Civic Combination Possibility

You declared it so I guess that makes it so [rolleyes].

I think it's misleading at best and dishonest at worst to use the same term for the US and Nazi Germany.

Click to expand...

That's nice. Nazi Germany doesn't maintain a monopoly on the term 'totalitarian'. That's just ignorant. Misleading? What's misleading? The US has a history of genocide that continues to this day with sanctions, "humanitarian bombing", depleted uranium, and support of brutal dictators. The US has engaged in torture, legalized assassination of US citizens, and oppression of demonstrations contrary to the system (in addition to all the other things I mentioned earlier in this thread). Those things happened and no one denies it happened. Marry that with the fact that corporate and state power have been merged over the last 100 years, and it would seem that a comparison isn't misleading at all. Again, it would seem that nationalistic exceptionalism is the tool by which society excuses these actions.

Of course every civilization has been that way throughout history. Because up until now that's how control was kept. Modern totalitarian states are a bit different as I've already discussed. I understand that no one is going around dragging people out of their homes or for forced curfews but the legal structures have been put into place that would allow such things to occur. Again, look at Boston after the marathon bombing. Middle-of-the-road pandering just ensures that it is going to keep moving in that direction. Nitpicking on terminology doesn't change the reality of the state of things.

Police state and free speech are clearly a plausible civic combination. Again, because I won't use the strict early 20th century terminology that people still cling to.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

Police state and free speech are clearly a plausible civic combination. Again, because I won't use the strict early 20th century terminology that people still cling to.

Click to expand...

Speaking of plausible civic combinations, how would pure communism(Utopia) work in Civilization 4?
Universal Suffrage/Free Speech/Emancipation/State Property/Free Religion?

Enginseer said:

Speaking of plausible civic combinations, how would pure communism(Utopia) work in Civilization 4?
Universal Suffrage/Free Speech/Emancipation/State Property/Free Religion?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that full-on free speech would be possible in a pure communism situation. I have to brush up, but I'm fairly certain that repression of capitalist ideologies is necessary in order to maintain the communist state.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

That's nice. Nazi Germany doesn't maintain a monopoly on the term 'totalitarian'. That's just ignorant. Misleading? What's misleading? The US has a history of genocide that continues to this day with sanctions, "humanitarian bombing", depleted uranium, and support of brutal dictators. The US has engaged in torture, legalized assassination of US citizens, and oppression of demonstrations contrary to the system (in addition to all the other things I mentioned earlier in this thread). Those things happened and no one denies it happened. Marry that with the fact that corporate and state power have been merged over the last 100 years, and it would seem that a comparison isn't misleading at all. Again, it would seem that nationalistic exceptionalism is the tool by which society excuses these actions.

Click to expand...

Or you're using the wrong word. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are different things, and none of what you've described makes the US totalitarian.

Totalitarianism means the state controls everything, and the US government absolutely does not and never has. Being a violent **** of a country doesn't make you totalitarian.

And the word was invented to describe the new fascist governments of the 20s and 30s, so yeah, they should be taken as the model.

Enginseer said:

Speaking of plausible civic combinations, how would pure communism(Utopia) work in Civilization 4?
Universal Suffrage/Free Speech/Emancipation/State Property/Free Religion?

Click to expand...

Isn't the state supposed to dissolve itself in pure communism because it's no longer needed? There wouldn't be any civics in that case.

HeliosDisciple said:

Or you're using the wrong word. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are different things, and none of what you've described makes the US totalitarian.

Totalitarianism means the state controls everything, and the US government absolutely does not and never has. Being a violent **** of a country doesn't make you totalitarian.

And the word was invented to describe the new fascist governments of the 20s and 30s, so yeah, they should be taken as the model.

Click to expand...

The word was invented as a combination of the words "total" and "authoritarian". I'm fairly certain we're splitting hairs here because the only reason the whole "totalitarian" debate occurred was because of its appearance in the definition of "police state". Again, not locking ourselves into early 20th century definitions, it's fair to say that "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" can be interchanged in the definition of "police state".

Isn't the state supposed to dissolve itself in pure communism because it's no longer needed? There wouldn't be any civics in that case.

Click to expand...

Well said.

HeliosDisciple said:

Isn't the state supposed to dissolve itself in pure communism because it's no longer needed? There wouldn't be any civics in that case.

Click to expand...

Decentralized.
-

blitzkrieg1980 said:

I'm not sure that full-on free speech would be possible in a pure communism situation. I have to brush up, but I'm fairly certain that repression of capitalist ideologies is necessary in order to maintain the communist state.

Click to expand...

Why would there be a need to convert to capitalist ideologies? In an Utopian society aren't they content with what they have and have no need to desire more?

In genuine communism there would be no need to repress capitalist ideologies because it would be glaringly apparent how far from ideal they were.

Timsup2nothin said:

In genuine communism there would be no need to repress capitalist ideologies because it would be glaringly apparent how far from ideal they were.

Click to expand...

Probably, but genuine communism =/= communist state.

Robo-Star said:

Probably, but genuine communism =/= communist state.

Click to expand...

And that's more like what I was referring to. If we're talking "Civics", then we are talking about a state. And if we have a communist state, there is a need to repress capitalist ideology. Not because you need to keep the people convinced, but because external capitalist forces will try to impose themselves and overturn the communist state. it has happened already many times and Socialist states or in states that have nationalized their economies or resources.

