needs to know what the whole economy looks like or how much steel the country will need in a given year; people only need to know how ''their own'' business works. Under planned economies, by contrast, decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats who have no understanding of how anything works and who pay no price for being wrong, leading to massive malinvestment and waste. Even nominally Communist governments were forced to implement some capitalist policies after learning this the hard way, though the degree to which they did so varied from country to country, with China being among the most capitalist and North Korea being the least.

Furthermore, Bakunin's predictions about the dictatorship of the proletariat turning into a dictatorship ''over'' the proletariat have proven to be consistently correct, with party bureaucracies quickly assuming the same exploitative practices that their capitalist precursors used and claiming the means of production for themselves rather than passing them onto the workers.

Liberal philosophers like Karl Popper on the other hand took a more fundamental approach to their critique; Popper in particular had the major criticism that history doesn't run on predetermined rulesets and laws, like Marx thought, and that such a line of thinking, especially when paired with the promise of a socialist utopia, would ultimately just serve people like Lenin and Mao Zedong, who would abuse this ideology to create authoritarian nightmares that only serve themselves. Seeing how the Socialist dream always ended in stagnation, dictatorship and misery, he was ultimately proven to be right about a lot of things. Sociologists like Didier Eribon formulated another criticism on how Marxism views society; mainly that the working class, especially in our day and age, is not a uniform monolithic bloc that can be rallied to join a revolution or even a cause. While sharing common interests, how these interests manifest themselves in any individual can range wildly and also how the influence of social background often unconsciously makes people act against their own interests.

Even in an ideal universe where the bureaucracy running a centrally planned economy wasn't corrupt or inept, the technology to monitor and plan any sort of national economy has yet to be invented and what we have now can't keep track of everything well enough to make it work; the average economy is incredibly complex and not even the most advanced computers that currently exist can predict every possible variable that might affect how the economy functions (let alone predict the long term effects of a plan), so mistakes will inevitably occur and snowball with dangerous consequences. As a result, a centrally planned economy invariably destroys the countries in which it is attempted due to drop of quality in consumer products, and eventually, food sources. Countries like China use the international market to get around this, but this is only delaying the inevitable. It gets even worse when you factor in the further increased complexity demanded by globalization. Technological advancements in the future might be able to mitigate this issue or even solve it outright, but they may not happen for a very long time.

Other types of planned economies exist too, but they are much less common and tend to exist on smaller scales so we can't really tell how well they'd work on a national level, let alone an international one. They do seem to function surprisingly well on a regional/municipal scale though, especially those which are decentralized and use little to no top-down authority when making decisions. Only time will tell if they work on larger scales too, assuming that they are not forcibly ended by their rivals first.

The economic failures of Socialist countries can also be found in Communist ideology itself; if your state says that it's heaven on earth, then said state won't do a whole lot to potentially improve things it has apart from occasional repairs or inventing new things that aren't necessary for its own survival. The downfall of the USSR and its aftermath is a good example of this; WWII destroyed a lot of stuff in Russia, so the government increased funding for sectors essential to rebuilding the nation. Productivity remained high until the late 70s, when, paired with party cronyism, the job of rebuilding Russia was finished and productivity started to stagnate on a high level. The only sectors that saw regular innovation and new invention were the arms and nuclear weapons industry. So it came to be that the West ultimately shot waaaay past the USSR in terms of productivity and wealth and ultimately defeated it.

That being said, mixed economies combining elements of communism and capitalism (e.g. Keynesianism and the "Nordic Model") have consistently proven to be functional enough to not destroy countries, albeit these successes have much more to do with cultural factors than with any success of communist ideology, the latter of which has steadily been abandoned over the last few decades. As mentioned above, these mixed economies are typically viewed by socialists to be more closely related to capitalism than communism, and most of them believe that the welfare systems they depend on are likely to be privatized in the absence of a stronger shift away from a capitalist economy. Several of these economies have indeed been abandoning their socialist elements over time in favor of a more capitalistic system, due in no small part to economic stagnation and near-collapse due to socialist economic policies, although one could also point to major corporate and capitalist interests undermining said socialist policies as a cause of both of those.

Furthermore, Communist governments tend to move away from the tenets of Marx and Engels in an attempt to force their ideas to work in situations they were never intended to function in. Marx believed that the shift to socialism and then communism could '''only''' work in an advanced industrial capitalist society with an established working class and that any attempt to make it happen before that point was doomed to backfire (and as Venezuela has since shown us, even THAT prediction was clearly wrong); Lenin got around this by claiming that he could "telescope" the capitalist and socialist revolutions into a single event with the aid of the aforementioned vanguard party and proposing an alliance with the Russian peasantry to compensate for the undeveloped presence of the working class. Even then, Lenin tentatively allowed a shift back to private ownership for the Kulaks just so the Soviet economy could get back on its feet, before Stalin purged them all as class enemies and triggered a widespread famine known as the Holodomor (which the vast majority of historians suspect was intentional on Stalin's part).

