Game Texts

[GarretSidzaka]

Please post any text you want inserted into the mod for the civilopaedia or strategy tips in here, if you can! This will hopefully help with organization.

[GarretSidzaka]

Militia---

Originally Posted by turquoiseninja

"The term “militia” is used to describe a (usually) small military force quickly
drawn together, (usually for defense) typically by citizens of the political entity or area they wish to defend. Militia forces are armed with whatever weapons and equipment their members can scrounge up, and militia forces rarely have much formal training. As such, they almost always have far less advanced equipment then the invading enemy force. Although the terms “militia” and “guerrilla” are often used interchangeably they do in fact describe different things. Guerillas use hit and run tactics to wear down an enemy occupying force; a modern example would be radical Islamic guerillas that continually wear down the U.S. forces deployed in Iraq. Although militia might do the same thing and fight an occupying force, they could also in fact be a standing (albeit loosely organized) force, like the minutemen of the thirteen American colonies, who mobilize at once to defend their country. Although militias usually have a defensive role, they may also at times attack a neighboring country, typically attempting to damage its infrastructure. (Bombing mines and factories, knocking down bridges, burning roads and farms etc.)

The advantages of a militia-based military are its ability to quickly mobilize and defend again foreign attack. They can attain reinforcements relatively easily from the population, who will be very eager to help defend their homes and families. The disadvantages however are poorly trained equipped troops, who will likely lose in the open field to better-prepared enemies. Militia also have trouble when it comes to striking into enemy territory, as the militia are voluntary and will usually only really care about protecting their lands, not invading the lands of others."

[GarretSidzaka]

Vanguard---

Originally Posted by turquoiseninja

"The Vanguard military civic describes an elite military force that usually answers directly to the ruler of the nation. A Vanguard could be the ruler’s personal bodyguard unit, or might just be the elite (and somewhat ceremonial) soldiers of the nation. Examples of Vanguards throughout history include janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who were under direct control of the Sultan, or the Praetorians of Imperial Rome, who served to protect the Emperor. A “Vanguard” could also describe the military-political revolutionary force in a communist revolution. This type of Vanguard often does not disband even after the revolution is complete, and still exist to guard the legitimacy of the communist party that created them. The Red Army of the USSR is an example of this.
The advantages of having a Vanguard-type military are that the Vanguard is efficiently controlled by simply the ruler’s (or party’s) whim. Vanguards also tend to be very well trained, as a wise ruler would want a very powerful guard. Since Vanguards often remain legitimate to the people through claims of patriotism and existing to protect the sovereignty of the nation, the people will often be happy and feel protected by their presence. The disadvantage include that Vanguards are often a very SMALL elite core, and may have a difficult time if they are thinly stretched across the nation.
By: turquoiseninja"

[ArneHD]

Do you have a description for standing army?

If not, here is one:

"A standing army can generaly be described as any army composed of professional, full time soldiers, that do not have other sources of income than the army itself. In this respect a standing army also encompasses the Vanguard of an army, the main diffrences being that a standing army is not under the direct control of the leader and is normaly not as well trained.
The first standing army was the roman legions after the reformes of Gaius Marius. Before the reformes, the roman legion had consisted of citizen soldiers, people who had farms and family to considder. After the reformes, the roman army were able to expand as it could draw on the poorer classes of roman society, as well as allowing for a consdierably better trained soldiers.
While a standing army does offer some major advantages, paticulary in terms of loyalty and training, it can be prohibitly expensive field during peace time

[GarretSidzaka]

keep it up fellas! i better write one soon or i'll be left in the dust

[Leif]

Hmm, how in depth should we be in explaining leaders (or lack thereof)?

[GarretSidzaka]

well, we need to put some ideas down for the descriptions (which i can't recall where they physically go for the leaders in the xml, i just know its there)

[ArneHD]

Here is another one:

"Wage slavery is, technicly, a term used when a person, although not a slave, de jure, he is de facto a slave. In common use it normaly refers to a person who have no other choice but to work for a specific organization, in a specific capacity or in conditions that would normaly be unacceptable to another person.