Y'know what could be an interesting doodad? Assigning the ingame leaders civics based on their countries when they ruled, then making a mod or scenario or something where they're locked into those civics for the whole game and see how it goes.

There'd be a lot of Hereditary Rule and I'm pretty sure no Enviromentalism, but it could be interesting.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

And that's more like what I was referring to. If we're talking "Civics", then we are talking about a state. And if we have a communist state, there is a need to repress capitalist ideology. Not because you need to keep the people convinced, but because external capitalist forces will try to impose themselves and overturn the communist state. it has happened already many times and Socialist states or in states that have nationalized their economies or resources.

Click to expand...

This begs some questions.

I was raised in the cold war, and taught that the concern was that the communists were the ones that had to be kept from imposing themselves and overturning capitalist states. You seem to be saying the opposite.

Meanwhile...repelling invasion is different than repression of free speech, yes? So even our communist state shouldn't need to repress capitalist ideas if the people in the state want to discuss them.

Marx said that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would fade away into an anarchistic/socialistic utopia. During the dictatorship regime, it would necessarily repress capitalists.

HeliosDisciple said:

Y'know what could be an interesting doodad? Assigning the ingame leaders civics based on their countries when they ruled, then making a mod or scenario or something where they're locked into those civics for the whole game and see how it goes.

There'd be a lot of Hereditary Rule and I'm pretty sure no Enviromentalism, but it could be interesting.

Click to expand...

Each leader does have a preferred civic, most based (loosely) on their historical rule. They don't necessarily refuse to switch out of them, but they do have a tendency to stay in them for a while or switch to them at first opportunity.

Timsup2nothin said:

This begs some questions.

I was raised in the cold war, and taught that the concern was that the communists were the ones that had to be kept from imposing themselves and overturning capitalist states. You seem to be saying the opposite.

Click to expand...

You mean the Cold War that had a massive propaganda campaign that completely crushed any communist/socialist movements in the US? If so, then of course you were taught that! The problem is that real "communism" is a workers' revolution and isn't subject to the effects of external states. Which brings up the subject of Soviet Russia really being state capitalism, not communism but that's for another discussion. Communists WERE kept from imposing themselves in the US or even from having a chance to be heard. McCarthy, Hollywood, societal self-censorship, and the concessions that corporate capitalism gave to the proletariat (to keep them from returning to the communist ideologies that started to become very popular in the 30's) made sure of that. It continues today by continuously pushing the political conversation towards the right (although the labor concessions have been pulled back severely since the 'fall' of so-called communism in the early 90's as the proletariat no longer have a "communist" state to gain support from).

Meanwhile...repelling invasion is different than repression of free speech, yes? So even our communist state shouldn't need to repress capitalist ideas if the people in the state want to discuss them.

Click to expand...

As Lennier said (and quite well I might add), the repression of capitalist ideology would be necessary during the first 'post-revolutionary' stages of communism when external capitalist influences would try to force their way back in. This is when the Civ4 'civics' would be in play still. As for 'repelling invasions', I'm not talking about classical 'invasions' but, rather, the kind of imposition that the US performs on socialist nations and nations that try to nationalize their resources. The tactics are usually much more subversive than outright invasion or brute force (although in the cases of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Panama, Libya, etc those techniques were still used).

blitzkrieg1980 said:

As Lennier said (and quite well I might add), the repression of capitalist ideology would be necessary during the first 'post-revolutionary' stages of communism when external capitalist influences would try to force their way back in. This is when the Civ4 'civics' would be in play still. As for 'repelling invasions', I'm not talking about classical 'invasions' but, rather, the kind of imposition that the US performs on socialist nations and nations that try to nationalize their resources. The tactics are usually much more subversive than outright invasion or brute force (although in the cases of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Panama, Libya, etc those techniques were still used).

Click to expand...

Those subversive tactics don't really involve 'spreading the capitalist word'. Even in the Soviet Union any free discussion of economics would have lead to 'capitalism doesn't really work in the long run', so there is no reason to repress free speech. The only place free speech about economics really needs to be suppressed appears to be in the capitalist country, because the operation of capitalism requires widespread belief that capitalism really is the first economic system in history to be a final solution'. Marx doesn't need to be misrepresented because he championed communism, he has to be misrepresented because of how well he understood capitalism...including it's terminal flaw and inevitable end.

The US solution, by the way, is always brute force. If you don't build your economy fast enough we will arm your enemies to destroy you, or do it ourselves. But if you want to build your economy this way we will not only help you build it faster, we won't arm your enemies...at least no more heavily than we arm you.

Timsup2nothin said:

Those subversive tactics don't really involve 'spreading the capitalist word'. Even in the Soviet Union any free discussion of economics would have lead to 'capitalism doesn't really work in the long run', so there is no reason to repress free speech. The only place free speech about economics really needs to be suppressed appears to be in the capitalist country, because the operation of capitalism requires widespread belief that capitalism really is the first economic system in history to be a final solution'. Marx doesn't need to be misrepresented because he championed communism, he has to be misrepresented because of how well he understood capitalism...including it's terminal flaw and inevitable end.

Click to expand...

We really agree on almost all points. The only thing is, the Soviet Union was really state capitalism with supporting socialist infrastructure and not really communism.

blitzkrieg1980 said:

We really agree on almost all points. The only thing is, the Soviet Union was really state capitalism with supporting socialist infrastructure and not really communism.

Click to expand...

No doubt. They seriously tried to run without walking. Marxism is what to do when capitalism inevitably fails, not something you can skip ahead to and avoid capitalism all together.