Mao Zedong took this to an even further extreme by forcing the revolution in the primarily agrarian China and then trying to kick-start industrialization with the "Great Leap Forward". It was a total failure for several different reasons, and Mao's hamfisted attempt to retain control of the Communist Party afterwards gave rise to the Cultural Revolution and all the bloodshed that came with it. Somewhat like Lenin, Mao's successor Deng Xiaoping ended up implementing capitalist policies (while leaving all the other oppressive elements intact) in response to the earlier economic crises. While it did salvage the economy, it also ended up producing a system that arguably combines the worst qualities of both capitalism and communism that survives only by constant pandering to nationalist sentiments.

Because of the legacy of the Cold War and everything mentioned above, mass famines among numerous communist countries, and widespread human rights abuses from the regimes of communist leaders, communism is about as "loved" as fascism; there's good reason why people occasionally put Stalin and Mao, and communism/socialism, on equal footing with [[Nazis|Hitler]] and Imperial Japan in terms of evilness.

Even the forms of communism that originated independently of the Leninist traditions are generally poorly regarded at best due to guilt by association. This is ironic given that Lenin (and later Stalin) spent a considerable period of time trying to wipe out the forms of communism that diverged from Leninism.

As an interesting closing note, some people claim that the rise of automation (robotic and algorithmic) has the potential to bring about a society that resembles what communism tried to achieve. Today, most farming is done either automatically, or by a single dude riding a combine and doing the job of hundreds of farmers in a single day, manufacturing has also similarly gone through a wave of automation which has seen many factories reduce the number of their workers from hundreds to mere dozens, and the recent bastion of human labor - the service sector - is slowly seeing the penetration of algorithms and in rare cases robots into the fold. What all this means is that humanity needs to do less and less work while the automated systems do it just as well if not better, these 'means of production' can be (in theory) easily nationalized and the usual problems of people slacking off due to everyone being paid equally is eliminated since both the neurosurgeon and waiter who are 'paid the same for their effort' are robots. Add to that the rise of 3D printing which may act as poor man's Star Trek replicators (eliminating the need to buy a smörgåsbord of stuff) and theoretically we could be on track towards "fully automated luxury gay space communism". However, none of these advances do anything about the economic calculation problem. They do not tell us how many robots to build or whether those robots should farm corn or assemble 3D-printed guns, nor do they change the fact that these robots are still ''privately owned''. All of this automation merely reduces the demand for human labor in some parts of the economy, pushing workers into whatever sectors of the economy are still hiring humans. As always, only time will tell if they live up to their potential.

=== Note ===
It also is notable that Communist is often used as a dismissive snarl in modern first world politics against the left wing, even when actual Stalinist-style communists (or "tankies" as other communists and socialists call them, a reference to the Soviets' sending in tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956) are a small minority on the fringes. There is also a distinction between Revolutionary Communists like the Bolsheviks and the Democratic Socialists such as the German SPD, which believe that the transition to socialism and then communism does not necessarily require an outright revolution and can be implemented through peaceful means. Ironically, it is the latter that more closely resembles classical Marxism. Democratic socialism in turn is not to be confused with social democracy, which is a form of liberal democracy whose capitalist economic system is paired with regulation and social welfare programs to mitigate the excesses of capitalism (with varying degrees of success).

==Communism in Traditional Games==
In general there are three ways communism is used in fiction and board games:

1: '''Filthy Godless Red BASTARDS!''': Dangerous, faceless enemies, ripped straight from the wettest dreams of the Cold War-era American John Birch society. These communists are the enemy; a vast, brutal, godless horde determined to take over the world that our heroes must resist. Nowadays, this attitude is usually played for comedy, as in ''[[Paranoia]]'' where Friend Computer's glitched-out personality has made it a paranoid wreck obsessed with a largely-imaginary adversary (while creating some actual communists in the process). Others have played it seriously, especially in works produced during the Cold War (such as the 1984 film ''Red Dawn''). By the way, if you want an example of literal CommuNazis, the East German Stasi are a good place to start, although the Nazi part is mostly aesthetic and the Communist ideology is what was dominant (for CommuNazis as an ideology, Nazbols are basically that, combining far left economic policy and far right cultural party). Red Alert 1 is a /v/idya example, totally starting with a massive Tabun gas attack on the Polish city of Torun with ''children'' being discussed as dying the easiest.

2: '''Champions of the Proletariat''': The other side of the coin to what is listed above. These are either rebels against corrupt corporate overlords (frequently cyberpunk heroes) or a body of workers and soldiers fighting against fascist invaders (any game from the Russian perspective in WWII will count). Occasionally this show up in Medieval settings as anachronistic peasant revolts or other politically-radical types out to pull down the social parts of [[Medieval Stasis]]. Red Alert 3 has this a smidge between the lines, moreso in Uprising where they avenge innocent Russian citizens being frozen and crushed alive for fun by bloodthirsty Allied mercenaries.