Wage slavery has obvious connotations to chatel slavery where a person is owned de jure by a person or organization, and was used to draw parallels between these by Karl Marx. Marx noted that the only real diffrence between a wage slave and a chatel slave was that a wage slave could not be subjected to corperal punishment and could, in certain situations, chose not to work for a specific employer.

A wage slave is paticulary vounerable in situations where there is little or no unionization and there is no security for the wage slave. In extreme cases a wage slave is hired for a wage, but is charged for food and shelter more than they are paid and therefore cannot leave, staying as a wage slave indefinitly."

[GarretSidzaka]

Bravo

[GarretSidzaka]

Here are some units we need entries for:

bombers
Bomber aka Obselete Bomber$140 O
Stealth Bomber aka B-2 (same) AP1
A-10 AP1
B-52 AP1
Rods from the Gods AP3
Su-34 AP2

fighters
Fighter aka Obselete Fighter $80 O
Jet fighter aka F-16 (same)AP1
F-35 AP2
MiG-21 O
MiG-29 AP1
Space Fighter AP3

choppers
Gunship aka Apache (same) AP1
Chinook AP1
mi-24 AP1

armor
Mechanized Inf. aka Bradley $180 A1
Modern Armor aka M1A1 Abrams $200 A1
Panzer aka Obsolete Armor (replaces tank graphically) $130 O
BTR-80 A2
Future Tank A3
M113 A1
T-62 O
T-80 A1
T-90 A2

infantry
Infantry aka Obsolete Infantry $80 0
Navy Seal (same) I1 civ
SAM Infantry (same) $130 I1
Canada Corps I1 civ
Future Infantry I2
GAFE I1 civ
genetroop I3 need new graphics
Guerilla I1
Modern Sniper I1
Police I1 StateCapitalism
Protester (3 models) Rebellion need new graphics BAD@!!
Red Guard I1 civ
RPG-7 Soldier I1
Sniper O
Zapatista I1 civ

naval
Battleship (same) O
Carrier (same) SN1
Destroyer (same) O
Submarine aka Obsolete Sub $130 O
Transport (same) O
AEGIS Cruiser SN2
Cargo Ship SN1

arty
Artillery (same) SN1
Mobile Artillery SN1

missiles
ICBM aka Nuke $400 SN1
Fusion Bomb SN2
Tactical Nuke SN1
Tomahawk Missile SN1

other
HUMVEE SN1
Mobile Sam SN2
Mountie O
Cavalry (same) O

[GarretSidzaka]

Anarchist Law

Originally Posted by GarretSidzaka

This is a largely theorhetical "system" of law that is based on the idea that individuals should niether coerce other individuals, nor allow individuals to be coerced. This idea of Non-Coercion is a basis for most, if not all, anarchistic ideologies and principles. But the execution of such principles are much more complex than the idea itself. The Anarchist Law system can be easily summed up with a quote by Kropotkin, quoting Jesus "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" but not to "turn the other cheek".

This kind of law system can only be formed in a Consensus-Based Social Contract, where all community members agree with its adoption. This idea, as you can imagine, is part of heated "anarcho-political" debate.

Enforcibility is probably even more so debated, for how can one protect society from pediophiles and rapist murderers without coercing someone (the commitor of the attrocities)? And if one does decide to take measures, unanimously, to coerce this individual, dare they use a third-party (ie. police or military) or do they coerce the individual themselves. And finally, what do you do when a mother of a raped and murdered child shoots the murderer?

[Fabrysse]

Originally Posted by GarretSidzaka

Enforcibility is probably even more so debated, for how can one protect society from pediophiles and rapist murderers without coercing someone (the commitor of the attrocities)? And if one does decide to take measures, unanimously, to coerce this individual, dare they use a third-party (ie. police or military) or do they coerce the individual themselves. And finally, what do you do when a mother of a raped and murdered child shoots the murderer?

