Civics of Real life Nations

[west india man]

Originally Posted by Imp. Knoedel

While we are at it: Holy Roman Empire

Hereditary Rule
Vassalage
Serfdom
Decentralization
Theocracy/Organized Religion with Christianity

Pretty self-explanatory.

The HRE didn't really have Hereditary Rule for most of its existence (Not counting from the Thirty Years' War onward due to it being effectively non-existent after then), it followed more of a type of Representation with the Emperor being elected by the constituent local Lords within it, then having to be confirmed by the Pope.

[CocoIsKing28]

Ancient Athens

Government-Universal Suffrage: The Athenians had a True Democracy, with the eligible populace (free men 18 and over) voting on all matters.

Legal- Bureaucracy or Free Speech: Being that Athens was a city state bureaucracy, and the culture growth from FS, but hints of Nationhood could also be detected (The draft: all Athenian men had to do a year in the military)

Labor-Slavery: Self-explanatory.

Economy-Decentralization

Religion-Organized Religion: If Hellenism was a religion, otherwise Paganism.

[username804]

Originally Posted by xcrissxcrossx

The USSR had virtually no pagans except for tribes which had no say in government. Like a poster said before, you *could* say they are a theocracy with no religion, but in Civ4 terms that makes no sense to run. There is no advantage to it. According to Marx, an Atheist state has its advantages.

I don't know much on the USSR after the 40's to be honest, but I claimed they did not run emancipation because emancipation (according to the civilpedia) gives the bourgeoisie freedom to oppress the working class, and this goes against everything communism stands for. I do believe that slavery could be a viable choice however, as the political prisoners were essentially treated as slaves.

COMMUNISM is not new. The Iroquois did it, natives that live in longhouses do it, any pre Patriarchal society did it. The invention of agriculture created the need for slaves to plow the field.

That said,

In 1800 (for simplicity's sake) Democratic Representational goverment (Athens, Roman Republic) was dead except for where? America. America had just kicked Great Britain's ass in the eyes of the general European public eyes. The European Monarchs were generally evil: people were suffering. Corruption & evil for 1800 years! Starving peasants! Plague! Famine! Etc...

Enter disaffected Marx & Engles, they propose Communism, but you know where they got it? JESUS! The Jesus we all know was the world's first communist. Treat all humans as your brothers, share the wealth. JC said it first.

Marx and Engles were angry though and they wrote an angry theory. What they wrote was never intended to be the end all and be all, they intended for "People's Revolutions" to chop the heads off of Monarchs (the only way to end a monarchy is to kill all royals) Just like in France. BUT: What people forget is that M&E intended American style Democratic Republican ism to replace Communism within 20-50 years of the revolution.

The General Public doesnt know this because of STALIN. Stalin was insane. Lenin wasn't so bad. Lenin created a democracy but Stalin turned it into a Police State. Anyone but Stalin, and everything would have been way different.

Ayn Rand wrote her books because her family was robbed by the Stalinists! Again, an angry writer who should not be taken seriously. She had a personal vendetta against the Bolsheviks just as Marx and Engels had one against the European Kings.

Everyone remembers Machiavelli for "The Prince" no one remembers he also wrote about "The Republic" (He was starving, and kings had all the money, so he flattered them...)

Everything with a grain of salt, people!

Peace out!

[username804]

Originally Posted by CocoIsKing28

Ancient Athens

Government-Universal Suffrage: The Athenians had a True Democracy, with the eligible populace (free men 18 and over) voting on all matters.

Legal- Bureaucracy or Free Speech: Being that Athens was a city state bureaucracy, and the culture growth from FS, but hints of Nationhood could also be detected (The draft: all Athenian men had to do a year in the military)

Labor-Slavery: Self-explanatory.

Economy-Decentralization

Religion-Organized Religion: If Hellenism was a religion, otherwise Paganism.