3: '''GLORIOUS COMMUNISTS''': Somewhere between the other two and generally played for laughs. Communist regimes are oppressive and ponderous, but also able to do great things through sheer force of Industrial Might, Soviet Super Science, Stalinist Architecture and Will-Of-The-People and can be heroic just as easily as villainous. See Red Alert-II(more of it) and III(less of it), and to a lesser extent a few parts of the [[Imperium of Man]]. As close to real communism as you can get, comrade.

Communism has also provided us with the Russian army, which is an awesome gaming resource and reference, either in a drunken, drown-your-enemies-with-bodies-and-artillery sort of way (World War II), or a send-in-the-hardened-and-manly-Spetsnaz-and-tanks way (Cold War). It is a sacred law of [[/tg/]] alternate history [[/tg/'s homebrews|homebrew]] settings that there must be at least one communist faction and it must control at least 50% of the world's total landmass. Even [[Warmachine| Khador]] draws on the imagery of the Soviet armed forces, despite being more analogous to Tsarist/Imperialist Russia politically, aside from their Manifest Destiny "Why can't everyone else just roll over and let us conquer them?!" ideology that has... [[Nazi| other roots]].

Like all radical ideologies, communists are all over [[Shadowrun|the Sixth World]], mostly among the poor and disenfranchised who can't help looking up at the big fancy megacorp enclaves and wondering how ''that'' makes any kind of just sense. The Berlin Flux State was probably the biggest and most successful anarcho-communist enclave in-setting for a while, before it became such an embarrassment to the megacorps insisting they should be the only game in town that many of them (including the one run by the great dragon Lofwyr) had it dismantled somewhere around second or third edition.

People like to call the [[Tau]] communist. There's ''some'' truth to that, given they're a highly-collective society that generally values group achievement over personal accomplishment, but they're also a largely class-stratified society, with only the assurance that their leaders are theoretically cooperating for the [[Greater Good]] to keep them from being out-and-out feudalists with castes. This system is actually very similar to Italian and Spanish ''[[Nazi|fascism]]'', where the economy was split between several large trade-based corporations, where the workers and the bourgeoisie were supposed to talk out their issues together (under the benevolent guidance of the party elites of course).

There was also the [[Gretchin Revolutionary Committee]], a parody of the kinds of communist guerrillas of previous decades, who are armed grots out to demand equal treatment from their Ork masters with comical results. The Imperium, being a decentralized feudalistic empire, undoubtedly has many worlds that have communist governing bodies and economies, and maybe even a few where things worked out okay.

[[Pathfinder Roleplaying Game|Golarion]] has got a semi-hemi-demi communist nation in-setting: Galt, land of insane, constant revolution where the only winners are the ''final blades''. It represents the "messy revolutionary" kind of communism rather than any of the three flavors above, though there's some obvious mixing with the principals of the French Revolution that was its more-direct inspiration.

The [[Harpers]] of Faerun are semi-communists in outlook. They strongly favor removing power from single governments and shifting leadership to individual communities. This can make them heroic when unseating despots but significantly less so when assassinating anyone who tries to unite the city-states.

[[Khador]] in Warmachine takes the Glorious Soviet Russia identity and wears it like a badge, even though its actual government resembles Tzarist Russia.

''[[Star Trek]]'' is complicated. On the one hand, the Federation has essentially a communist economy and they have the humanist element down, but their advanced technology has created a post-scarcity economy, so it can be interpreted that the producers thought this would be a natural product of a society where everybody was self-sufficient. Conversely, their chief rivals, the Klingons and the Romulans, are transparent analogues of the USSR and Maoist China seen through the pre-détente eyes of an American lounge lizard. Similar post-scarcity communists are common in ''[[Eclipse Phase]]'', though with a much stronger anarchist bent. They are largely and uncomplicatedly perfect due to the game designers' raging stiffy for that kind of thing.

Any WWII or quasi-WWII game worth its salt will have a communist faction, including the classic ''[[Axis & Allies]]'' and the modern wargame ''[[Flames of War]]''. Additionally, many classic board games have attempted to tap into the forty-five year struggle for dominance between America and the communists. The most famous and best is probably ''[[Twilight Struggle]]''. [[TSR]] also released an RPG set during the Cold War called ''[[Top Secret]]'', though, like most non-''D&D'' TSR products, no one under thirty-five has ever heard of it.

