Differentiating between economic systems and political systems.

[ancient]

Your economic system should be seperated from your political system. So i think the options should be like this.

With a technological advance required (to change both goverment types and economical systems)

--------------------Communism
Barter System >
--------------------Capitalism

-------------------------------Republic > Democracy
Despotism > Monarchy >
-------------------------------Nationalism

it could be modified to add different Systems but i think this system would be better then the current political system used..

[KrazyHorse]

Good point. After all, the opposite of democracy is not communism; it's authoritarianism (or fascism, or whatever you choose to call it). A democratic socialism is quite a comfortable ideology and exists in practice in many countries in different degrees. Sweden, for instance, is no less democratic than the U.S. simply because its tax rates are higher. Some would even claim the opposite. This is why the SE system of SMAC was a better idea. Damn Firaxis for going back.

[Sean]

if you have general political ideals (such as Republicianism and Democracy), you are absolutly correct. Though you need to add a few more economic options there.

However if you had a broader range of political philosophy, you could get all political-economic options anyway. Thus communism becomes complete control over politics and economics. Conservatives just control the political/moral realm and leave the econmomy alone. Modern liberals are the opposite. Classical liberals (or Libertarians) leave both options uncontroled. The game is not conducive to anarchism though (treats anarchism, rightly or wronly, as inheriently eveil). For earlier govts we have constituted Monarch vs absolute monarchy. You get the idea anyway.

Your solution is probably simpler,... now that I have tipyed my explanation...

[ancient]

well of course there will always be variations in different govternments especially in the form of liberals vs conservative and tolitaritism vs sub-tolitarism (not a word), but the game as currently stand doesnt make it possible to controll your civilizations every policy towards its peoples. And just as well that it doesnt because civ isnt a game about advanced politics, and it would just interfere with the general "fun" of the game. which is why i think my system would work just perfectly into the game.

[ancient]

actually modifying what ive origionally said


it should be harder to switch economic systems then political systems (especially if youre switching backwords) and the systems should be like this


--------------------Socialism > Communism
Barter System >
--------------------Capitalism

-------------------------------Republic > Democracy
Despotism > Monarchy >
-------------------------------Nationalism > Fascism

beter this way than before because its more comprehensive..

[Inverse Icarus]

the political spectrum is

Left-------------Center------------Right
Liberal---------Moderate---------Conservative
Democrat------Centerist---------Republican (USA)
Communist-----whatever--------Facist.

Facists, as conservatives, believe in the past, in traditional economies, where they dont change much.

Communists are completely radical (in capitialist minds) and change with the times (sometimes not well enough )

[ancient]

but thats not going to work as well.. its best just to pick a government and eco system and keep its effects in check. also the different combinations should have different results..

[LaRusso]

hm ubercrux, mussolini's concept of 'corporate republic' was not traditionalist at that time. his place on the right was more of a result of his attitude towards, communists, family and church

[JamesJKirk]

Come on, you can't seriously buy that the political and economic concepts are so linear, and so divisive. I mean is there really that much of an ideological difference between US Democrats and Republicans (We want a tax cut!-We want a...uh...smaller tax cut!) And while the concept of Communism is "to the left" of the spectrum, in how it's been practiced generally thus far in history, it's really not been that different from Fascism, ie, state control of politics and the economy.

But I agree that there needs to be differentiation, and I really hope they didn't can SE altogether, and that they maybe just adapted it to fit into Civ better, ala how we've been proposing around here

[ancient]

there has yet to be a communist nation on earth and communism isnt a government type its and economic type so what you said made little to no sence (s/p?) i think my model is probably the best one thought of as of yet..

[Dr Strangelove]

I think you are forgetting that "The Republic" in Civ is not the same as the US Republican party. In Civ "The Republic" represents a sort of oligarchical system similar to Britain prior to the Charterist reforms or the senatorial government of pre-Imperial Rome.
We can debate whether the Soviet government ever fit the concept of communism proposed by Marx, but they were the first country to take the title so I think we have to settle for using the term communism and bolshevism as synonymous. The system adopted by the european social democracies is so unlike bolshevism that you can't lump them together. Unfortunately the bolshevists linked their economic and political systems so closely that you can't seperate them.

