Idea about civic synergies

[CivEikka]

I was thinking about synergy between civics, and here are my thoughts:
First there is the normal civic bonuses, then combination bonus, also there is also civic combos which give only negative bonus (so you should avoid them!)
Also I would like to have comments, (and compliments) about this subject.
I was thinking about this would make a modcomp.

PS: My english is not so good, so please forgive me.
Goverment civics that gain bonuses/negative bonuses from certain civics

Chiefdom:
+25% GG emergence inside cultural borders
+25% maintenance costs from distance to palace
+100% maintenance costs from number of cities
+100% xp gained from combat in own borders
Increases local and national rebelliousness
-20% warweariness
+10% food in capital.

Should get bonus from Divine Cult (explained later) and should get negative bonus from Slavery (explained later).

Despotism
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
+20% military unit production
Increases local and national rebelliousness
-25% war weariness
25% defense in all cities
+25% production in capital
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison

Should get bonus from divine cult, Conscription, Survival, Intolerant, Junta.
Should get negative bonuses from Proletariat, Voluunteer Army, Liberal, Senate, Marxist. (explained later)

Monarchy
Unlimited Noble
+25% GG emergence
New units +1xp
Increases local and national rebelliousness
no unhappiness in capital city
extra unhappiness per 15% tax rate
+1 from barracks, +1 from garrison
50% faster castle construction.

Should get bonuses from: Nobility, vassalage (the power civic), Bourgeois, Feudal, vassalage (military civic).
Should get negative bonuses from Church (welfare civic), state church, intolerant, patrician, Parliament. (explained later)

Republic
Causes your civlization to have fixed borders
+25% GG emergence
+25% maintenance costs from distance to palace
Decreases local and national rebelliousness
+25% gold and culture in capital
+3 unhappiness in 6 largest cities.

Should gain bonus from patrician, senate, charity, proletariat, secular, public works, volunteer army. Should gain negative bonuses from junta, caste, slavery, feudal, intolerant. (explained later)

Federal:
causes your civilization to have fixed borders,
-50% maintenance costs from distance to palace and from number of cities
+25% maintenance costs from corporations
Decreases local and national rebelliousness
+50% war weariness
+1 happiness in all cities
-10% production in all cities
+25% gold and espionge in all cities
+2 unhappiness from slavemarket

Should gain bonus from senate, charity, proletariat, secular, public works, volunteer army. Should gain negative bonuses from junta, caste, slavery, feudal, intolerant, patrician. (explained later)

Democracy
Causes your civilization to have fixed borders
+25% GP birthrate
+25% exp gained from combat in own borders
Decreases local and national rebelliousness
+50% war
+10% gold, culture, espionge in all cities
+2 unhappiness in 6 largest cities
+1 support per military unit

Should gain bonuses from: Parliament, President, Liberal, Marxist, Free Market, Secular, Subsidized, Volunteer army, Pacifism.
Should gain negative bonuses from Nobility, Caste, Bourgeois, Feudal, Slavery, State church, Divine Cult, Intolerant, Conscription.

Fascist
Causes your civilization to have fixed borders
Unlimited spy
New units receive +2xp
+1 per military unit stationed in a city
Decreases national rebelliousness
-50% war
+15% war
-15% gold, -50% culture in all cities
+1 espionge points per specialist
+1 happiness per intelligence agency, security bureau

Should gain bonuses from: Junta, Nationalist, Proletariat, Planned, Corporatist, Atheist, Subsidized, Socialized, M.A.D.
Should gain negative bonuses from: Liberal, Proletariat, Bourgeois, Free Church, Church, Pacifism, Senate.

Combinations for Chiefdom:
First there is the normal combination of civics, then there is my suggestion.

Chiefdom + Divine Cult =
+25% GG emergence inside cultural borders
+25% maintenance costs from distance to palace
+100% maintenance costs from number of cities
+100% xp gained from combat in own borders
Increases local*2 (Divine Cult increases local and decreases national rebelliousness.)
-45% war weariness (-25% from divine cult)
+10% food in capital.
-50% GP birthrate
+6 free military units
State religion with holy city decreases rebelliousness and state religion without holy city increases rebelliousness.
+1 happiness from state religion.
-25% gold and culture in all cities
+50% in capital
+1 happy from palace, forbidden palace, ceremonial altar, pyramids, taj mahal, mauseoleum of maussollos. +2 happy from monument and pyramid of the magician.

