Systems of government -- definitions

I decided to post this in a new topic. The thread leading to this is the Euro-communism in endgame topic. There seems to be some confusion, myself included, as to what comprises socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Here are the definitions:

Source: American Heritage Dictionary 1970 edition.

Socialism: n. A social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. 2. In Marxist-Leninist theory, the building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Nazism: n. The ideology and practice of the policy of state control of the economy, racist nationalism, and national expansion.

Fascism: n. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an idology of belligerent nationalism.

Despotism: n. A government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute power.

Communism: n. A theory or system of government in which virtually autonomous local communities are loosely bound in a federation.

According to these definitions, we do not need a Socialist government model since the Communism in the game is based upon the USSR which by these definitions was Socialist. Pure communism could not function in this game, nor was it able to function in the real world since there is no central government -- I'm remembering discussing those utopian experiments done in the late 19th and early 20th century. The closest thing we've seen to Communism is the temporary Commonweath of Independent States (I think that was the name) which was during Gorbachev's last year, and it failed miserably.

The only difference between Fascism and Despotism is the merging of state and business leadership. For the purposes of the game you should use Despotism. Nazism is an even more extreme form of Fascism.

Also the governments of Europe such as Britain are by these definitions not Socialist, but rather democracies, although for game purposes seem to have production rates more similar to those of the Republic.

Originally posted by Trinity
I decided to post this in a new topic. The thread leading to this is the Euro-communism in endgame topic. There seems to be some confusion, myself included, as to what comprises socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Here are the definitions:

Source: American Heritage Dictionary 1970 edition.

Nazism: n. The ideology and practice of the policy of state control of the economy, racist nationalism, and national expansion.

Click to expand...

Remember that the nazism is actually derived from the party name: Nationalitische-Socialistisch Deutche Arbeites Partie (sp?)
which means Nationalistic-socialist worker's party.

Some people just really need to get a grip on political theory before anything else.

Originally posted by Jolly Gnome
Remember that the nazism is actually derived from the party name: Nationalitische-Socialistisch Deutche Arbeites Partie (sp?)
which means Nationalistic-socialist worker's party.

Click to expand...

See other thread for why Nazism had nothing to do with socialism. If it even ever did, it died wih Rohm.

Originally posted by Trinity
The closest thing we've seen to Communism is the temporary Commonweath of Independent States (I think that was the name) which was during Gorbachev's last year, and it failed miserably.

Click to expand...

I'd say probably the nearest thing to communism we've ever seen was in fact primitive communism, essentially pre-history.

In recent times, I wouldn't say anything has come close.

True communism is a state of affairs where society works so harmoniously that there is no need for a state apparatus, and it withers away. It is essentially a Utopia, and one which has never been achieved, and probably never will.

Originally posted by Trinity
The only difference between Fascism and Despotism is the merging of state and business leadership.

Click to expand...

This is false.

Don't take political definitions from dictionaries. They are inevitably useless. Look for a political glossary or something.

Fascism as an ideology/system of government has many, many tennets to it, including agressive nationalism, the belief in the neccesity of national unity, etc. it is not simply a dictatorship with a few bits shoved on the ends.

Originally posted by Trinity
Also the governments of Europe such as Britain are by these definitions not Socialist, but rather democracies,

Click to expand...

Socialism doesn't neccesarily exclude democracy. We just tend to associate democracy with a mixed/free market economy.

Originally posted by Hamlet

I'd say probably the nearest thing to communism we've ever seen was in fact primitive communism, essentially pre-history. In recent times, I wouldn't say anything has come close.

True communism is a state of affairs where society works so harmoniously that there is no need for a state apparatus, and it withers away. It is essentially a Utopia, and one which has never been achieved, and probably never will.

Click to expand...

I really tend to agree here. Pure communism cannot work in a large society. We have too many differences.

Don't take political definitions from dictionaries. They are inevitably useless. Look for a political glossary or something.

Fascism as an ideology/system of government has many, many tennets to it, including agressive nationalism, the belief in the neccesity of national unity, etc. it is not simply a dictatorship with a few bits shoved on the ends.

Click to expand...

Okay I did. Let's hear it from the horses mouth. Source:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Of course he presents it in its ideal "isn't this wonderful" state. In practice, however, it was far less than this, and it degenerated such that the man ended up shot, dragged through the streets of Rome, and hung upside down on a meat hook. Its ideology makes a convenient way for a man to hold absolute power for many years. He justified expansion into North Africa, an alliance with Hitler, incursion into Russia, all at the expense of the Italian people whose needs, by definition of fascism, are secondary to that of the state.

IMHO, Fascism requires a charismatic leader, and without one it would never have risen. During the waxing phase the power of the state becomes a narcotic to the people, then later to the leader. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Since the leader embodies the state and determines what its needs are, I see in the end, no difference between this and despotism.

The reference I was making in my original post was that for purposes of game play.