{{BLAM|This article has been marked as containing treasonous capitalist road sentiments. Please report to your local commissariat for re-education through labor.}}

==Gallery==
<center><gallery>
File:AK-47.jpg|Glorious Soviet Industries could be used to produce huge numbers of reliable and effective things which are still in high demand after a half a century...
File:Lada 1200.jpg||...Their cars are not on that list.
File:Communism and the NTS Fallacy.png|Still a better track record than the Nazis (not pictured, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and more)
File:Space marine commie.jpg| Do your duty comrade
File: Stalin space marine.jpg| This is how some people think World War II actually went
File: Space marine revolution.jpg| The cure for [[Chick Tracts]] ("something something worse than the disease")
</gallery></center>

==See Also==
* [[Imperium of Man]] as it too was based on a revolutionary progressive ideal that gave way to despotism, with the big question being if this was a natural consequence of the ideal or a complete perversion.
* Come to think of it, most failed utopian societies that /tg/ loves probably borrowed from the history of Soviet Russia in some way, especially from the revolutionary to Stalinist era.

[[category:Not related]]
[[Category:history]]

Communism

2022-07-16T13:19:19Z

2601:143:8200:6E70:3D4E:454:91F3:5AAF: /* Issues */

{{flamewar}}
{{awesome}}
[[Image:Communismleaders.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Contrary to western propaganda, this is how communism has always worked]]

{{topquote|Under [[capitalism]], man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.|Anonymous radio host from Soviet Armenia; also attributed to Yakov Smirnov}}
{{Topquote|MASH THE DIRTY RED SCUM! KICK THEM IN THE TEETH WHERE IT HURTS! KILL! KILL, KILL! FILTHY BASTARD COMMIES! I HATE THEM, I HATE THEM! AH! AH!|Ordo Xenos Inquisitor John Cleese, responding to the threat of the Damocles Crusade}}
{{topquote|Communism is the corruption of a dream of justice.|Adlai Stevenson I}}

'''Communism''' can refer to two concepts: the society where the economy is collectively managed and organised government is replaced by local communes (hence the name), and the (usually) authoritarian ideology that seeks to instate such a perfect society. Communism in the first sense had been tried in various villages through the early nineteenth century before fizzling out or being suppressed by authorities, but most people are only interested in the second sense, due to its enormous impact on the twentieth century. Communism the ideology is generally associated with oligarchic rule of the "vanguard party" and a degree of central planning; it was the state ideology of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, as well as a few minor powers such as Yugoslavia and Vietnam, during the Cold War. It is still, albeit in a very modified form, adhered to in a few countries today, such as the People's Republic of China, North Korea and Cuba.

In many ways, it is the opposite of [[capitalism]], both of them along with [[nazi|nazism]] are considered by some historians as diverging branches from [[humanism]].

==Overview==
[[Image:Boris_Yeltsin_in_Texas.jpg|right|thumb|400px|Boris Yeltsin visits a Randall's in Houston.<br>Two years later the Soviet Union was dead.<br>Communism < Jello Pudding Pops]]
The ideology of communism is highly diverse, as numerous thinkers have proposed different definitions and pathways to a communist society, yet most modern communists, in one way or another, derive their ideas from the writings of Karl Marx: hence, it is Marxist communism that will be discussed here. Even then, a full explanation is far beyond the scope of this wiki, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism Wikipedia] might be a better bet if you want to get into the philosophical and economic details.

Most non-Marxist communists are more anti-authoritarian (e.g. Kropotkin, Makhno), so they are sometimes classified as [[Malal|anarchists]] instead. However, even Marxist communism is not homogenous, ranging from the more extremist (Hoxhaism, Stalinism aka Marxism-Leninism) to more moderate (Titoism, Kadarism, classical Marxism), sometimes mixed with nationalism (Juche), liberal capitalism (Dengism) or - ironically given communism's recurring [[Imperial Truth|anti-religion]] tendency - ''Catholicism'' (Liberation theology). Perhaps the reason why there are so many different variations of communism is because Marx and Engels' blueprint is so vague in many places (it didn't help that Marx died before finishing Das Kapital) that it lends itself to a dizzying array of interpretations, for better or worse.

Marxism originates with the work of (newsflash) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Engels was the working son of an industrialist, while Marx got a PhD in law and spent much of his life in academia and radical politics; this arguably makes them the world's first [[Gretchin Revolutionary Committee|socialist justice warriors.]] These two developed their economic theories as a response to the effects of the Industrial Revolution. Marx observed that while the mechanization of production was a good thing since it generated a lot of wealth, he believed it was [[Rage|grossly unfair]] since said wealth was accumulating in the pockets of only a few [[Games Workshop|fucking rich pricks]] and most other people lived in Victorian poverty. He further saw this as another step in a long historical trend in which a class that owned the means of production (i.e. factories, land, etc.) exploited and dominated a lower class that had to sell its labor power to survive (by working in said factories, land, etc.) even though they had no say in how the means of production could be used and had a better claim to it on account of being the class that actually used the means of production.