My suggestion:
+50% GG emergence inside cultural borders (upgrade 25%)
+25% maintenance costs from distance to palace (no change)
+75% maintenance costs from number of cities (upgrade -25%)
+100% xp gained from combat in own borders (no change)
Increases local rebelliousness *2 (no change)
-50% war weariness (5% upgrade)
+10% food in capital (no change)
-70% GP birthrate (20% downgrade)
+7 free military units (1 extra free military unit)
State religion with holy city decreases rebelliousness, while state religion without holy city should increase more rebelliousness than before. (More rebelliousness without holy city).
+1 Happiness from state religion (no change)
-20% gold and -30% culture in all cities. (+ 5% gold per cities, -5% culture in all cities)
+1 happy from palace, forbidden palace, ceremonial altar, pyramids, taj mahal, mauseoleum of maussollos. +2 happy from monument and pyramid of the magician. (no change)

Divine cult should give more military power and more abilities to expand the empire, since the people think their leader is god. Also this would result as fewer great people, (no one should be greater than the son of god)

Chiefdom + Slavery

+25% GG emergence inside cultural borders
+25% maintenance costs from distance to palace
+85% maintenance costs from number of cities (-15% from slavery)
+100% xp gained from combat in own borders
Increases local and national rebelliousness *2 (Slavery also increases both local and national rebelliousness)
-20% war weariness
+10% food in capital.
+1 unhealthiness in all cities
workers build improvents 50% faster
happiness boost for civs without slavery
cities require +50% food to grow
+1 unhappiness in all cities
10% commerce and production in all cities.
+1food from farm, plantation.
+1 hammer from mine, shaft mine, modern mine, workshop, lumbermill, quarry.
+1 commerce from farm, plantation, winery, silk farm, olive orchard
+100% production of worker
can build slave market and national auction.

My suggestion:
+25% GG emergence inside cultural borders (no change)
+40% maintenance costs from distance to palace (+15% downgrade)
+95% maintenance costs from number of cities (+10% downgrade)
+100% xp gained from combat in own borders (no change)
Increases local and national rebelliousness *2,5 (more rebelliousness)
-20% war weariness (no change)
+10% food in capital, + 10% production in capital (+10% production)
+1 unhealthiness in all cities (no change)
workers build improvents 50% faster (no change)
happiness boost for civs without slavery (no change)
cities require +50% food to grow (no change)
+1 unhappiness in capital, +2 unhappiness in all other cities (+2 unhappiness in all other cities)
10% commerce and production in all cities. (no change)
+1food from farm, plantation. (no change)
+1 hammer from mine, shaft mine, modern mine, workshop, lumbermill, quarry. (no change)
+1 commerce from farm, plantation, winery, silk farm, olive orchard (no change)
+100% production of worker (no change)
can build slave market and national auction. (no change)
lower military unit support costs (no change)

Slavery should disallow the small tribe to grow to bigger tribe, first there is the +50% food needed to grow, then there is the higher maintenance costs. So you should use slavery only when in despotism, or monarchy.

Combinations for Despotism
Despotism + Divine cult

Unlimited priest
-50% GP birth rate
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
Lower Military unit support costs
+20% military unit production
Increases local rebelliousness*2 (Divine cult decreases national rebelliousness)
-50% war weariness (extra -25% from divine cult)
25% defense in all cities
State religion with holy city decreases rebelliousness, state religion without holy city increases.
+25% production in capital
+1 from state religion
-20% science, -70% culture -25% gold in All Cities (-25% culture and gold from divinecult)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison
+50% gold in capital
+1 happy from palace, forbidden palace, ceremonial altar, pyramids, Taj Mahal, Mausoleum of Mausollos
+2 happy from Monument, pyramid of magician.

My suggestion

-60% GP birth rate (10% downgrade)
+40% Maintenance costs from distance to palace (10% upgrade)
Lower Military unit support costs (no change)
+30% military unit production (10% upgrade)
Increases local rebelliousness*2 (Divine cult decreases national rebelliousness) (no change)
-60% war weariness (10% upgrade)
20% defense in all cities (5% downgrade)
State religion with holy city decreases rebelliousness, state religion without holy city increases. (no change)
+25% production in capital, 5% production in other cities (5% upgrade)
+1 from state religion (no change)
-25% science, -65% culture -20% gold in All Cities (-5% science, +5% culture, +5% gold)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison, 25% faster construction of divine monument (divine monument)
+50% gold in capital (no change)
+1 happy from palace, forbidden palace, ceremonial altar, pyramids, Taj Mahal, Mausoleum of Mausollos (no change)
+2 happy from Monument, pyramid of magician. (no change)

I think that the godlike despot would gain somewhat good bonuses to warring and expanding, though cities gain minor gold, culture bonuses, they gain science disadvantages and fewer GPP points. (This is like there is no-one greater than the god-like despot)