[JamesJKirk]

Originally posted by ancient
there has yet to be a communist nation on earth and communism isnt a government type its and economic type so what you said made little to no sence (s/p?) i think my model is probably the best one thought of as of yet..

I'm not saying there has been a true communist nation, I'm just saying that the Soviet countries system, in practice, wasn't all that different from that of the Third Reich (party control, subservience to the state, etc), so left-right is just innaccurate. Besides, the Communist hardliners in Russia today are considered right-wingers. But I would argue that communism is a socioeconomic theory, since it's about equality and the such, all things like that are tied together. But I do agree there needs to be differentiation between political and economic aspects of the civ, and I would propose adding a social "slider" too

Strangelove-

I don't think anyone did confuse "The Republic" from civ with the US republican party. And I think that there is no debate over whether the USSR was communist in the Marxist sense. It wasn't. At all. Marx even said before he died that he wasn't a Marxist as a result of the changes to practice and philosophy. Marx thought Communism would be possible in a country with nominal freedom and democratic roots like the US or the UK. But Communism became dominated by the radicals, such as Lenin. And in a revolution, who do you think's going to win out, moderates or radicals? And after the Revolution, Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy, which essentially was state controlled capitalism to raise money for the fledgling government, and this program stayed intact through the duration of the USSR. See? No debate. The USSR was essentially a (except for the Lenin and Stalin years) a bureaucratic dictatorship, with state and party control of the sociopoliticoeconomic life.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by JamesJKirk

I don't think anyone did confuse "The Republic" from civ with the US republican party

That's funny; I termed myself "a small-'d' democrat" and Joseph1944 told me in response that he's been both a Democrat and a Republican in his life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there has yet to be a communist nation on earth

So why include true communism in Civ? Shouldn't governments that have existed be the ones included in Civ?

Marx thought Communism would be possible in a country with nominal freedom and democratic roots like the US or the UK.

COULD... but Marx advocated revolution in Europe. And well, no one can call Marx a moderate . He was a radical all the way.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And well, no one can call Marx a moderate . He was a radical all the way.

True dat.

[ancient]

i think capitalism would give more money, production, but communism would increse the happieness, science

[Juggernaut]

Originally posted by ancient
i think capitalism would give more money, production, but communism would increse the happieness, science

ehhh...how can you say communism should give more happiess? communism is a form of f a s c i s m. it´s authoritarican, and forces people to think and act in a certain way. and it never works cause people like to own stuff.

and it should d e c r e a se science. you see, communism puts the relationship access-demand in a weird direction. it kills concurrense, which is the best way to discover more things. if corporations have to concurrate on the same market, the corporation has to discover new, smarter ways to survive. and it´s the absolute best for the clients and society.

the positive sides should be increased production and total control of everything.

i´m no capitalist, but this is the way it works.

[LaRusso]

oh uncle,

let me get this straight:

it was actually czarist russia that produced a nuclear bomb? or was it italy or norway, perhaps sweden?
and i guess switzerland launched sputik into the space?
granted, they were not good in applied science, but Soviet basic research was top class....
already in 1970's they made a first holographic 3D movie and never commercially exploited it....because there was no commercial incentive to do so....well....a strange society by today's criteria...


as for hapiness...depends how you define it.... in china it's a bowl of rice, in sweden it may be pentium IV

communism definitely should have a crippling disability when it comes to using luxuries to raise happiness, but i do not know how the new trade system works in all the aspects. its productivity and science should not be tempered with, as it has showed wild swings in those two categories over the course of years. SU outproduced and outresearched everyone until 1950's (except for the US) and then slumped when quantitative methods ceased to reap benefits. i wonder if luxuries penalty is enough, it well might be, depending on the trade model....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by LaRusso
quantitative methods ceased to reap benefits

Eh? The last time I checked, most (to understate it) science is done with quantitative methods. Otherwise it's just:

"I put some sulfur, some saltpeter, and some charcoal in a pot, and the next thing you know, BANG!"