Marx viewed society as being on a very clear cut path of social evolution with clearly defined phases, based on his interpretation of Hegelian philosophy (we suggest you look that up yourself, it's much too complicated to make into a pithy explanation here). Every phase represented a different form of economy and social hierarchy, and, while starting out "progressive", would eventually [[Imperium of Man|fall into degradation]] as it exceeded its limits. At this point, this decayed socio-economic system would have to be overthrown and replaced with a more just and advanced one, starting a new phase: Marx considered the Fall of the Roman Empire (transition from individual slavery to land-based feudalism) and the revolutions of the 19th century (transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism) to be the moments when such a transition occurred. He believed that capitalism was rapidly approaching its own collapse and replacement.

The new social order, Marx believed, would be collectivist, atheist and classless: as industrial production required people to work together on a large scale, so too would the new system of government. The new society would start out more authoritarian (socialism) before its government would eventually dissolve (communism proper). The economy would be controlled by the workers rather than by individual shareholders, competition would be discouraged in favor of a more cooperative and collective-oriented mindset, and religion (which Marx considered an obsolete "opiate of the masses"- although contrary to popular belief he did not actually oppose its existence) would fade away when it was no longer needed to distract people from the poor conditions they lived in. Most importantly, the new order would end the traditional state of affairs in which one class dominated all others through its control of the means of production and allow for true equality and prosperity for everyone. It is for this reason that no Communist party has claimed it has actually ''created'' a communist society, as according to their ideology they are simply guiding society through its socialist phase until true communism can be achieved at an unspecified future time.

However, Marx and Engels never gave a clear outline of how such a society could be created or what it would look like, either because they believed the workers would decide that or [[Profit|they had no idea or plan for how to achieve it]]. The the first one to put it into practice on a national scale (Vladimir Lenin) gave it a distinctly authoritarian spin which only got worse with Stalin. It should not be surprising that even in Marx's own time there were many opposing views of how a communist society would be created and maintained since he failed to give a method to accomplish it.

As a whole, most forms of Marxism are highly skeptical of liberal democracy (albeit supportive of the democratic process itself and direct democracy in particular), as it is considered to be corrupt and easily manipulated by the wealthy (unlike in direct democracy of course! The media would surely NEVER be owned by the wealthy who...would...manipulate...the masses... oh...); similarly, they dismiss the process of slow reform advocated by social democratic ideology as a mass of half-measures intended to preserve a broken system instead of replacing it. In its place, communists propose the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Before you jump to conclusions, Marx considered all forms of government to be a form of dictatorship in that one class held absolute power over all others; in this case, the class in question would be the workers, who would use the innately authoritarian power of the state to ensure that a worker-controlled democratic decision-making process would not be opposed by reactionary elements attempting to re-establish the old order. According to Marx, this dictatorship would last only long enough to eliminate the differences between classes- as the state's existence is due to said class differences, this would eventually lead the state to dissolve when it was no longer needed...somehow.

One of Marx's most prominent socialist rivals, Mikhail Bakunin, made the prediction that a dictatorship of the proletariat wouldn't "wither away" as Marx expected, but instead would serve as the foundation of a new ruling class that would dominate and exploit the proletariat just like the capitalists did: rather than class differences leading to the creation of the state, it was the state itself that allowed class differences to exist. As a result, using the power of the state to end class differences would only perpetuate them further.

In Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, and their offshoots, the dictatorship of the proletariat takes form of the "vanguard party", consisting of the most "class-conscious" individuals. This party would be given near-absolute power over society and economy, so that transition towards socialism and eventually communism would proceed properly. As such, most communist states using the Marxist-Leninist model and its relatives have been dictatorships, headed either by charismatic despots (Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot), or by the party oligarchy (modern China, late USSR). While other forms of communism exist that do not follow the vanguard party model, they are too lacking in influence to have ever been implemented on a national scale so we can't really say what they'd be like. It should also be noted that Marx and Engels themselves doubted the idea that a small revolutionary party could represent the will of the working class, an idea originally espoused by one of his other contemporaries.

===Issues===
One of the (many) major flaws in communist ideology is that its economic theories simply cannot be translated into the real world. For all the bullshit and genuine problems that happen in the free market (or the corporation-dominated form that exists today, at any rate), it still has the advantage of solving what economists call the ''economic calculation problem''. To make a long story short, free markets work by allocating resources to where they are most needed and will produce the most value for people, and they are able to do this through ''price signals''. In a free market, nobody really needs to know what the whole economy looks like or how much steel the country will need in a given year; people only need to know how ''their own'' business works. Under planned economies, by contrast, decisions are made by politicians and bureaucrats who have no understanding of how anything works and who pay no price for being wrong, leading to massive malinvestment and waste. Even nominally Communist governments were forced to implement some capitalist policies after learning this the hard way, though the degree to which they did so varied from country to country, with China being among the most capitalist and North Korea being the least.

Furthermore, Bakunin's predictions about the dictatorship of the proletariat turning into a dictatorship ''over'' the proletariat have proven to be consistently correct, with party bureaucracies quickly assuming the same exploitative practices that their capitalist precursors used and claiming the means of production for themselves rather than passing them onto the workers.