Despotism + Conscription

+15% maintenance costs from number of cities
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
Lower military support costs
+20% military unit production
military units produced with food
Increases local and (national rebelliousness *2 due the face conscription increases it also)
can draft 7 units per turn
+-0% war weariness (conscription adds 25% war weariness)
25% defense in all cities
+25% production in capital
+1 unhappiness in 6 largest cities
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities
can build draft office
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison

My suggestion
+10% maintenance costs from number of cities (5% upgrade)
+50% maintenance costs from distance to palace (no change)
Lower military support costs (no change)
+25% military units production (+5% upgrade)
Military units produced with food (no change)
Increases local and (national rebelliousness *2) (no change)
can draft 8 units per turn (can draft 1 more)
+10% war weariness (10% downgrade)
25% defense in all cities (no change)
+25% production in capital (no change)
+1 unhappiness in 6 largest cities (no change)
-25% science, -40% culture in All Cities (5% downgrade in science, 5% upgrade to culture)
can build draft office (no change)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison, draft office, archery range, stables. (50% faster construction of draft office, archery range, stables)

The war weariness is 10% due the fact there are people who are forced into army, and don't want to fight war. Building construction bonus is the main thing.

Despotism + Survival

+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
+30% military unit production (survival adds 10%)
Increases local and (national rebelliousness)*2 (survival increases also)
-25% war weariness
25% defense in all cities
+25% production in capital
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison
+1 happiness from ceremonial altar, stonehenge, the oracle
+1 health from healers hut

My suggestion
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace (no change)
+35% military unit production (5% extra)
Increases local and (national rebelliousness)*2 (no change)
-30% war weariness (5% extra)
30% defense in all cities (5% extra)
+25% production in capital (no change)
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities (no change)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison, 25% faster construction of walls (25% faster construction of walls)
+1 happiness from ceremonial altar, stonehenge, the oracle (no change)
+1 health from healers hut (no change)

Survival.. yes, it is kinda militaristic, but it also should help to survive (that's why the defensive bonus)

Despotism + Intolerant

+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
+1 unhappiness in all cities
+40% military unit production (+20% from intolerant)
Lower military unit support costs
Increases local and national rebelliousness
Inquisitor Units may purge non state religion from cities where state religion is present
State religion with holy city decreases rebelliousness
State religion without holy city increases rebelliousness
-65% war weariness (-40% from intolerant)
25% defense in all cities
+3 happiness per state religion
+2xp in cities with state religion
no non-state religion spread
+25% production in capital
-70% science, -45% culture in All Cities (-50% science from intolerant)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison
+3 happiness from King Richard's crusade

My suggestion
+40% Maintenance costs from distance to palace (10% upgrade)
+2 unhealthiness in all cities (+1 unhealthiness)
+50% military unit production in cities with state religion (+10% upgrade, only cities with state religion)
Lower military unit support costs (no change)
Increases local and national rebelliousness (no change)
Inquisitor Units may purge non state religion from cities where state religion is present (no change)
State religion with holy city decreases rebelliousness (no change)
State religion without holy city increases rebelliousness (no change)
-70% war weariness (-5% upgrade)
30% defense in all cities (5% upgrade)
+3 happiness per state religion (no change)
+2xp in cities with state religion Religion's special promotion in cities with state religion
no non-state religion spread (no change)
+25% production in capital (no change)
-80% science, -50% culture in All Cities (-10% science downgrade, -5% culture downgrade)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison, religion buildings (religion building construction bonus)
+3 happiness from King Richard's crusade (no change)

Despotism + Junta
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
+40% military unit production (Junta adds 20%)
Increases local and national rebelliousness*2 (Junta increases both local and national rebelliousness)
-25% war weariness
25% defense in all cities
+25% production in capital
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison
Lower military support costs
+1 happiness from walls, high walls, barracks

My suggestion
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace (no change)
+50% military unit production (+10% extra)
Increases local and national rebelliousness*2 (no change)
-30% war weariness (-5% extra)
25% defense in all cities (no change)
+25% production in capital (no change)
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities (no change)
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison (no change)
Lower military support costs (no change)
+1 happiness from walls, high walls, +2happiness from barracks (+1 happiness from barracks)

Nothing much to say, Junta is the beginning civic, little synergies needed.

Despotism + Proletariat
+50% Maintenance costs from distance to palace
+25% maintenance costs from corporations
+20% military unit production
+1 healthiness in all cities
Increases national rebelliousness *2 (Proletariar decreases local, andds national)
-25% war weariness
25% defense in all cities
+25% production in capital
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities
50% faster construction of barracks, garrison
+1 hammer from lumbermill
+2 commerce from farm, workshop, pasture
+1 happiness from guild hall, school, colosseum, agora
+2 happiness from labor union
+2 unhappiness from central bank
50% faster construction of granary, fisherman's hut, Butchery, Bakery, Artesian Well.