Only landowning (& Horse owning, & slave owning) wealthy men could vote in Athens just like 1781 America

[damerell]

Originally Posted by username804

What they wrote was never intended to be the end all and be all, they intended for "People's Revolutions" to chop the heads off of Monarchs (the only way to end a monarchy is to kill all royals)

Er, the UK monarchy has no real power; nor do the Scandinavian cycling monarchs. And, notwithstanding Cromwell's noble efforts in that direction, I'm pretty sure he didn't kill the lot of them.

[To anyone about to reply "Royal Assent", nope, you don't understand.]

[west india man]

Marx and Engels lived in the 19th Century when the monarchs had a lot more power. By then though, most British power was held by Parliament. The House of Commons could only be elected by land-holding rich men over the age of 30 IIRC, although reforms were gradually introduced through the 19th Century reforms were made to make the requirements for being electors less dependent on wealth, and also reduced the voting age to 21. The House of Lords was, and still is unelected.

[damerell]

Originally Posted by west india man

Marx and Engels lived in the 19th Century when the monarchs had a lot more power. By then though, most British power was held by Parliament.

That's very true, but it's also true that we have effectively neutralised the monarchy without killing the lot of them - and really, although Victoria was the last monarch to wield significant real power, the monarchy was on a downward spiral since Cromwell and then the Glorious Revolution established Parliamentary supremacy pretty clearly.

[west india man]

I wouldn't say Victoria was the last monarch to hold real power, she didn't really hold too much power - Even George III held little power, and the power of the monarch had been declining throughout the 16th Century after the end of the Wars of the Roses.

[damerell]

Originally Posted by west india man

I wouldn't say Victoria was the last monarch to hold real power, she didn't really hold too much power

Formally, no, but when Victoria got annoyed by a tall building blocking the view out her window, the result was a law restricting the height of buildings in London. I strongly suspect the outcome of Gladstone's push for Home Rule for Ireland would have been different if Victoria hadn't opposed it. Someone who can stop the Empire from freeing a colony has very real power.

[username804]

Queen Lizzie has very real power, she's just smart enough NOT to use it. The Portraits of Chuck 1 & Chuck 2, plus the memories of King Louie the clockmaker are very real to her.

There is nothing a King or Queen needs to use power for these days. Look at the barbarian dictators (for simplicity we'll use Qaddafi) they have to have murder squads running around suppressing the populace because their hold on power is barely just barely.

If QE2 wanted anything at all, all she'd have to do is ask politely for it and anyone in the world would get it for her. THAT is very real power.

Maggie Thatcher said something about Power & a Lady, if you have to say you are, you arent.

[Te_Wheki]

New Zealand:

Government: Universal Suffrage
Legal: Free Speech
Labour: Emancipation
Economy: Right wing government Free Market/Left wing government Environmentalism. Basically it's a young vs old battle, the young want to perserve the land the old just want to deregulate everything so they can make as much money as possible.
Religion: Free Religion, despite our national anthem referencing God majority of the country is atheist.

Technically we are a contitutional monarchy with the Queen of England as our Head of State, but that's only because the older generation are opposed to being a republic - she has no power of our political system.

[Tlalynet]

Originally Posted by username804

COMMUNISM is not new. The Iroquois did it, natives that live in longhouses do it, any pre Patriarchal society did it. The invention of agriculture created the need for slaves to plow the field.

That said,

In 1800 (for simplicity's sake) Democratic Representational goverment (Athens, Roman Republic) was dead except for where? America. America had just kicked Great Britain's ass in the eyes of the general European public eyes. The European Monarchs were generally evil: people were suffering. Corruption & evil for 1800 years! Starving peasants! Plague! Famine! Etc...

Enter disaffected Marx & Engles, they propose Communism, but you know where they got it? JESUS! The Jesus we all know was the world's first communist. Treat all humans as your brothers, share the wealth. JC said it first.

Marx and Engles were angry though and they wrote an angry theory. What they wrote was never intended to be the end all and be all, they intended for "People's Revolutions" to chop the heads off of Monarchs (the only way to end a monarchy is to kill all royals) Just like in France. BUT: What people forget is that M&E intended American style Democratic Republican ism to replace Communism within 20-50 years of the revolution.