This is an important question about anarchist social organisation. It causes a lot of questions. Everybody can understand why. I work on an explicit and clear explanation on how anarchists resolve this problem and I post it (I need time to be really clear using a language that is not mine).
Be patient please (minus than 1 day)...

[Fabrysse]

Here is the text I purpose for “Anarchistic law” in Civilopedia (I let you correct my english...) :

[NOTE : The term ‘Anarchistic law’ is a problem. An anarchistic society has no law, no police, no judge and no jail. So why not using just ‘anarchism’ to mark the difference with other systems ?]

Very often, the term “anarchy” is used to describe the chaos, the civil wars and the social disorders. The anarchists reject this conception of anarchy (used by many people, the media and the political strengths). For them, on the contrary, the order comes from liberty linked with a social organisation, while the strengths generate the disorder. Anarchy is the harmonious position coming from the abolition of the state and of all the forms of domination and exploitation, “this is the order without the strength”, “the highest expression of the order” (Elisée Reclus).
Based on the equality between the individuals, the free association, the federation and the autogestion [if that word doesn’t exist in English, that mean that a worker committee, including all workers, leads the firm], anarchy is organized, structured, and reject any superiority principle of the organization on the individual.
For all the anarchists the essential quality is the individual responsibility that means acting in the personal interest without offending to the liberty of the others.
In actual society they reject voting, not wanting to give a blank check to anybody who would act in their behalf for years (without mandate and not dismissible). In anarchist society, each time individuals have to mandate one of theirs, they do it for a precise meeting or a precise objective and on a precise mandate, and thus it doesn’t exist any form of domination or government. Using the federative organisation, each individual may give his opinion about everything, in every level of society, from the smallest to the biggest, looking for an unanimous decision and not ECRASER a minority.
The very common fear about anarchy is to see individuals attempting to institute new domination strength (by violence, manipulations, etc). But if in our societies it can have sense to fight to gain some power in society or on someone, in a society where power is nothing and respect of the individuals is everything, where the only power you can have is to explain your point of view and participate to the decision (as each member of your social group), it has of course no sense ! And, anyway, the social organisation (mandate,…) make a control of individual mandated. Anarchists think that this kind of fears is strictly linked to authoritarian way of thinking, like for example in capitalism, where each one is educated in the goal to become the best, even if he has to “kill” the others. In an anarchist society, it’s exactly the contrary : solidarity and mutual aid are the key words.

[Some parts of this text were translated from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchie, other parts were added by me]

• Of course, I purpose to change somewhere in xml files the term ‘anarchy’ (when you have a revolution in CIV4) to ‘chaos’, ‘revolution’, ‘riot’, ‘national civil disorder’,...

[GarretSidzaka]

the term anarchy means "no ruler or government" but not "no law" but i agree there would be no jails or police for enforcing "anarchist law"

Originally Posted by Fabrysse

• Of course, I purpose to change somewhere in xml files the term ‘anarchy’ (when you have a revolution in CIV4) to ‘chaos’, ‘revolution’, ‘riot’, ‘national civil disorder’,...

I would love that. I think that i could find that later.

anyway, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

[ArneHD]

Perhaps you can rename Obsolete Infantry into Ad hoc infantry, I also propose to give them a 10 or 15% city defence bonus:

Ad hoc infantry are soldiers hastally thrown together either due to lack of manpower or lack of resources. These soldiers should not be expected to attack or defend against a better prepared or better trained opponent, although they can hold a line long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

On the pluss side, these are easy to train and do not require large amounts of resources to fight efficiently, and can lend strenght to an attacking army, softening up a difficult enemy, or cleaning up a wounded enemy.

Ad hoc infantry can consist of civilians wishing to "do their bit", or defending their homes. They can also contain soldiers from defeated units or even deserters from the enemy.

[These are intended to be a unit ala warrior in civ. A stopgap measure untill other units can arrive.]