My suggestion
+55% maintenance costs from distance to palace (5% downgrade)
+25% maintenance costs from corporations (no change)
+10% military unit production (10% downgrade)
+1 healthiness in all cities (no change)
Increases national rebelliousness *2, Increases local rebelliousness (rebelliousness)
-20% war weariness (5% downgrade)
25% defense in all cities (no change)
+25% production in capital (no change)
-20% science, -45% culture in All Cities (no change)
45% faster construction of barracks, garrison (5% downgrade)
+1 hammer from lumbermill (no change)
+2 commerce from farm, workshop, pasture (no change)
+1 happiness from guild hall, school, colosseum, agora (no change)
+2 happiness from labor union (no change)
+2 unhappiness from central bank (no change)
40% faster construction of granary, fisherman's hut, Butchery, Bakery, Artesian Well. (10% downgrade)



Should get negative bonuses from , Voluunteer Army, Liberal, Senate, Marxist. (explained later)
to be continued, coz I need to do school stuff also, so I think I will add more of this stuff tomorrow, if the idea is accepted

 

[soup567]

Why would Fascist gain a bonus from socialized? Fascism is the sworn enemy to socialism/communism. Also I don't think atheist should give bonuses to it either. Since Mussolini let the Vatican be independent he had the Pope's at that time support. Plus all fascist countries had many religious people living in them.

 

[NBAfan]

Why would Fascist gain a bonus from socialized? Fascism is the sworn enemy to socialism/communism. Also I don't think atheist should give bonuses to it either. Since Mussolini let the Vatican be independent he had the Pope's at that time support. Plus all fascist countries had many religious people living in them.

Communist countries had many religious people living in them too.

 

[soup567]

Communist countries had many religious people living in them too.

True, but Marx thought that religion was the opium for the masses which was why communist countries have been atheist (probably one of the few things they actually did, that Marx said communist countries should do...). Mussolini, if anything was probably a catholic since he was Italian. Correct me if I wrong, but I don't recall fascist countries suppressing religions or at least their state religion.

 

[NBAfan]

True, but Marx thought that religion was the opium for the masses which was why communist countries have been atheist (probably one of the few things they actually did, that Marx said communist countries should do...). Mussolini, if anything was probably a catholic since he was Italian. Correct me if I wrong, but I don't recall fascist countries suppressing religions or at least their state religion.

:cough:Nazi Germany:cough:
Anyway you reasoning is right, it would make more sense for Fascist to go with secular.

 

[soup567]

:cough:Nazi Germany:cough:
Anyway you reasoning is right, it would make more sense for Fascist to go with secular.

Yeah your right, secular makes more sense.

 

[CivEikka]

Why would Fascist gain a bonus from socialized? Fascism is the sworn enemy to socialism/communism..

Afforess deleted communism as a civic. Fasicst + socialized would represent communism. (Red fascism) Atheist goes under name of communism.

So Fascist + Atheism + socialized would make a communist state. (As Afforess said communism has been jus a fascism in disguise)

Though secular would be better.

 

[soup567]

Afforess deleted communism as a civic. Fasicst + socialized would represent communism. (Red fascism) Atheist goes under name of communism.

So Fascist + Atheism + socialized would make a communist state. (As Afforess said communism has been jus a fascism in disguise)

Though secular would be better.

That does make sense I guess.

 

[NBAfan]

Afforess deleted communism as a civic. Fasicst + socialized would represent communism. (Red fascism) Atheist goes under name of communism.

So Fascist + Atheism + socialized would make a communist state. (As Afforess said communism has been jus a fascism in disguise)

Though secular would be better.

Now if it is a communist state, it should be Atheist.

 

[DRJ]

I don't agree.

Nationalsozialismus is not the same like Socialism. They did borrow parts of the Sozialismus by having some talking points in common ("destroy big banks" etc.), to get the masses on their side (to have the critical mass to gain power) but nevertheless, they didn't walk this talk - as later, big business had large profits in the build-up of the war (also, national socialism in its way to power was financed by grandfather bush and other influential rich people from america and germany, some say to have a war coming to make large profits!).

Also, socialism has got an other "idea of man" than facism. It doesn't look at color or other differences but is grounded by the human rights and economical theory rather than propagating pseudo-scientific, racist social-darwinism, being a vehicle for hatred and thus war.

A socialist theorist would argue that if there is prove for the clustering of capital in (some) jewish hands (as most of jews are poor, though - like members of all religions as well!!!) would not mean jews as a "race" are bad - but their struggle in history, the mechanisms of slavery and feudalism, early capitalism ploughed them a right field for this clustering to happen.
In socialist theory each man is judged by his deeds (speculation, exploitation, usury), not some kind of suspicious "clan liability".