The General Public doesnt know this because of STALIN. Stalin was insane. Lenin wasn't so bad. Lenin created a democracy but Stalin turned it into a Police State. Anyone but Stalin, and everything would have been way different.

Ayn Rand wrote her books because her family was robbed by the Stalinists! Again, an angry writer who should not be taken seriously. She had a personal vendetta against the Bolsheviks just as Marx and Engels had one against the European Kings.

Everyone remembers Machiavelli for "The Prince" no one remembers he also wrote about "The Republic" (He was starving, and kings had all the money, so he flattered them...)

Everything with a grain of salt, people!

Peace out!

John of Leiden deserves mention here, he set up an Anabaptist Universal Suffrage (women had say)\Emancipation\Communism\Theocracy in Munster during the German peasant rebellion. Nothing really fits for the 'Legal' category, I should say 'beurocrasy' since they did the OCC thing, but really they had no beurocracy. Marx drew a lot of his work from history, and I believe he referenced this. They of course said they where modelled after the early Christian Church, which goes to what you where saying about Jesus and communism. I don't know that he was the first, but he certainly influenced communism since his time heavily.

It's fun to discuss this with hardcore American capitalists who are Christian.

[calibur]

Originally Posted by Tlalynet

John of Leiden deserves mention here, he set up an Anabaptist Universal Suffrage (women had say)\Emancipation\Communism\Theocracy in Munster during the German peasant rebellion. Nothing really fits for the 'Legal' category, I should say 'beurocrasy' since they did the OCC thing, but really they had no beurocracy. Marx drew a lot of his work from history, and I believe he referenced this. They of course said they where modelled after the early Christian Church, which goes to what you where saying about Jesus and communism. I don't know that he was the first, but he certainly influenced communism since his time heavily.

It's fun to discuss this with hardcore American capitalists who are Christian.

But not hardcore capitalist Christians elsewhere?
I'm a Canadian-American capitalist atheist btw.

[Tlalynet]

It depends on how much they've been taught the 'evils of communism'. There's quite a lot of American culture that can't tell the difference between Marxism, Communism as a general concept, and social good and social services. They have a rather stronger propaganda arm and they've often been taught anti-communism since grade school, not so much in the last decade but before that...

Without that hard anti-communist bent you can have a fantastic conversation about this sort of things with capitalists and capitalist-Christians. How you define 'hardcore' of course greatly affects the answer to your question.

I've found my conversations in Canada to be generally better than those in America in regards of understanding the difference between the key concepts relating to economic structures. But Canada gets a lot of American ideals via television and other medias, so...

I'm Canadian-American, my time divided almost equally now, and had the misfortune of taking schooling in the States, which was fairly equally divided between hardcore anti-communist teachers and teachers who where hellbent on teaching communism and required students to sign a manifesto at the begging of their classes.

To be honest the discussion of capitalism vs communism generally loses sight of the aim of securing prosperity by minimizing corruption and optimizing productivity, neither of those systems are particularly gifted at reducing corruption, as push comes to shove private individuals are no more or less likely to corruption and abuse than governments. Comparing an older Americas successful capitalism built on strong work ethics and senses of honour and responsibility and solid social ethics against a decadently corrupt Stalinist regime which doesn't properly resemble communism in any tangible way (The Communist Party became the new Burguasee, and from all accounts was worse on the working people than the former) is obviously not a relevant comparison.

[calibur]

Originally Posted by Tlalynet

It depends on how much they've been taught the 'evils of communism'. There's quite a lot of American culture that can't tell the difference between Marxism, Communism as a general concept, and social good and social services. They have a rather stronger propaganda arm and they've often been taught anti-communism since grade school, not so much in the last decade but before that...

Without that hard anti-communist bent you can have a fantastic conversation about this sort of things with capitalists and capitalist-Christians. How you define 'hardcore' of course greatly affects the answer to your question.