[Fabrysse]

Originally Posted by GarretSidzaka

the term anarchy means "no ruler or government" but not "no law" but i agree there would be no jails or police for enforcing "anarchist law"

Well... If you have no police and no jail who would do respect the law ? That's why I say that : it's impossible to have laws in an anarchitic society.

[GarretSidzaka]

@ArneHD
That sounds good. But if i make them "Ad Hoc Infantry" should they be avalible when more powerful infanty become usable? like the mounties?

@Fabrysse
There are certain "Laws" that cannot ever be removed, and the highest of which is "Do not kill" followed by "Do not rape or molest" and then "Do not coerce." These are definate anarchist laws. The third law has alot of room and would have to cover "Do not steal," "Do not hurt".
These laws apply to the individual, as I feel "corporations" or likewise organizations should have zero rights, as they are not individuals.

[Fabrysse]

Originally Posted by GarretSidzaka

There are certain "Laws" that cannot ever be removed, and the highest of which is "Do not kill" followed by "Do not rape or molest" and then "Do not coerce." These are definate anarchist laws. The third law has alot of room and would have to cover "Do not steal," "Do not hurt".

Well, in my mind, it's more a question of moral, than a question of law.
When a group agree on moral principles, and a member of the group does something that is out of these moral principles, the group explain to this person that he/she is out of "rules". So, or this person agree and come back to the moral rules, or this person disagree and he/she should quit the group, and find another group or live alone.
Anyway, we are not going to discuss eternaly about that.

Originally Posted by GarretSidzaka

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law

I strongly disagree with that :

Originally Posted by wikipedia.org

it doesn't really matter whether the mother who shoots and kills a pedophile is acting on behalf of herself as an individual or on behalf of a community, the pedophile is dead and the threat to the community’s children removed in any case.

It’s important to defend the society from attacks (the example of Spain 1936 is in wikipedia), but self defence can’t be justified.
The social group is all. I'm not an individualist I'm a collectivist anarchist. But if an individualist says that he may, in anarchist society, kill someone, just because he wants to, I say he is not an anarchist. And so this woman should not kill the pedophile. And if she does it, the group should tell her that it's not the good way. Respect of the individual is very important. Even if this individual has made an enormous mistake. Killing him is not a solution. Each one have to do the more he can to find a solution in the social group. In the case of a pedophile I think, we should heal him...
But let's go a little more far. Why somebody become pedophile, today ? Do you think it's a sexual orientation, or a mental disease stricktly linked to the society we live in, and it's rules ? I think it's a mental disease. When I see pedophiles on TV, I can see lost guys who we should help, but we put them in jail without any help or healing... This social answer, can be a vengence for the victimes, but doesn't find a solution to the problem. So it's a bad answer.

[GarretSidzaka]

hmmm, this thread is getting very political. We should have this discussion in the debate thread

SOMEONE submit a new text...?

[Fabrysse]

Here are texts I purpose for ideologies :

Edit : I added purposed Great Authors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anarchism (it's the text I already purposed for Anarchistic law, but I think it would be better to put it here) :

Spoiler:

Very often, the term “anarchy” is used to describe the chaos, the civil wars and the social disorders. The anarchists reject this conception of anarchy (used by many people, the media and the political strengths). For them, on the contrary, the order comes from liberty linked with a social organisation, while the strengths generate the disorder. Anarchy is the harmonious position coming from the abolition of the state and of all the forms of domination and exploitation, “this is the order without the strength”, “the highest expression of the order” (Elisée Reclus).
Based on the equality between the individuals, the free association, the federation and the autogestion [if that word doesn’t exist in English, that mean that a worker committee, including all workers, leads the firm], anarchy is organized, structured, and reject any superiority principle of the organization on the individual.
For all the anarchists the essential quality is the individual responsibility that means acting in the personal interest without offending to the liberty of the others.
In actual society they reject voting, not wanting to give a blank check to anybody who would act in their behalf for years (without mandate and not dismissible). In anarchist society, each time individuals have to mandate one of theirs, they do it for a precise meeting or a precise objective and on a precise mandate, and thus it doesn’t exist any form of domination or government. Using the federative organisation, each individual may give his opinion about everything, in every level of society, from the smallest to the biggest, looking for an unanimous decision and not ECRASER a minority.
The very common fear about anarchy is to see individuals attempting to institute new domination strength (by violence, manipulations, etc). But if in our societies it can have sense to fight to gain some power in society or on someone, in a society where power is nothing and respect of the individuals is everything, where the only power you can have is to explain your point of view and participate to the decision (as each member of your social group), it has of course no sense ! And, anyway, the social organisation (mandate,…) make a control of individual mandated. Anarchists think that this kind of fears is strictly linked to authoritarian way of thinking, like for example in capitalism, where each one is educated in the goal to become the best, even if he has to “kill” the others. In an anarchist society, it’s exactly the contrary : solidarity and mutual aid are the key words.

Great Authors :
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Errico Malatesta, Rudolf Rocker, Max Stirner, Elisée Reclus, Sebastien Faure, Emile Pouget, Murray Bookchin, Francisco Ferrer, Nestor Makhno, Voline, Hakim Bey, Paul Feyerabend, Lysander, Michel-Georges Micberth.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Autonomism (from http://en.wikipedia.org) :

Spoiler:

Autonomism refers to a set of left-wing political and social movements and theories close to the socialist movement. Unlike other forms of Marxism, autonomist marxism emphasises the ability of the working class to force changes to the organisation of the capitalist system independent of the state, trade unions or political parties. Autonomists are less concerned with party political organisation than other types of Marxist thought, focusing instead on self-organised action outside of traditional organisational structures. Autonomist Marxism is thus a "bottom up" theory: it draws attention to activities that autonomists see as everyday working class resistance to capitalism, for example absenteeism, slow working, and socialisation in the workplace.

Like other Marxists, autonomists see class struggle as being of central importance. However, autonomists have a broader definition of the working class than other Marxists: as well as wage-earning workers (both white collar and blue collar), autonomists also include the unwaged (students, the unemployed, homemakers etc), who are traditionally deprived of any form of union representation.

Early theorists (such as Mario Tronti, Antonio Negri, Sergio Bologna and Paolo Virno) developed notions of "immaterial" and "social labour" that extended the Marxist concept of labour to all society. They suggested that modern society's wealth was produced by unaccountable collective work, and that only a little of this was redistributed to the workers in the form of wages. They emphasised the importance of feminism and the value of unpaid female labour to capitalist society.

Great Authors :
Antonio Negri, Sergio Bologna, Mario Tronti, Paolo Virno, Silvia Federici


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-liberalism (from http://en.wikipedia.org) :

Spoiler:

Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism which has become increasingly important in international economic policy discussions from the 1970s onwards.

In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights. In foreign policy, neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means, using diplomacy, economic pressure and, for some neoliberals, military might[1]. Opening of markets refers to free trade and an international division of labor. Neoliberalism generally favors multilateral political pressure through international organizations or treaty devices such as the WTO, World Bank and ADB. It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favors privatization over direct government intervention and production (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve efficiency and minimize unemployment, it strives to reject or mitigate labor policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights. It opposes socialism, protectionism, environmentalism, fair trade, and critics say it impedes democratic rule. Likewise, these critics argue that labor rights and social justice should have a priority in international relations and economics.

UC Berkeley economic historian and defender of neoliberalism Professor Brad DeLong, this "ism" has two main tenets:

"The first is that close economic contact between the industrial core [of the capitalist world economy] and the developing periphery is the best way to accelerate the transfer of technology which is the sine qua non for making poor economies rich (hence all barriers to international trade should be eliminated as fast as possible). The second is that governments in general lack the capacity to run large industrial and commercial enterprises. Hence, [except] for core missions of income distribution, public-good infrastructure, administration of justice, and a few others, governments should shrink and privatize."