Liberal philosophers like Karl Popper on the other hand took a more fundamental approach to their critique; Popper in particular had the major criticism that history doesn't run on predetermined rulesets and laws, like Marx thought, and that such a line of thinking, especially when paired with the promise of a socialist utopia, would ultimately just serve people like Lenin and Mao Zedong, who would abuse this ideology to create authoritarian nightmares that only serve themselves. Seeing how the Socialist dream always ended in stagnation, dictatorship and misery, he was ultimately proven to be right about a lot of things. Sociologists like Didier Eribon formulated another criticism on how Marxism views society; mainly that the working class, especially in our day and age, is not a uniform monolithic bloc that can be rallied to join a revolution or even a cause. While sharing common interests, how these interests manifest themselves in any individual can range wildly and also how the influence of social background often unconsciously makes people act against their own interests.

Even in an ideal universe where the bureaucracy running a centrally planned economy wasn't corrupt or inept, the technology to monitor and plan any sort of national economy has yet to be invented and what we have now can't keep track of everything well enough to make it work; the average economy is incredibly complex and not even the most advanced computers that currently exist can predict every possible variable that might affect how the economy functions (let alone predict the long term effects of a plan), so mistakes will inevitably occur and snowball with dangerous consequences. As a result, a centrally planned economy invariably destroys the countries in which it is attempted due to drop of quality in consumer products, and eventually, food sources. Countries like China use the international market to get around this, but this is only delaying the inevitable. It gets even worse when you factor in the further increased complexity demanded by globalization. Technological advancements in the future might be able to mitigate this issue or even solve it outright, but they may not happen for a very long time.

Other types of planned economies exist too, but they are much less common and tend to exist on smaller scales so we can't really tell how well they'd work on a national level, let alone an international one. They do seem to function surprisingly well on a regional/municipal scale though, especially those which are decentralized and use little to no top-down authority when making decisions. Only time will tell if they work on larger scales too, assuming that they are not forcibly ended by their rivals first.

The economic failures of Socialist countries can also be found in Communist ideology itself; if your state says that it's heaven on earth, then said state won't do a whole lot to potentially improve things it has apart from occasional repairs or inventing new things that aren't necessary for its own survival. The downfall of the USSR and its aftermath is a good example of this; WWII destroyed a lot of stuff in Russia, so the government increased funding for sectors essential to rebuilding the nation. Productivity remained high until the late 70s, when, paired with party cronyism, the job of rebuilding Russia was finished and productivity started to stagnate on a high level. The only sectors that saw regular innovation and new invention were the arms and nuclear weapons industry. So it came to be that the West ultimately shot waaaay past the USSR in terms of productivity and wealth and ultimately defeated it.

That being said, mixed economies combining elements of communism and capitalism (e.g. Keynesianism and the "Nordic Model") have consistently proven to be functional enough to not destroy countries, albeit these successes have much more to do with cultural factors than with any success of communist ideology, the latter of which has steadily been abandoned over the last few decades. As mentioned above, these mixed economies are typically viewed by socialists to be more closely related to capitalism than communism, and most of them believe that the welfare systems they depend on are likely to be privatized in the absence of a stronger shift away from a capitalist economy. Several of these economies have indeed been abandoning their socialist elements over time in favor of a more capitalistic system, due in no small part to economic stagnation and near-collapse due to socialist economic policies, although one could also point to major corporate and capitalist interests undermining said socialist policies as a cause of both of those.

Furthermore, Communist governments tend to move away from the tenets of Marx and Engels in an attempt to force their ideas to work in situations they were never intended to function in. Marx believed that the shift to socialism and then communism could '''only''' work in an advanced industrial capitalist society with an established working class and that any attempt to make it happen before that point was doomed to backfire (and as Venezuela has since shown us, even THAT prediction was clearly wrong); Lenin got around this by claiming that he could "telescope" the capitalist and socialist revolutions into a single event with the aid of the aforementioned vanguard party and proposing an alliance with the Russian peasantry to compensate for the undeveloped presence of the working class. Even then, Lenin tentatively allowed a shift back to private ownership for the Kulaks just so the Soviet economy could get back on its feet, before Stalin purged them all as class enemies and triggered a widespread famine known as the Holodomor (which the vast majority of historians suspect was intentional on Stalin's part).

Mao Zedong took this to an even further extreme by forcing the revolution in the primarily agrarian China and then trying to kick-start industrialization with the "Great Leap Forward". It was a total failure for several different reasons, and Mao's hamfisted attempt to retain control of the Communist Party afterwards gave rise to the Cultural Revolution and all the bloodshed that came with it. Somewhat like Lenin, Mao's successor Deng Xiaoping ended up implementing capitalist policies (while leaving all the other oppressive elements intact) in response to the earlier economic crises. While it did salvage the economy, it also ended up producing a system that arguably combines the worst qualities of both capitalism and communism that survives only by constant pandering to nationalist sentiments.