"Really? How much of each did you use?"

"Gee...I don't know. Maybe we should get a scale."

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Eh? The last time I checked, most (to understate it) science is done with quantitative methods. Otherwise it's just:

"I put some sulfur, some saltpeter, and some charcoal in a pot, and the next thing you know, BANG!"

"Really? How much of each did you use?"

"Gee...I don't know. Maybe we should get a scale."

oh cmon, i am sure you know what i mean,
quantitative economic planning...as in
we will produce 250000 widgets, no matter how crappy they are and 100,000 gadgets even if they are all junk.
okay now?

[KrazyHorse]

Sorry; I really didn't know what you meant. You were talking about scientific research and about quantitative methods in the same sentence, so I drew a fairly reasonable conclusion that they were both in reference to the same thing.

[Juggernaut]

as for hapiness...depends how you define it.... in china it's a bowl of rice, in sweden it may be pentium IV

which people do you think are the most happy? the ones in a fascist country or a democracy?

why does everyone try to escape from cuba? shouldn´t they be HAPPY?

and you can´t just blame it on "everything-is-relative"

marxism makes you pay for stuff you don´t want. and it increases unemployment; tax cuts always give corps ability to hire more.

noone can starts their own business, which could improve things for the society.

and marxism makes people passive. through the social system, all they have to do is just stay at home and waite for the next subsidy check.

there are a lot of reason for the unhappiness...

[LaRusso]

cuba was always poor
so was russia
people always migrated away. i mean, not everyone lives still of selling steel to hitler (that made a nifty profit, that private initiative hand in hand with foreign relations interests...)
sorry....i had to say it

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
why does everyone try to escape from cuba? shouldn´t they be HAPPY?

Actually, you should bear in mind that Cuba's the only country from which the US will accept virtually every emigrant as a refugee. There's no doubt that the average person in the US has more than the average person in Cuba. That's not a fair comparison, though; a fair comparison is between Cuba and other South/Central American countries. It's practically impossible to get yourself an American green card as a Mexican, but look how many flood over the border every year.

[LaRusso]

an applause for KH

[Juggernaut]

So Communism in Civ III should provide great happiness cause the people will get green cards to the democratic civs?

You may praise Communism as the perfect civilization how much you want, all i say is that ask someone who lived in in USSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc., how happy they were!

authoritarican govs always cause unhappiness. and they also open the black market and suddenly there´s a maffia.

the more free people are, the more happy they become. rules are bad.

[KrazyHorse]

Look at the subject of this thread: Communism isn't a form of government; it's a form of economic organization. That means that Communism is not inherently more authoritarian than Capitalism. If you want the most extreme form of authoritarian government, you'll have to look to Fascism, an authoritarian system which supports Capitalism. I haven't claimed Communism as the perfect form of anything; as a matter of fact, my ideal world would be run under some form of anarchistic socialism. I am extremely pro-civil rights and anti-authoritarian. Your statement about authoritarian governments, the black market and the mafia makes very little sense. This whole confusion over what, exactly, collectivism is is not helped by Firaxis' bundling of political and economic ideologies in the same package. Bring back SE!

[Juggernaut]

Communism isn't a form of government; it's a form of economic organization. That means that Communism is not inherently more authoritarian than Capitalism.

everything that decreases people freedom is authoritarican.

you'll have to look to Fascism, an authoritarian system which supports Capitalism.

what has capitalism to do with fascism?

[LaRusso]

i happen to live in one of the ex-communist countries. i live very well. however, overall the content of the people has descreased - look at any poll and you will find that over half of the population in these countries think that they lived better before. that is because a lot of them got really impoverished.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by uncle_funk

everything that decreases people freedom is authoritarican.

what has capitalism to do with fascism?

I don't call a more equitable distribution of wealth decreasing freedom. Fascism was rabidly anti-communist, anti-socialist and pro-business. Until the crisis of war loomed overhead, every Fascist state was as capitalist as any of the Western Powers.