Communism in Civ 4

[Jivilov]

Well to be fair the Khmer Rouge were reviled by (some of) their "fellow" Communists. Closer to fascism than communism imo but that's really beside the point.

Given that historically Communist regimes typically accomplished rapid state-directed industrialization, shifting from agrarian peasant societies to modern industrial economies, a more historically-appropriate communist theme would actually be reducing food output in exchange for lots of hammers. In-game State Property actually doesn't do this (certain improvements give more food) but I think SP+slavery give a reasonable approximation of the Maoist, Stalinist, etc. regimes. The fact that the Kremlin makes slavery more effective is a nice touch

Agreed on all counts. Your suggestion to increase hammers at the expense of food has merit .

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I don't know, actively adding drawbacks to civics is a dangerous balancing act, especially when you only do it to one civic and not all of them. Also I'd argue sacrificing food for production was more the result of Police State (see Nazi Germany's genocidal rampage), and it is precisely what Slavery does already anyway, so I think giving State Property e.g. -10% Food and +20% Production in all cities would be redundant. Also keep in mind that it already indirectly reduces food output by denying you the ability to benefit from corporations. Whipping, lack of corporations and bulldozing farms for workshops are imo sufficient to simulate the agricultural disasters of totalitarian self proclaimed socialist states. If you must add some sort of drawback to State Property I'd suggest -1 Trade Routes in all cities or perhaps -25% Trade Route Yield.

Also I'd move the removal of city distance maintenance to Mercantilism, as that's the civic that far flung colonial empires should run. State Property could instead reduce number of cities maintenance, but either way it should imo have high upkeep.

 

[Staler87]

In 'true' communism the government dissolves. So it is effectively impossible to create any 'realistic' civic that will benefit the player. No building military units and half the research speed would be about the only 'realistic' effects I can think of. You could throw in a happiness bonus. The problem is that communism is anti-statism and any anti-statist ideology will, by its very nature, harm the state. This doesn't translate into effective or realistic gameplay.

 

[VCrakeV]

In 'true' communism the government dissolves. So it is effectively impossible to create any 'realistic' civic that will benefit the player. No building military units and half the research speed would be about the only 'realistic' effects I can think of. You could throw in a happiness bonus. The problem is that communism is anti-statism and any anti-statist ideology will, by its very nature, harm the state. This doesn't translate into effective or realistic gameplay.

Yes, the government dissolves, but that's hard to illustrate in Civ (as is a lot, so I'll be simplifying things for explanation sake). Communism is about the community governing itself, rather than just a few governing it. Not much different than how things worked during ancient era. Military units are militia in this case, or people who have trained in combat for the sake of the community (instead of the government training/recruiting, the community would discuss what they need military-wise, who should/would train for combat, etc.).



As for research... How would research be halted? Scientists would not have to worry about silencing, lack of funds, etc.



People would have more time on their hands to farm, produce, research, or hell, relax, with many jobs becoming obsolete: Cashiers, Cubicle worker for Corporations, anything in the retail business (though stuff like stock for "stores" would replace some jobs).

 

[Jivilov]

Yes, the government dissolves, but that's hard to illustrate in Civ (as is a lot, so I'll be simplifying things for explanation sake). Communism is about the community governing itself, rather than just a few governing it. Not much different than how things worked during ancient era. Military units are militia in this case, or people who have trained in combat for the sake of the community (instead of the government training/recruiting, the community would discuss what they need military-wise, who should/would train for combat, etc.).

Getting into political philosophy here, and sorry to quibble, but did the Roman, Persian, Carthaginian, Chinese etc. Empires have communities governing themselves? Rather they were autocratic and centralized, demanding tribute or taxes from near or far-flung dominions to pay for standing armies, aristocratic perks and palace luxuries. To the extent that "the mountains are high and the Emperor is far away" there could be some autonomy, but by and large the ancient era was characterized by despotism and oppression from a central authority.

The Greek city-states were largely self-governing due to geographical circumstances, but they too were obliged to train armies and establish colonies for protection and profit. Most were ruled by kings. Sparta was essentially a barracks state with secret police where something like 80% or more of the population were slaves (helots).