A facist would argue that not historic processes are the reason but the different caracteristics of races etc. what IMHO is total bullsh.it, as history proves there where exploits in every society that grew larger than a group of people that could oversee each other, living closely together.

What Facist countries and so called "communist" ones did have in common, though, was a huge accessory of functionaries that, driven by the the struggle to power boosted the most pathological and ruthless ones to make their marks to be promoted and eventually gain power.

So, as we see it's not the ideology that corrupts socialism but bureaucracy!!!
A socialist, in general, is not a "red painted facist". Thats the propaganda of capitalists to discredit the basic idea of socialism as it tries to really enable the human rights instead of only talking of them like in manchester-capitalistic societies, where exploitation is common and the living standards of the poor are often below every aspect of human dignity.

In fact, socialist theory, as well as history shows us that capitalism usually inherits facist elements (plays groups off against each other!), so as for the game CIV I think "facism" goes well quite well together with "bourgois".


Interesting link related to the topic: how fascism is related to capitalism

 

[Killtech]

well... the civics are very imprecise right now so don't take make the discussion too serious.

as for the "left"-civics that are associated with communism you can basically understand it the followning:
1) economy: socialism. includes some ideology that leads to same payment for everyone - very simplified depicted. and state property with compulsory acquisition.
2) social: communism. defines social structure by the ideology. only one social class; everyone equal and so on... never achieved.
3) government (theory): council republic (soviet republic). form of direct democracy. historically it existed for a very very short period of time... has nothing to do with soviet union government except the name.
4) government (history): fascism e.g. dictatorship with stalinism at the peak. very authoritarian oppression. nothing more.

the term fascism describes primarily a very authoritarian government and is used mostly in this context. it is often used synonymous with totalitarianism but historically rather applied to right oriented governments as there is the word communism that is inaccurately used for all left oriented totalitarian states. as for the government there is very little difference there (only economy differs). thus you can call communist states "fascism in disguise" but "dictatorship" would fit here better as it does not differ between left and right. furthermore fascism itself is not related with racism or social darwinism. that were additions by the nazis. do not set fasicsm equal to nationalsocialism! nationalsocialism is fascistic but not every fascist is a nazi!

and about fascism and nazi: the national-socialists had indeed many socialist ideals. though this wing was liquidated by hitler later on (see Night of the Long Knifes). after that the nationalism took completely over and the politics became very right e.g. capitalist.
and as for the original fascism of mussulini in italy: in the beginning it was something in between but neither true capitalism nor socialism. but became rather right oriented in the end.

composition of fascism (totalitarianism, dictatorship) and socialism can be called stalinism - though this implies a very radical socialism...

 

[DRJ]

1) economy: socialism. includes some ideology that leads to same payment for everyone - very simplified depicted. and state property with compulsory acquisition.

Not so true: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (Marx,1875)

That doesn't mean everyone has the same pay, it means everyone has a chance to be paid fair. A hard working man will still get more than someone who works half his time. But not 500 times more (like now with bankers) or 500000XXXXXX times more (as a member of the financial elite that pays itself by interest (knock, knock, Rocke~schildt) on money they print themselves [as being owners of parts of the FED...])

If a democratic socialism is established, only then can a "communist" state be achieved, where people share out of the insight that if they help others, they help themselves.

Later, the opinion evolved that it would not work to overcome the capitalists towards a real democratic socialism as they will always corrupt society in means of exploit and putting them off intellectually (I mean they really like their "paychecks" of nearly endless wealth...)

2) social: communism. defines social structure by the ideology. only one social class; everyone equal and so on... never achieved.

There are some still stone-age tribes that have non-hirachical tendencies and a "communist" share of goods.- In small, psychological healthy communes communism is usually no problem, often, it's capitalistic society that gives us headaches, for example exploitation causes stress at the job and often this anger causes fights with loved ones at home as the bad vibes of inequity at the end do rush through every, even the smallest cell of society. Maxim Gorky's book "Mother" describes this process very intense. http://www.amazon.com/o/asin/0806508906/mockerybird/ref=nosim

An interesting try to combine the tribes communism into nowadays society is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia I really enjoyed that novel. Gives hope, not fear and is as actual as never before.

3) government (theory): council republic (soviet republic). form of direct democracy. historically it existed for a very very short period of time... has nothing to do with soviet union government except the name.
4) government (history): fascism e.g. dictatorship with stalinism at the peak. very authoritarian oppression. nothing more.