Because of the legacy of the Cold War and everything mentioned above, mass famines among numerous communist countries, and widespread human rights abuses from the regimes of communist leaders, communism is about as "loved" as fascism; there's good reason why people occasionally put Stalin and Mao, and communism/socialism, on equal footing with [[Nazis|Hitler]] and Imperial Japan in terms of evilness.

Even the forms of communism that originated independently of the Leninist traditions are generally poorly regarded at best due to guilt by association. This is ironic given that Lenin (and later Stalin) spent a considerable period of time trying to wipe out the forms of communism that diverged from Leninism.

As an interesting closing note, some people claim that the rise of automation (robotic and algorithmic) has the potential to bring about a society that resembles what communism tried to achieve. Today, most farming is done either automatically, or by a single dude riding a combine and doing the job of hundreds of farmers in a single day, manufacturing has also similarly gone through a wave of automation which has seen many factories reduce the number of their workers from hundreds to mere dozens, and the recent bastion of human labor - the service sector - is slowly seeing the penetration of algorithms and in rare cases robots into the fold. What all this means is that humanity needs to do less and less work while the automated systems do it just as well if not better, these 'means of production' can be (in theory) easily nationalized and the usual problems of people slacking off due to everyone being paid equally is eliminated since both the neurosurgeon and waiter who are 'paid the same for their effort' are robots. Add to that the rise of 3D printing which may act as poor man's Star Trek replicators (eliminating the need to buy a smörgåsbord of stuff) and theoretically we could be on track towards "fully automated luxury gay space communism". However, none of these advances do anything about the economic calculation problem. They do not tell us how many robots to build or whether those robots should farm corn or assemble 3D-printed guns, nor do they change the fact that these robots are still ''privately owned''. All of this automation merely reduces the demand for human labor in some parts of the economy, pushing workers into whatever sectors of the economy are still hiring humans. As always, only time will tell if they live up to their potential.

=== Note ===
It also is notable that Communist is often used as a dismissive snarl in modern first world politics against the left wing, even when actual Stalinist-style communists (or "tankies" as other communists and socialists call them) are a small minority on the fringes. There is also a distinction between Revolutionary Communists like the Bolsheviks and the Democratic Socialists such as the German SPD, which believe that the transition to socialism and then communism does not necessarily require an outright revolution and can be implemented through peaceful means. Ironically, it is the latter that more closely resembles classical Marxism. Democratic socialism in turn is not to be confused with social democracy, which is a form of liberal democracy whose capitalist economic system is paired with regulation and social welfare programs to mitigate the excesses of capitalism (with varying degrees of success).

==Communism in Traditional Games==
In general there are three ways communism is used in fiction and board games:

1: '''Filthy Godless Red BASTARDS!''': Dangerous, faceless enemies, ripped straight from the wettest dreams of the Cold War-era American John Birch society. These communists are the enemy; a vast, brutal, godless horde determined to take over the world that our heroes must resist. Nowadays, this attitude is usually played for comedy, as in ''[[Paranoia]]'' where Friend Computer's glitched-out personality has made it a paranoid wreck obsessed with a largely-imaginary adversary (while creating some actual communists in the process). Others have played it seriously, especially in works produced during the Cold War (such as the 1984 film ''Red Dawn''). By the way, if you want an example of literal CommuNazis, the East German Stasi are a good place to start, although the Nazi part is mostly aesthetic and the Communist ideology is what was dominant (for CommuNazis as an ideology, Nazbols are basically that, combining far left economic policy and far right cultural party). Red Alert 1 is a /v/idya example, totally starting with a massive Tabun gas attack on the Polish city of Torun with ''children'' being discussed as dying the easiest.

2: '''Champions of the Proletariat''': The other side of the coin to what is listed above. These are either rebels against corrupt corporate overlords (frequently cyberpunk heroes) or a body of workers and soldiers fighting against fascist invaders (any game from the Russian perspective in WWII will count). Occasionally this show up in Medieval settings as anachronistic peasant revolts or other politically-radical types out to pull down the social parts of [[Medieval Stasis]]. Red Alert 3 has this a smidge between the lines, moreso in Uprising where they avenge innocent Russian citizens being frozen and crushed alive for fun by bloodthirsty Allied mercenaries.

3: '''GLORIOUS COMMUNISTS''': Somewhere between the other two and generally played for laughs. Communist regimes are oppressive and ponderous, but also able to do great things through sheer force of Industrial Might, Soviet Super Science, Stalinist Architecture and Will-Of-The-People and can be heroic just as easily as villainous. See Red Alert-II(more of it) and III(less of it), and to a lesser extent a few parts of the [[Imperium of Man]]. As close to real communism as you can get, comrade.

