communism

REX GRACCHVS

Hebertiste
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
69
i see a lot of discussion about facism and its nature, yet noone seems to realise that the model of communism in the game is that of a stalinist socialist regime, a sort of rightist buerocratic socialism, as opposed to a real workers state, in the early SU... i dont know, i just thought i'd bring it up...
 
REX GRACCHVS said:
i see a lot of discussion about facism and its nature, yet noone seems to realise that the model of communism in the game is that of a stalinist socialist regime, a sort of rightist buerocratic socialism, as opposed to a real workers state, in the early SU... i dont know, i just thought i'd bring it up...

Do you refer to some-kind of "yugoslavian socialism" which allow ( most of ) entreprises to be run by somekind of worker-comitee ? :rolleyes:

Regards,

P.S. : Related with communism gov. as in the game now - I don't realize what it doesn't have somekind of superior/cheaper spy/saboteurs level !! :p
 
It does...If you check the Editor, you'll notice that Communism has their spy experience set to "Veteran" as opposed to "Regular" like all the other governments.
 
REX GRACCHVS said:
i see a lot of discussion about facism and its nature, yet noone seems to realise that the model of communism in the game is that of a stalinist socialist regime, a sort of rightist buerocratic socialism, as opposed to a real workers state, in the early SU... i dont know, i just thought i'd bring it up...


The kind of communism you refer to didn't work, that's why! They had to leave their utophic ideas! Civilization isn't about building an Utophia, but a real life community!
 
It's not so much the utopia thing, but what quickly turned from a necessity of keeping capitalist and fascist ideas out became a cornerstone of political life. Legislating atheism as the only legal religion, for example, was a contraversial one among intellectuals, and something most people say is not built into Communism. But there WAS some necessity, in a world where the Catholic Church would rally behind Mussolini.

Unfortunately, the reality is we can only go with what historically happen, not what people hoped would happen in theory. I'm actually an optimist about most government types, except that it's NEVER as easy as clicking on the "change government" button. Building a real Democracy in Iraq is probably not even 1/10th the difficulty as it is to build a real Communism in a corporate economy. Government is a tricky thing.

The beef some people have with implementing "theoretical communism" is the same beef I have with some people implementing "theoretical libertarianism". I actually think the principles of libertarianism intrinsically lead to injustice, and those who preach "less government" allow power to slip into fewer and fewer hands. This is the same argument against communism -- that stiving for a society without exploitation intrinsically requires exploitation. Of course, this debate can't be settled, because we've never seen a true libertarian or communist government.
 
REX GRACCHVS said:
i see a lot of discussion about facism and its nature, yet noone seems to realise that the model of communism in the game is that of a stalinist socialist regime, a sort of rightist buerocratic socialism, as opposed to a real workers state, in the early SU... i dont know, i just thought i'd bring it up...

While not a novel discovery, you are correct that the 'modern' governments in Civ 3 read like the screenplay to a Cold War drama. Also it almost seems like Fascism is the upgraded version of Feudalism. The irony practically writes itself.

Overall the way administration and government are represented in Civ need to be reworked.
 
Communism should have much more serious happiness problems, without a secret police organisation (SPHQ) wonder.
 
@citizen001
Having spoken to quite a few Russians, those old enough to have a decent memory of Sovietism, I have to disagree. Most were genuinely happy in Soviet Russia. I know this sounds hard to believe given the nature of western propaganda, but it's true.

Spoiler :

We're seeing more of this same propaganda vis a vis the middle east now, how no one can be happy because they are not yet in a democracy. While democracy is certainly nice, the jury is still out on whether it is ideal for all people at all times.
 
Well in a somewhat more civ terms, the government type that makes people happy is the one that they Think will give them what they want (ie Security to do what They want with minimal interference from police, starvation, criminals, lawyers, those nasty swine in the next town, or nuclear war)

This is why for my model of governments, happiness would tend to increase people's desire for the government/political set up they've got and unhappiness would encourage them to look at other governments/political set ups.

This means that a democracy for example would not need to have an automatic anarchy at a certain stage of war weariness. Instead the excessive unhappiness would make the people more unhappy with democracy per se.. eventually they become so unhappy they demand a new government. Assuming monarchy has some Small level of war weariness, that could also be a way of modelling the Russian revolution.

The things that would actually tend to make people happy are

1. non oppression (ie they like it if you are not forcibly assimilating their cultural group)
2. favoritism (they like it if you are forcibly supporting their cultural group)
3. Peace or Victory (ie not getting killed in war)
4. Economic well being (not sure how that would work probably as an anti corruption type thing.. with luxuries included... I'd include nonstarvation, but that isn't reasonable unless starvation doesn't become the only means of controlling a cities population growth)
 
Strange, a lot of people I know who lived under USSR rule have only negative things to say. They also seem to love capitalism pretty dearly, and are avid consumers. But they were in Poland -- which got kind of a bad deal through that cold war drama.

Nonetheless, governments need to shift away from a static list anyway. Sliders anyone?
 
rhialto said:
@citizen001
Having spoken to quite a few Russians, those old enough to have a decent memory of Sovietism, I have to disagree. Most were genuinely happy in Soviet Russia.

This is true in many cases I belive. :mischief:
In Romania also, people old enough to live the "economical good times" of '70s ( which have now ~55 years ) also have in general a good remember about those years ... of cours - if they wasn't in someway "without helthy social-origin" ( this means usually sons of ex-member of interwar political parties, sons of extremly rich citizen from same period :rolleyes: ).

What is a problem which is completely missed in Civ is the fact that the governement effects/eficacity seems to modify in time. In fact it would be a REALLY GREAT IDEEA to introduce "time-degradation/improvement" in time for each government. In real history this was the main fact which produce/lead to a governement shift. ;)

E.g. : the communism will start with great bonuses if installed after a monarchy ( for example ), but after 40-50 this will turn otherside ... also - if communism is installed after a democracy/republic there would be a period of 10-15 turns of "harsh proletarian dictatorship" in order to eradicate "class enemy" - which may give bonuses to military production but also will severe affect economy/agricultural production ... :goodjob:

And so on.

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ... :(
 
I think the transitions between government are something that can be greatly improved. They can offer some really dramatic new gameplay.
 
what im saying is that what is represented in civ under the gov't of communism is the white collar buerocratic dictatorship envisioned by marx in the overthrow of a non-capitalistic economy by an under developed proletariat.

@ Mîtiu Ioan, i like your idea, it seems to go well with my understanding of marxist theory, if what we assume by the term democracy is bourgeois representative democracy, and hence capital is now in a more developed stage. although for gov't options i prefer the policy setter thing like in SMAC.


ps. please forgive my obviously marxist leanings...
 
They should just remove communism and democracy since niether was ever used, they are just impossible ideals.

Before anyone says anything, China and the former USSR are not communist but just dictatorships. The US is not a democracy but a republic.
 
Dr. Broom said:
They should just remove communism and democracy since niether was ever used, they are just impossible ideals.

Before anyone says anything, China and the former USSR are not communist but just dictatorships. The US is not a democracy but a republic.

Perhaps they are misnomers. But then, you are saying that the Roman Republic is the same as the modern democratic governments. Which would be just plain wrong.
 
Do you know any definitions for Democracy, Communism, Republic? What's the difference?

The USA have the republic and the democratic party. But those 2 words mean pretty much the same thing, one in latin and one in greek. They both practise democracy.
 
Part of the problem with the China and Soveit question is that both have Authoritarian leadership but different economic systems. Seperating economic and political systems would be a good start to truly simulating government. There are other poles and settings that should be examined, but I will leave that to you guys.
 
Back
Top Bottom