I just don't want the idea of socialism be bound to fascism as a true socialist or certain anarchists (at the base, not the corrupted elites) doesn't act like a fascist, not authoritarian but cooperative. He is no red painted fascist. That the socialist governments are easily corrupted can also be explained by the fact that the rest of the world is largely capitalistic and so the economic system has to compete with that other system causing lost efficiency distortions (arms race, trade war) and thus making the elites much more vulnerable to subtle briberies and so on.

Regarding the game it could mean that having a socialist economy without having trade relations to a capitalistic economy wouldn't have to suffer some instability and -
Could be interesting if one continent is socialistic and one is capitalistic and as long as they haven't met, I think the socialistic one is more healthy but maybe less innovative, as the need for new products to consume isn't given - consumption isn't increased to compensate for the less love that is out there because of the distortions caused of exploitation.



like in all matters, here, too applies that "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Real Communism is a stable, because decentralized power-from-the-roots-system, as, in theory every individual has an interest in fair rules for all. Not so in capitalism. Regulation is the basis for a fair game, only that the game in unregulated corporate capitalism is never fair as the ones with more will always dominate the ones with less and manipulate the rules in their favor. So, if you want a fair society, you want regulation and equality (see taxing of rich people after new deal....80/90%! and society wasn't imploding)

 

[Killtech]

hmm... you do get what socialism means? it abolishes private property (possession of land, buildings and of course any private businesses) and turns it into state property. however you argue people just won't give that up freely which is why socialism requires... not so nice methods to achieve its goal. as such force against ones own people is more or less only possible in very authoritarian rule thus this is the reason why socialism came always hand in hand with totalitarianism which you can really call fascist like.

and that reason for socialist being associated to totalitarianism is pretty simple: it is a credit to all states that used the term communism and socialism to describe themselves. due to the lack of examples in history where socialism and communism didn't come with this these words have a... dark meaning.

as for the idea of cooperation... well it is a nice thought indeed. but did you realize that we live in a very strange world where 2 people work less efficient together then when they work against each other? seems like without pressure most humans are not willing to do much. that is the reason why we are stuck with the most primitive economic system there is... competition. just the very same concept as evolution in the jungle with the survival of the fittest (since humans are the result of this process you can't say it doesn't work at least). if people would be able to work cooperative better then that capitalism would break apart in very short time because of syndicates forming everywhere and conspiracies (which require a high level of cooperation). but it does not. so we are stuck with that ... - you know what i want to write but the forums won't allow me.

as for the idea of a soviet republic as an alternative to representative democracy i think it is worth discussion. it had never a chance in history to show if it works. as long as it is not connected to a socialistic economy i really am open minded to this.

and as for the idea of a communist society i do not think it's bad. however i suppose it will take a very highly educated society to make is work in reality... but this is a kind of pipe dream right now.

 

[DRJ]

Private Property will still not be abolished in a democratic socialist society, as one citizen might like this book and another citizen that one, so they are spending their money for different daily goods (clothes, food, furniture etc.) but the big production facilities will be socialized, meaning that those are not private property, but national property. New working standards can be adopted and new applied economics can get rid of the bad organisational problem the USSR had (which was caused by the fact they spent too much on military!) - if there would not be a systematical competition.

About competition: on the first look you may be right but competition is usually only working if there is a invisible third party initiating and disposing the struggle, profiting all the way (divide et empera principle). As coorperation eliminates the need to do so because all participants can evolve freely. Look at the civ mod- and test community: we mainly do it by sharing ideas and efforts rather than competing with each other. And what has been achieved so far is the best game so far!

So: give humans an interesting thing, security of resources to investigate, describe and enhance it, give it some time and the passion will truely be there. I think what is practiced in the modding community is active socialism. Imagine a world like that. What if, for example the farmer in asia doesn't compete with the one in america but both of them share if the other is in need. That's actually more efficient as if one would stay poor because the other kills him off the market (because pseudo-regulation-like subventions to american/european farmers flood their surpluses all over the african/asian markets, thus unemploying the farmers there as they can't compete with the prices) and most of the population there is remaining poor.
They had no chance for real competition and even if they had, cooperation would better for working conditions and equality. Politicians and mass-media-brainwashed people in germany often say they are so proud to be "Exportweltmeister", working hard and having success etc. But we should see that if you have a trading bilance that sells more than buys (something america doesn't know...as they buy stuff for years by printed money) actually makes most other countries poorer as their deficites often aren't backed by a decades-long hotrunning FED-printing mandrake-mechanism-machine. So, what is it good for germany to have export surpluses? On the long run it has to be even - only then all profit: germany and it's trading partners (because germany loses the trading partners on the long term as they can't buy forever on credit). Would you consider the try to achieve even trading bilances socialistic? I would. Something that is win-win for all should be realized. If only there weren't some players in the game that don't want to give the power of production facilities out of their hand because they can steer societies by that... (granting them big profits over long times).