Perhaps the closest you'll find in human history to communism are stone-age cultures without significant hierarchies or specialization of labor. Otherwise it came down to rule of the strongest, those who got to determine who were peasants or slaves and who got to be warriors, merchants, priests or kings.

 

[VCrakeV]

Getting into political philosophy here, and sorry to quibble, but did the Roman, Persian, Carthaginian, Chinese etc. Empires have communities governing themselves? Rather they were autocratic and centralized, demanding tribute or taxes from near or far-flung dominions to pay for standing armies, aristocratic perks and palace luxuries. To the extent that "the mountains are high and the Emperor is far away" there could be some autonomy, but by and large the ancient era was characterized by despotism and oppression from a central authority.





The Greek city-states were largely self-governing due to geographical circumstances, but they too were obliged to train armies and establish colonies for protection and profit. Most were ruled by kings. Sparta was essentially a barracks state with secret police where something like 80% or more of the population were slaves (helots).





Perhaps the closest you'll find in human history to communism are stone-age cultures without significant hierarchies and specialization of labor. Otherwise it came down to rule of the strongest, those who got to determine who were peasants or slaves and who got to be warriors, merchants, priests or kings.

That's exactly what I meant by ancient. What you're referring to is the classical era. I meant the stone age, indigenous America, etc. Not exactly Communism, but it's what the principles are based on. While not found in history, I want to include Communism because I feel Civ is about recreating history, not simulating it. ☺

 

[Robo-Star]

Yes, the government dissolves, but that's hard to illustrate in Civ (as is a lot, so I'll be simplifying things for explanation sake).

No capital city - so no distance maintenance, no increased commerce from trade routes, no importing of foreign resources, and no Bureaucracy bonus; no unhappiness from government action (only from overcrowding).

 

[VCrakeV]

No capital city - so no distance maintenance, no increased commerce from trade routes, no importing of foreign resources, and no Bureaucracy bonus; no unhappiness from government action (only from overcrowding).

Good ideas; I'll incorporate (misplaced pun?) what I can.

 

[Staler87]

Communism is a pacifist ideology. Any sort of militia would be unrealistic in 'true' communism. The point I'm making is the game does a decent job of representing the communism we see in practice but representing communism, as laid out in the communist manifesto, is completely impossible to do in a game with any degree of accuracy. How would, what is essential a hippie commune, be competitive? No military. No government. No drive for progress. Just a willingness to take care of everyone and work hard. Although these make an effective utopia, they do not make a super-power.

 

[VCrakeV]

Communism is a pacifist ideology. Any sort of militia would be unrealistic in 'true' communism. The point I'm making is the game does a decent job of representing the communism we see in practice but representing communism, as laid out in the communist manifesto, is completely impossible to do in a game with any degree of accuracy. How would, what is essential a hippie commune, be competitive? No military. No government. No drive for progress. Just a willingness to take care of everyone and work hard. Although these make an effective utopia, they do not make a super-power.

Yes, it's not very accurate, but I do what I can. In international Communism, there'd be no need for military. But in Communism in one country (or civ), military would be understandable.



I still don't understand why you associate Communism with a halt of progress. That's one of the key points. A "willingness to take care of everyone and work hard" is progress. It's about moving on from profitable to helpful. Other than immediate care (ie work/services) people need to innovate new technologies for safer and more efficient energy, advancements for food and health, etcetera. If that doesn't create a "drive for progress" for a "hippie commune", I don't know what progress is.



Competitively, I can see a Communist civ making it to AC to get away from Capitalist cigs (and ensure global Communism). Not sure about the other victories. Voting in a Communist civ for diplomatic victory doesn't make sense to me. Cultural seems unfitting.

 

[Robo-Star]

Competitively, I can see a Communist civ making it to AC to get away from Capitalist cigs (and ensure global Communism). Not sure about the other victories. Voting in a Communist civ for diplomatic victory doesn't make sense to me. Cultural seems unfitting.

Voting in a communist civ could be an expression of the workers of the world uniting.