To critics of neoliberalism, these two principles represent parts of the "trickle-down theory," i.e., that under free-market capitalism, economic growth and technological change benefit the poorest countries and people, even if ownership remains predominantly with the wealthier countries. Critics also claim that these claims are contradicted by the empirical record (see Practice, below). To defenders, "Development is Freedom" (i.e., free-market capitalism).[citation needed] More economic growth, specialization and opportunity create chances for individuals to achieve more than rigid structures which provide only illusory protection.

Great Authors :
Brad DeLong, Thomas L. Friedman, Ronald Reagan, Robert Barro, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, Frank Knight, Thomas Sowell, Richard Posner, Gary Stanley Becker, Ronald Coase.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationalism (from http://en.wikipedia.org) :

Spoiler:

The starting point of nationalism is the existence of nations, which it takes as a given. Nations are typically seen as entities with a long history: most nationalists do not believe a nation can be created artificially. Nationalist movements see themselves as the representative of an existing, centuries-old nation. However, some theories of nationalism imply the reverse order - that the nationalist movements created the sense of national identity, and then a political unit corresponding to it, or that an existing state promoted a 'national' identity for itself.

Nationalists see nations as an inclusive categorisation of human beings - assigning every individual to one specific nation. In fact, nationalism sees most human activity as national in character. Nations have national symbols, a national culture, a national music and national literature; national folklore, a national mythology and - in some cases - even a national religion. Individuals share national values and a national identity, admire the national hero, eat the national dish and play the national sport.

Nationalists define individual nations on the basis of certain criteria, which distinguish one nation from another; and determine who is a member of each nation. These criteria typically include a shared language, culture, and/or shared values which are predominantly represented within a specific ethnic group. National identity refers both to these defining criteria, and to the shared heritage of each group. Membership in a nation is usually involuntary and determined by birth. Individual nationalisms vary in their degree of internal uniformity: some are monolithic, and tolerate little variance from the national norms. Academic nationalism theory emphasises that national identity is contested, reflecting differences in region, class, gender, and language or dialect. A recent development is the idea of a national core culture, in Germany the Leitkultur, which emphasises a minimal set of non-negotiable values: this is primarily a strategy of cultural assimilation in response to immigration.

Nationalism has a strong territorial component, with an inclusive categorisation of territory corresponding to the categorisation of individuals. For each nation, there is a territory which is uniquely associated with it, the national homeland, and together they account for most habitable land. This is reflected in the geopolitical claims of nationalism, which seeks to order the world as a series of nation-states, each based on the national homeland of its respective nation. Territorial claims characterise the politics of nationalist movements. Established nation-states also make an implicit territorial claim, to secure their own continued existence: sometimes it is specified in the national constitution. In the nationalist view, each nation has a moral entitlement to a sovereign state: this is usually taken as a given.

The nation-state is intended to guarantee the existence of a nation, to preserve its distinct identity, and to provide a territory where the national culture and ethos are dominant - nationalism is also a philosophy of the state. It sees a nation-state as a necessity for each nation: secessionist national movements often complain about their second-class status as a minority within another nation. This specific view of the duties of the state influenced the introduction of national education systems, often teaching a standard curriculum, national cultural policy, and national language policy. In turn, nation-states appeal to a national cultural-historical mythos to justify their existence, and to confer political legitimacy - acquiescence of the population in the authority of the government.

Great Authors :
Benedict Anderson, John Armstrong, John Breuilly, Ernest Gellner, Liah Greenfeld, Michael Hechter, Eric Hobsbawm, Elie Kedourie, Tom Nairn, Anthony D Smith


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communism (from http://en.wikipedia.org) :

Spoiler:

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement. Early forms of human social organization have been described as 'primitive communism' by Marxists. However, communism as a council communism, Luxemburgism, anarchist communism, Christian communism, and various currents of left communism, which are generally the more widespread varieties. However, various offshoots of the Soviet (what critics call the 'Stalinist') and Maoist interpretations of Marxism-Leninism comprise a particular branch of communism that has the distinction of having been the primary driving force for communism in world politics during most of the 20th century. The competing branch of Trotskyism has not had such a distinction.