Communism has also provided us with the Russian army, which is an awesome gaming resource and reference, either in a drunken, drown-your-enemies-with-bodies-and-artillery sort of way (World War II), or a send-in-the-hardened-and-manly-Spetsnaz-and-tanks way (Cold War). It is a sacred law of [[/tg/]] alternate history [[/tg/'s homebrews|homebrew]] settings that there must be at least one communist faction and it must control at least 50% of the world's total landmass. Even [[Warmachine| Khador]] draws on the imagery of the Soviet armed forces, despite being more analogous to Tsarist/Imperialist Russia politically, aside from their Manifest Destiny "Why can't everyone else just roll over and let us conquer them?!" ideology that has... [[Nazi| other roots]].

Like all radical ideologies, communists are all over [[Shadowrun|the Sixth World]], mostly among the poor and disenfranchised who can't help looking up at the big fancy megacorp enclaves and wondering how ''that'' makes any kind of just sense. The Berlin Flux State was probably the biggest and most successful anarcho-communist enclave in-setting for a while, before it became such an embarrassment to the megacorps insisting they should be the only game in town that many of them (including the one run by the great dragon Lofwyr) had it dismantled somewhere around second or third edition.

People like to call the [[Tau]] communist. There's ''some'' truth to that, given they're a highly-collective society that generally values group achievement over personal accomplishment, but they're also a largely class-stratified society, with only the assurance that their leaders are theoretically cooperating for the [[Greater Good]] to keep them from being out-and-out feudalists with castes. This system is actually very similar to Italian and Spanish ''[[Nazi|fascism]]'', where the economy was split between several large trade-based corporations, where the workers and the bourgeoisie were supposed to talk out their issues together (under the benevolent guidance of the party elites of course).

There was also the [[Gretchin Revolutionary Committee]], a parody of the kinds of communist guerrillas of previous decades, who are armed grots out to demand equal treatment from their Ork masters with comical results. The Imperium, being a decentralized feudalistic empire, undoubtedly has many worlds that have communist governing bodies and economies, and maybe even a few where things worked out okay.

[[Pathfinder Roleplaying Game|Golarion]] has got a semi-hemi-demi communist nation in-setting: Galt, land of insane, constant revolution where the only winners are the ''final blades''. It represents the "messy revolutionary" kind of communism rather than any of the three flavors above, though there's some obvious mixing with the principals of the French Revolution that was its more-direct inspiration.

The [[Harpers]] of Faerun are semi-communists in outlook. They strongly favor removing power from single governments and shifting leadership to individual communities. This can make them heroic when unseating despots but significantly less so when assassinating anyone who tries to unite the city-states.

[[Khador]] in Warmachine takes the Glorious Soviet Russia identity and wears it like a badge, even though its actual government resembles Tzarist Russia.

''[[Star Trek]]'' is complicated. On the one hand, the Federation has essentially a communist economy and they have the humanist element down, but their advanced technology has created a post-scarcity economy, so it can be interpreted that the producers thought this would be a natural product of a society where everybody was self-sufficient. Conversely, their chief rivals, the Klingons and the Romulans, are transparent analogues of the USSR and Maoist China seen through the pre-détente eyes of an American lounge lizard. Similar post-scarcity communists are common in ''[[Eclipse Phase]]'', though with a much stronger anarchist bent. They are largely and uncomplicatedly perfect due to the game designers' raging stiffy for that kind of thing.

Any WWII or quasi-WWII game worth its salt will have a communist faction, including the classic ''[[Axis & Allies]]'' and the modern wargame ''[[Flames of War]]''. Additionally, many classic board games have attempted to tap into the forty-five year struggle for dominance between America and the communists. The most famous and best is probably ''[[Twilight Struggle]]''. [[TSR]] also released an RPG set during the Cold War called ''[[Top Secret]]'', though, like most non-''D&D'' TSR products, no one under thirty-five has ever heard of it.

{{BLAM|This article has been marked as containing treasonous capitalist road sentiments. Please report to your local commissariat for re-education through labor.}}

==Gallery==
<center><gallery>
File:AK-47.jpg|Glorious Soviet Industries could be used to produce huge numbers of reliable and effective things which are still in high demand after a half a century...
File:Lada 1200.jpg||...Their cars are not on that list.
File:Communism and the NTS Fallacy.png|Still a better track record than the Nazis (not pictured, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and more)
File:Space marine commie.jpg| Do your duty comrade
File: Stalin space marine.jpg| This is how some people think World War II actually went
File: Space marine revolution.jpg| The cure for [[Chick Tracts]] ("something something worse than the disease")
</gallery></center>

==See Also==
* [[Imperium of Man]] as it too was based on a revolutionary progressive ideal that gave way to despotism, with the big question being if this was a natural consequence of the ideal or a complete perversion.
* Come to think of it, most failed utopian societies that /tg/ loves probably borrowed from the history of Soviet Russia in some way, especially from the revolutionary to Stalinist era.

[[category:Not related]]
[[Category:history]]