Democratic socialism is, by the way not against small entrepreneurs - no, as for example the expert knowledge of craftsmen often is better and more passionate if they are free, when and where to work etc. As long as reasonable minimum wages and reasonable upper standards for the size of enterprises are established - and the people are able to actually pay the good quality services, democratic socialism has absolutely no problem with this kind of rootsy business, even conveys it. After all competition is still there but on a fair level: that of quality and not that of exploitation (socialistic competition for quality means is, in fact, cooperation!). I don't think its a capitalistic kind of competition: that one would be to cut quality and wages for undermining the market and so on (because you have the media powers to propagate this and you get backed up by bribed politicians... we have seen this the last 30 years): big money regulated market for their purposes because they could: syndicates are the output of capitalistic clustering of wealth. (Not so) funny thing is: after they were on the top they realised the benefits of socialism: socialism for the rich, leaving the rest out. That has to change.

 

[Killtech]

Private Property will still not be abolished in a democratic socialist society, as one citizen might like this book and another citizen that one, so they are spending their money for different daily goods (clothes, food, furniture etc.) but the big production facilities will be socialized, meaning that those are not private property, but national property. New working standards can be adopted and new applied economics can get rid of the bad organisational problem the USSR had (which was caused by the fact they spent too much on military!) - if there would not be a systematical competition.

you do not get what that means in reality, don't you? socializing anything will need brute force as most of the people won't support it. neither did i if you'd plan to take over my family business which my family worked hard for. violence just isn't a solution.

About competition: on the first look you may be right but competition is usually only working if there is a invisible third party initiating and disposing the struggle, profiting all the way (divide et empera principle). As coorperation eliminates the need to do so because all participants can evolve freely. Look at the civ mod- and test community: we mainly do it by sharing ideas and efforts rather than competing with each other. And what has been achieved so far is the best game so far!

right. many people are willing to invest much effort in their hobbies. but how many people can you find who make waste disposal their hobby? you need some motivation to do that. what could anyone possibly gain from doing this in a socialist society? why should he do his work well? why not doing something less unpleasant?

So: give humans an interesting thing, security of resources to investigate, describe and enhance it, give it some time and the passion will truely be there. I think what is practiced in the modding community is active socialism. Imagine a world like that. What if, for example the farmer in asia doesn't compete with the one in america but both of them share if the other is in need.

that's the concept of insurance and it works in capitalism as well. however insurance is rather a social concept then an economic so streamlining it along economic aspects breaks the purpose. it's indeed better to give that to communal or state hands...

That's actually more efficient as if one would stay poor because the other kills him off the market (because pseudo-regulation-like subventions to american/european farmers flood their surpluses all over the african/asian markets, thus unemploying the farmers there as they can't compete with the prices) and most of the population there is remaining poor.
They had no chance for real competition and even if they had, cooperation would better for working conditions and equality.

the problem here is that europe heavily subsidies farming which is a contrary concept to capitalism ideology (it's somewhat socialist) which is actually very bad. truth is that we have a food over production in europe and have too many farmers. no politic is willing to go agianst the farmers as it will mean quite some unrest. normally competition would deal with the problem naturally but the subside prevents that.

Politicians and mass-media-brainwashed people in germany often say they are so proud to be "Exportweltmeister", working hard and having success etc. But we should see that if you have a trading bilance that sells more than buys (something america doesn't know...as they buy stuff for years by printed money) actually makes most other countries poorer as their deficites often aren't backed by a decades-long hotrunning FED-printing mandrake-mechanism-machine.

true. any profit we make is made on the backs of others.

So, what is it good for germany to have export surpluses? On the long run it has to be even - only then all profit: germany and it's trading partners (because germany loses the trading partners on the long term as they can't buy forever on credit). Would you consider the try to achieve even trading bilances socialistic? I would. Something that is win-win for all should be realized. If only there weren't some players in the game that don't want to give the power of production facilities out of their hand because they can steer societies by that... (granting them big profits over long times).

hmm... "don't want to give the power of production facilities out of their hand because they can steer societies by that". do you really believe that? the society cannot be steered. only already existing tendencies exploited - which is what the markets, politics and fanatics do. any attempts to control the society have epically failed.