Karl Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, and it remains theoretical; Marx, in fact, commented very little on what communist society would actually look like. However, the term 'Communism', especially when it is capitalized, is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes under communist parties that claimed to embody the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In Russia, the 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, in this case the Bolshevik Party, seized state power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx believed that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. It should be noted, however, that Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois capitalism. Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.
During the Russian Civil War (1918-1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy of "war communism," which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry. After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to do a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin's personal fight for leadership, and the introduction of the first Five Year Plan spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks formed in 1922 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
The Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties are often described as 'Communist states' with 'state socialist' economic bases. This usage indicates that they proclaim that they have realized part of the socialist program by abolishing private control of the means of production and establishing state control over the economy; however, they do not declare themselves truly communist, as they have not established communal ownership of property.

Some writers such as Courtois go beyond attributing the estimated tens of millions of deaths and other large-scale human rights abuses during the 20th century merely to the Communist regimes associated with these atrocities;[5] rather, these authors present the events occurring in these countries, particularly under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, as an argument against Marxism itself. Some of the critics were former Marxists, such as Wittfogel, who applied Marx's concept of "Oriental despotism" to communist societies such as the Soviet Union, and Silone, Wright, Koestler (among other writers) who contributed essays to the book The God that Failed (the title refers not to the Christian God but Marxism itself).
There have also been more direct criticisms of Marxism, such as criticisms of the labor theory of value or Marx's predictions. Nevertheless, Communist parties outside of the Warsaw Pact, such as the Communist parties in Western Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa, differed greatly. Thus a criticism that is applicable to one such party is not necessarily applicable to another.

Great Authors :
Karl Marx, VladimirLenine, Louis Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, Leon Trotsky, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Che Guevara


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservatism (from http://en.wikipedia.org) :

Spoiler:

Conservatism is a political philosophy that necessitates a defense of established values or the status quo. The term derives from to conserve; from Latin conservāre, "to keep, guard, observe". While not in itself an ideology, it is a political philosophy that is determined almost entirely by its context. Defined in part as an emphasis on tradition as a source of wisdom that goes beyond what can be demonstrated or even explicitly stated.
Samuel Francis defined authentic conservatism as “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” Roger Scruton calls it “maintenance of the social ecology” and “the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of a social organism.”

Conservative patriotism is most famously expressed in the words of American naval hero Stephen Decatur, Jr. who said, "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!" The nation or, at an earlier time, the city state, is seen as a major force safeguarding traditional values and preserving the very life and freedom of its citizens.
In response to terrorism, both prime minister Tony Blair and previous opposition leader Michael Howard have suggested that British values and the British way of life must be enforced in Britain.
Value conservatives in Europe appeal to 'national values'. Burkean conservatives value them for their own sake, because they are the result of long experience, but the patriotic impulse also has a strong emotional appeal, as illustrated by the famous Sir Walter Scott quotation, "Breathes there a man, with soul so dead, who never to himself has said, this is my own, my native land!"
Most patriots appeal to national symbolism - the national flag, national historical icons, founders and emblems, the works of national poets and authors, or the representation of the nation by its artists. Conservatives often express admiration of the patriotic values of duty, and sacrifice.

In western democracies, 'conservative' and 'right-wing' are often used interchangeably, as near-synonyms. That is not always accurate, but it has more than incidental validity. Certainly the opposition is in both cases the same: the political left.

Great Authors :
Samuel Francis, Roger Scruton, Richard Hooker, Edmund Burke, Robert Crunden, Paul E. Gottfried, Ted Honderich, Kirk Russell, Jerry Z. Muller, Robert Nisbet, Noel O'Sullivan, Alexander Lee, Timothy Stanley

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope it'll be usefull...