I've found my conversations in Canada to be generally better than those in America in regards of understanding the difference between the key concepts relating to economic structures. But Canada gets a lot of American ideals via television and other medias, so...

I'm Canadian-American, my time divided almost equally now, and had the misfortune of taking schooling in the States, which was fairly equally divided between hardcore anti-communist teachers and teachers who where hellbent on teaching communism and required students to sign a manifesto at the begging of their classes.

To be honest the discussion of capitalism vs communism generally loses sight of the aim of securing prosperity by minimizing corruption and optimizing productivity, neither of those systems are particularly gifted at reducing corruption, as push comes to shove private individuals are no more or less likely to corruption and abuse than governments. Comparing an older Americas successful capitalism built on strong work ethics and senses of honour and responsibility and solid social ethics against a decadently corrupt Stalinist regime which doesn't properly resemble communism in any tangible way (The Communist Party became the new Burguasee, and from all accounts was worse on the working people than the former) is obviously not a relevant comparison.

Good on you, sir.
And lucky you, you got both sides. Instead I get everyone in real life telling me "capitalism!" and everyone on the internet telling me "communism!".
I was born in Canada, and my mother was raised there, but I've lived in the U.S. pretty much my whole life...

[west india man]

You can never hope to destroy corruption entirely because it's impossible - You can only hope to minimize it.

[Tlalynet]

Calibur,

It is better to get both sides of a discussion, but the vehemence of my early sources made them not so valuable in terms of actual comparisons. I'm actually somewhat the opposite, I am Canadian born, but most of my younger life was in the US while I now live in Canada.

Really capitalism thrives when you have a great deal of small-medium landowners\businesses keeping each other in check via competition but not out to 'destroy' each other. The U.S. was a great example of that in the 1900's. Before that they had terrible problems with companies gaining ridiculous amounts of power by forming monopolies on key goods, their productivity was good but the way they treated people was terrible. Then Anti-Trust laws and early unions came in to balance things. Now unions have somewhat lost their place and often become over-powerful and problematic in the private sector, and mega-corporations that sidestep regulation are becoming the norm in the public. As far as I'm concerned the death of small business puts capitalism on life-support. And small business in the US has been maligned and slaughtered mercilessly in the States for the last few decades, I've seen that firsthand. Larger corporations routinely make moves to wipe out small business competition and the governments are fairly horrible to them, Corps get tax breaks and lower classes get tax breaks while the small business owner is bled dry for being in the middle.

I actually tend to get both sides of the coin on the Internet, I'm surprised you get 'everyone on the internet' telling you communism.

West India Man,

Yeah, I agree, and that's what I said.

Unless of course you're a Civ 1 and 2 democracy, then you can destroy corruption completely

[calibur]

Tlalynet
Yes, you've got it. Realistically, power should be vested in the middle class, at least in America. But Capitalism vests power in the rich, and Socialism and Communism proper vest it in the poor. There's no real way yet invented to center power in the center.

[CocoIsKing28]

Originally Posted by Te_Wheki

New Zealand:

Government: Universal Suffrage
Legal: Free Speech
Labour: Emancipation
Economy: Right wing government Free Market/Left wing government Environmentalism. Basically it's a young vs old battle, the young want to perserve the land the old just want to deregulate everything so they can make as much money as possible.
Religion: Free Religion, despite our national anthem referencing God majority of the country is atheist.

Technically we are a contitutional monarchy with the Queen of England as our Head of State, but that's only because the older generation are opposed to being a republic - she has no power of our political system.

Wow! The majority of New Zealand is atheist? That's interesting, being that atheism is considered a minority in most places.

[west india man]

Capitalism doesn't thrive on ''small business'' because some of those inevitably become ''big businesses'' as they prosper and expand. Privatization always gets out of hand with corporations becoming effectively unaccountable for anything they do, while government control places responsibility to treat workers properly - If Union Carbide (The corporation responsible for the Bhopal disaster) was a political party, it would have been hounded from office and never heard from again.