Democratic socialism is, by the way not against small entrepreneurs - no, as for example the expert knowledge of craftsmen often is better and more passionate if they are free, when and where to work etc. As long as reasonable minimum wages and reasonable upper standards for the size of enterprises are established - and the people are able to actually pay the good quality services, democratic socialism has absolutely no problem with this kind of rootsy business, even conveys it. After all competition is still there but on a fair level: that of quality and not that of exploitation (socialistic competition for quality means is, in fact, cooperation!). I don't think its a capitalistic kind of competition: that one would be to cut quality and wages for undermining the market and so on (because you have the media powers to propagate this and you get backed up by bribed politicians... we have seen this the last 30 years): big money regulated market for their purposes because they could: syndicates are the output of capitalistic clustering of wealth. (Not so) funny thing is: after they were on the top they realised the benefits of socialism: socialism for the rich, leaving the rest out. That has to change.

we can agree on social democracy but not 'democratic' socialism. minimal wages? sure! regulated market? to some extend yes, however companies should remain in private property. if a state thinks he can do better then these he is free to try i say.

 

[Talin2009]

Sigh, comparing stalinism with fascism ... sigh. (Reminding myself to not go into another holywar about gulag and 800 millions victims shot personally by Stalin )

A few notes about capitalistic economy, besides obvious things about interest rate and printed money.

1. Most technology breakthoughs of XX century were made by one of three: 1) USSR 2) Nazi Germany 3) DARPA projects financed by US *government*. Capitalist society as of now isn't about progress, it's about making profit, sometimes it goes to ugly forms when profit made on financial markets heavily outweighs profit made by actually making new things. This is disproportional and should be brought back into order of course. But this said the main idea of liberal capitalism remains - to make profits there must be money to be spent and for economy to grow this cycle should constantly grow as well. Even if we speak about normal shape of modern capitalism, think - do we really need thousands of new models of mobile phones each year or dozens (maybe even hundreds) basically same models of 5-door cars which you could differ from one another only by logo? I mean does society as whole benefit from investing this amount of energy, time, materials and manpower into this? Side note: if you would remove competition from this formula you would receive planned monopolist economy with different branches of same corporation fighting among themselves for budgets (Hello, Microsoft).

2. The corporations ride for profit combined with interest rate (regulated mostly last 300 years by private non-state bank institutions (Rotschield, Rockfeller, Varburgs etc. etc.)) makes developing infrastructure, long-term projects (such as space flight), or Hoover Dam, of fundamental science uninteresting and only possible and implemented by state budgets and paid by taxpayers. While corporations benefit from those (from developed infrastructure, new technologies etc.).

3. When comparing ex-USSR economy and quality of life and freedoms with Western countries, there is one huge flaw in such comparison - socialism in Eastern block was mostly autarkian, while Western capitalism colonies and markets were and are essential part of economy, so we need to count colonies population and quality of life into account as well (India, Africa, Latin America ? ).

Also, there isn't clear examples of socialism or capitalism in history - each country exists in it's own historical, political, geographic and economic conditions - for example there is Capitalistic socialism (Sweden, capitalistic represent industry ownership with high social standarts) and Communist state capitalism (China, state property for industry, low social standarts (explainable if you think about their population numbers)).

p.s. Idea about civics gettings benefits and penalties from using simultaneously is great !

 

[sugarfree]

Brief observation - socialism can be never achieved by truly democratic manners. The idea itself relieves people of personal responsibility and simply means limiting one's efforts in benefit of others. Free trade is currently the only functioning mechanism providing economical liberty, since it's based on personal initiative and every deal is done because the 2 subjects want to, not because someone tells them to do so. (as far as there are no market distractions and therefore every deal has an alternative)

Killtech, love your arguments. Keep it up

 

[xartah]

1. Most technology breakthoughs of XX century were made by one of three: 1) USSR 2) Nazi Germany 3) DARPA projects financed by US *government*.

What breakthroughs were those? They had an important part in the development of the internet, space technology and nuclear power but what other breakthroughs were they a part of? Some important technologies developed by someone that's not part of those three include things like transistor, integrated circuit, radio, radar, laser, aircraft, penicillin, nylon, robots...

The importance of the state in funding research should not be underestimated, especially theoretical research but a lot of practical applications are made by companies trying to make a profit from them. The military has never been that important for technological progress.

 

[Killtech]

well, the greatest development occurs in the time of crisis and struggle. in peaceful times there progress of technology slows down a little. this is true at least looking back our history and is true for evolution all the same.

and as for research: it does not matter what system we debate - be it socialism or capitalism - it is always the states who invest in science - especially in theoretical and cultural areas. companies only take the knowhow and try to make something out of it someone wants and is willing to pay for. thought admittedly there is quite some private founded research too.

 

[xartah]

Is that really true or just a perception due to fast advancement of military equipment during war? There were not that many important inventions done during world war 2 but there was fast refinement of technologies useful for war. Necessity might be the mother of invention but the different needs of war and peace can easily result in things that don't carry over from one to the other, especially in the war to peace direction. Improved tank design is not really useful for peace and civilians.

A crisis can increase the applied research of needed fields and speed up the implementation of results but it can't improve basic research that much.