Originally posted by Trinity

Fascism: n. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an idology of belligerent nationalism.

Click to expand...

What does "right" mean? In The old Soviet Union, it was associated with the Communists because they were in power and wanted to keep it that way. In Latin America, it could mean anti-communists. If it means that the government wants to keep all the power, it already used the word "dictatorship." Is there a dictatorship that is not "extreme right"? I think CIV3 was wise to avoid the confusing term "fascism" which inspires so many sloppy definitions.

I am not a big fan of "The American Heritage Dictionary" (which really is not "American" at all, but rather British, in some of its pronunciation. I think Webster's is more "American." I have both Webster's and the Oxford Desk Dictionary because I am interested in both kinds of English. However, the Oxford definition of fascism says "extreme totalitarian right-wing..." so it's no improvement.)

"In The old Soviet Union, it was associated with the Communists because they were in power and wanted to keep it that way."

Are you certain of this, because AFAIK communism is the furthest left-wing poli-socio-economic system, and whether or not the people in power want to stay in power has little relevance. If it did have relevance, then nearly all political and economic systems would probably have to labelled as such.

Originally posted by punkbass2000
"In The old Soviet Union, it was associated with the Communists because they were in power and wanted to keep it that way."

Are you certain of this, because AFAIK communism is the furthest left-wing poli-socio-economic system, and whether or not the people in power want to stay in power has little relevance. If it did have relevance, then nearly all political and economic systems would probably have to labelled as such.

Click to expand...

Look at some old newpapers around the time the "hard-line" Communists wanted to dethrone the "liberal" Gorbachev (1980s). You will see "right-wing" all over the place. The point is, "right" and "left" are relative terms, and in a sense you could apply either "left" or "right" to the hard-line Commies and be correct, depending on your point of view. And they call G. W. Bush "right-wing" too. That's why I think the dictionary definitions which say "extreme right" are sloppy. And they add to the confusion surrounding words like "fascism."

See other posts in this thread for a better idea of what "fascism" means.

workers unite!!!!!!!! The only thing more wrong than right is far right.

Originally posted by Trinity
The closest thing we've seen to Communism is the temporary Commonweath of Independent States (I think that was the name) which was during Gorbachev's last year, and it failed miserably.

Click to expand...

It could be said that the Native American tribes in midwestern North America were communist. Before you laugh, think about it. They shared all things, ownership was an unheard concept, and the closest thing to a central leader was the chief, who did not have a great deal of power.

Originally posted by sumthinelse
What does "right" mean? In The old Soviet Union, it was associated with the Communists because they were in power and wanted to keep it that way. In Latin America, it could mean anti-communists. If it means that the government wants to keep all the power, it already used the word "dictatorship." Is there a dictatorship that is not "extreme right"? I think CIV3 was wise to avoid the confusing term "fascism" which inspires so many sloppy definitions.

Click to expand...

Which was why I gave the link to Mussolini's own definition of fascism.

I agree it was good that Civ3 avoided it entirely. It would have been too complex. It would be very difficult to program into the AI. Their own system of despotism can essentially duplicate in game terms fascism if used with empire expansion. Yes, it completely glosses over the details of fascism, but I think it is as close as you can get gamewise.

And as far as Native Americans and communism, I'm not laughing. I think it is a good analogy.

I also look at extreme right and extreme left as pretty much one in the same. The way both work, it is very difficult to see a difference. In both practices, the population gets screwed.

Originally posted by sumthinelse
What does "right" mean? In The old Soviet Union, it was associated with the Communists because they were in power and wanted to keep it that way.

Click to expand...

'Right' and 'left' are objective terms.

For example, you could say that 'The right wing of the party favoured the old ways', but that wouldn't mean they were actually right wing - it would just mean they were 'right wing' in the context of that particular party.

In the case of the communists, the 'right wing' or 'conservatives' within the party were very much Stalinist, anti-westerners. however, that didn't actually mean they were non-communists - it merely meant they were part of a faction of the party that was seen to represent the old ways, was anti-reforming etc.

For example, the 'left wing' of the Republican party would perhaps be slightly more socially liberal than the party as a whole, etc.

If you just say someone is 'right wing', then it means what it is. However, if you say someone is 'right-wing in the context of X' then it takes on a whole different meaning.

Originally posted by Maple
It could be said that the Native American tribes in midwestern North America were communist. Before you laugh, think about it. They shared all things, ownership was an unheard concept, and the closest thing to a central leader was the chief, who did not have a great deal of power.

Click to expand...

Marx classified this as 'Primitive Communism' The stages in human societal evolution are, according to Marx:

Primitive Communism

Feudalism

Capitalism

Socialism

Communism

If I remember correctly.

Originally posted by Hamlet
In recent times, I wouldn't say anything has come close.

Click to expand...

Probably the closest to communism was Yugoslavia.