 

[Staler87]

I should have been more specific. It generally would involve a complete hault of scientific and, to a lesser extent, industrial progress. According to Marx communism is the ultimate in social progress. however, once a society reaches communism there is only a proletariat and no 'philosopher' class (ie. university professors and researchers) as these are generally associated with the bourgeoisie as their work has no tangible results. Everyone would be a laborer or a skilled worker (doctor, for example) and there would be no one to drive scientific progress. Industrial progress may be made but without the profit motive or any sort of 'architect' of the industry it would be unlikely. The problem with theoretical Utopias is they almost never work in reality. Even if they did they would likely have major drawbacks that would make them less Utopic than they initially appear. I highly doubt that a communist civ would devote people to researching rockets. That would be very against their ideology. The only realistic way to win with a communist civ would be diplomatic but that would imply everyone else was communist as well.

Plus how would you simulate an economy. I mean no one owns anything and there's no money. It initially seems like a cool idea to put in 'true' communism but it can't really be done with any degree of accuracy.

 

[VCrakeV]

Simulating the economy is the hard part; it's why I initially started this thread. I don't see how researching, for example, rockets, would be a problem. A civilization that has hit Communism before rocketry will see the good in rocketry (travel) and research it for those reasons, not far military purposes.



There is no reason why people can't be "philosophers"... After all, people have to teach (professors). And no tangible results? Research is what advances mankind. Whether you're looking for "progress", or just to help people, research produces tangible results (safe/efficient energy, medicine, etc.).

 

[Staler87]

I'm not talking about what I believe, I'm talking about what Marx said. He generally disapproved of any non-physical laborers or people that did not have a direct impact on the good of society. Doctors are fine, but a physicist is more of a bourgeoisie scum.

 

[Jivilov]

That's exactly what I meant by ancient. What you're referring to is the classical era. I meant the stone age, indigenous America, etc. Not exactly Communism, but it's what the principles are based on. While not found in history, I want to include Communism because I feel Civ is about recreating history, not simulating it. ☺

OK, sorry for the confusion. There are many who say "Ancient Rome," "Ancient Greece," etc. and that's what I was thinking when I said "ancient." Your usage of the term to mean stone-age tribes is what those others would call "prehistoric" in the sense they had no written language. In Civ4 though the designers refer to what I'd call "ancient" as "classical."

Whatever. Yet another example of terminology getting in the way of understanding. Cheers and happy gaming!

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Cultural seems unfitting.

How so? Cultural would be the most fitting actually. You have this great perfect society and the rest of the world is so in awe of that utopia that they decide to join it and abolish their old system.

I should have been more specific. It generally would involve a complete hault of scientific and, to a lesser extent, industrial progress. According to Marx communism is the ultimate in social progress. however, once a society reaches communism there is only a proletariat and no 'philosopher' class (ie. university professors and researchers) as these are generally associated with the bourgeoisie as their work has no tangible results. Everyone would be a laborer or a skilled worker (doctor, for example) and there would be no one to drive scientific progress. Industrial progress may be made but without the profit motive or any sort of 'architect' of the industry it would be unlikely. The problem with theoretical Utopias is they almost never work in reality. Even if they did they would likely have major drawbacks that would make them less Utopic than they initially appear. I highly doubt that a communist civ would devote people to researching rockets. That would be very against their ideology.

Actually in communism there are no classes. The dictatorship of the Proletariat is supposed to be a temporary gateway, as the Proletariat will abolish itself once it has abolished all other classes. There are no workers or artists or doctors or engineers or professors, instead every human is to a certain part worker and artist and doctor and engineer and professor. In a communist society every single human being is more or less a Renaissance man. Granted, I don't think it will be like that at first. In fact, the way I realistically see communism coming about would be like so:

First, all of humanity has to unite and do away with all the stuff that separates them, race, gender, nationality, property etc. There is no longer a United States of America or a Russian Federation or a People's Republic of China or any other petty nation state, instead all of humanity is now organized in a single economic and political unit, working to better the lives of everyone instead of amassing profit or wasting energy on ideological nonsense or harming others. Now if that's a Socialist World Republic or a federative network of anarchist communes or whatever isn't really important as long as it doesn't devolve into totalitarianism. First priority would be to get rid of economic inequality, so former First World nations would stagnate for a while until the rest of the world has caught up with their living standard. Concurrently with that production has to be organized in such a way as to minimize ecological impact. No point in giving every African a car and a home PC if that leads to global ecological collapse within ten years. Researching new, more efficient and environmentally friendly methods of production and implementing them has to happen or civilization will crumble. Once global wealth disparity has been resolved and all production is environmentally friendly and viable in the long term, humanity can work on further increasing the efficiency of production so as to create more wealth with less work, until basically everything is run by robots. At that point I can actually see two classes emerging again: Highly skilled specialists and those who just enjoy life. When everything is automated there just is no point in working unless you are one of the few people with the technical know how to keep the robots running. In a fully developed communist society there would thus actually be very few workers, and those few are highly specialized engineers or programmers, with the absolute majority of humanity living off the bountiful fruits of the labor their highly advanced machinery provides them with.

Well that was quite a detour. The point I wanted to make is that there would indeed be technological progress in a communist society. In fact it would have to make a lot of progress very quickly out of sheer necessity to avoid ecological collapse, and I don't see why people wouldn't just continue researching stuff if they don't have anything better to do anyway.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I'm not talking about what I believe, I'm talking about what Marx said. He generally disapproved of any non-physical laborers or people that did not have a direct impact on the good of society. Doctors are fine, but a physicist is more of a bourgeoisie scum.

No? Do you have a source for that? A physicist does have an impact on the good of society, or at least he doesn't have a negative impact, like a banker or a marketing person or a CEO. Even a uni student who just spends his days playing Civilization and getting drunk ( ) isn't really a problem compared to a person who owns a dozen apartment buildings that are all empty while there's homeless people all around because MUH PROFIT. While the physicist might leech off the workers in the worst case, he only has one house he lives in, enough food to always have a full fridge, and the capability to travel as far as he likes with public transportation. The capitalist has fifty houses that are all empty, kills 5.000 chickens a day and throws half of them in the trash because nobody bought them, and has a hundred cars all over the world which stand around and do nothing 99% of the time. Basically it's okay to be a parasite as long as you actually use the stuff you take from the workers to improve your life, not if you just take as much as you can and then some to increment an imaginary number. Note that this is the opposite of how bourgeois society sees things, here they condemn the homeless beggar for asking for enough food to sustain himself and demand ever more sadistic punishments against the unemployed for simply being alive, while capitalists and politicians who exploit and oppress millions are being seen as innovators and those who really get stuff done.

 

[georgjorge]

I don't see how what you say refutes anything Staler said. Staler cited the viewpoint of Marx (and maybe he'll get us a source) and you replied with your own opinion on society, not that of Marx. At least I don't recall reading anything from Marx about drunk students playing Civilization

 

[Staler87]

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

-Karl Marx

I realize that communist societies are classless. If anything that is why my argument is valid. If you have a physicist, then is he part of the proletariat?

"Machines were, it may be said, the weapon employed by the capitalists to quell the revolt of specialized labor."
-Karl Marx

The problem is Marx's definition of contribution to society did not include managing a business. He believed those that were merely leaching off of others physical labors were leaches. He strongly believed in social progressiveness (obviously) and (ironically) called his theory scientific socialism as he thought it was developed in a scientific method and he had great respect for the hard sciences. I'm not sure if Marx had any problem with scientists thinking things up, I don't see why he would, but he did have problems with useful things as those, in his mind, generally helped the bourgeoisie as opposed to the working people. In essence he viewed general intellectualism as an offshoot of the bourgeoisie class.

"But the intelligentsia as a highly self-conscious and separate grouping with its own interests and institutions is a peculiar product of bourgeois society and the highly developed division of labor within it."
-George Novack (The Marxist theory of Intellectualism)

I'm not going to say there would be no technological progress in a Marxist society but there wouldn't be very much.

 

[Robo-Star]

I realize that communist societies are classless. If anything that is why my argument is valid. If you have a physicist, then is he part of the proletariat?

If you have a classless society, then is anyone part of the proletariat?