Regards

Originally posted by Trinity
I decided to post this in a new topic. The thread leading to this is the Euro-communism in endgame topic. There seems to be some confusion, myself included, as to what comprises socialism, fascism, Nazism, and communism. Here are the definitions:

Source: American Heritage Dictionary 1970 edition.

Click to expand...

Let's see if I can provide some alternative definitions ...

Socialism: key aspects of production are controlled by the state, guarding the welfare of all citizens

Nazism: glorification of the 'perfect worker'

Fascism: just another military junta

Communism: a government chosen by the bureaucrats from the bureaucrats

Originally posted by Hamlet


'Right' and 'left' are objective terms.

If you just say someone is 'right wing', then it means what it is. However, if you say someone is 'right-wing in the context of X' then it takes on a whole different meaning.

Click to expand...

No, people abuse the terms "right" and "left" all the time, and consequently they cause a lot of confusion. If you wrote "Bozo is right-wing" without explaining what you meant on a term paper and I were your grader you would lose some points. There is always a context, whether it is written, or part of the common knowledge or beliefs of the audience. The dictionary gets away with sloppy definitions, but someone should point out that the emperor has no clothes.

But I think you really write better than that, since I can see you write posts very well, overall.

'Right' and 'left' are objective terms.

Click to expand...

'Right' and 'left' are relative terms. A party that passes as left wing in the US of A (i.e. the Democrats) would be considered quite right wing in most of Europe.

Also, I can have fairly right wing view with respect to say economics, but be fairly left-wing when it comes to questions of policing and jurisdiction. Where do I stand?

As to the socialism vs democracy question, the former is a socio-economic model, whereas the latter is a political system. Hence they don't contradict each other. To this extend, the Social Engineering model in SMAC is much more realistic than the Government model in Civ I-III.

If I may refer to the implementation of communism in civ3 - what do you guys think of the effects it has.

I think firstly that it should have the additional production that Democracy has. I don't know if the corruption is reduced as well or if it's just spread around. I would have thought that corruption would be lowered in communism. Remember that it's developed after democracy is so should therefore be at least comparable, if not better.

Interested to hear your responses.

Remember that it's developed after democracy is so should therefore be at least comparable, if not better.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure productivity in (so-called) communist eastern Europe was particularly high, or anywhere near as high as in the west. This might be mainly due to lack of ressources, in turn due to lack of economic momentum. Also corruption in communist eastern Europe wasn't really low because the governments were corrupt. It was just more organised.

The idea in Civ is that capitalist-democratic countries have high economic, scientific and industrial output at the cost of controllability (war weariness). Communism solves the problem of war weariness, but at the cost of worse economy and production, so both systems are quite balanced (and you will often find the AI using communism for prolonged wars). The even but not too low waste/corruption you get in Civ reflects the high costs for the governmental control of everything (the secret service, for example).

Just because the idea is more recent doesn't mean it's better. Also the game is American, so Communism couldn't possibly be the best form of government.

"Left vs Right" has been skewed by context. The "right" wants the government to put things back to the way they were, while the "left" wants the government to take an active role in the progress of society. In the US, the republican party tends to be more "right wing" (religion, free trade, small government) while the democratic party tends to be more "left wing" (welfare, affirmative action, big government), but individuals will have different views on different issues, and both parties are pretty moderate all things considered. Fascism is extreme right because, when times were tough, the goal of the government was to bring back the "good old days" by whatever means necessary. Communism is extreme left because, when times were tough, the goal of the government was to force society to progress to a more equitable and utopian state by whatever means necessary. What I'm trying to say is that the "left vs. right" describes the philosophy that inspired the governments, not how the governments were eventually run.

Originally posted by Ordep
Fascism is extreme right because, when times were tough, the goal of the government was to bring back the "good old days" by whatever means necessary. Communism is extreme left because, when times were tough, the goal of the government was to force society to progress to a more equitable and utopian state by whatever means necessary. What I'm trying to say is that the "left vs. right" describes the philosophy that inspired the governments, not how the governments were eventually run.

Click to expand...

I think the key phrase here is "by whatever means necessary." In both systems, the end justifies the means. Mussolini wanted to bring back the glory days of Rome. Stalin wanted to force progession to the "more equitable and utopian state". What is missing in both cases is the phrase as perceived by the ruler, or by the ruling class or oligarchy without regard to the will of the people.

Fascism is extreme right because, when times were tough, the goal of the government was to bring back the "good old days" by whatever means necessary.

Click to expand...

So where does Hitler fit in? His policies where certainly about utopian views (terrible ones) rather than restoring some good old times. In the good old days Germany was certainly not in charge of the whole world, but that was what Hitler wanted to achieve. So he was left wing?

Both right and left want to play an active role in the progress of society. Gay marriages or abortion are good examples where the right wants more control than the left (I'm sure that is also true in the case Republicans vs Democrats).

As a side note, America's idea of free trade has nothing to do with free trade. America (the US of) is one of the most protectionist countries in the world.