Fascism needs fixing!!!

[sir_schwick]

You are correct. According to the Wiki definition, Nazism stressed the State above all else, qualifying it as Totalitarian versus Authoritarian. On a political compass both Stalinisma and Nazism would lean on the opposite extreme from Libertarian politics.

 

[estrongblade]

As I recall through my studies, the Italian Fascists did not run the government except through their parliament control. The Monarchists still had a say in what went on and were eventually responsible for the country's surrender in 1943. This caused the Nazis to occupy the boot, allowing General Kesselring to hold on to the lion's portion of it into 1945. I do not believe that Fascism or Naziism should exist as Civ 3 governments. Instead, both should be replaced by a form of government called either Dictatorship, Political Dictatorship or, as pointed out by naziassbandit, Totalitarianism. These forms of Government could actually advance using the three forms, introducing Dictatorship in Ancient times(between writing and Code of Laws), Political Dictatorship in the Middle ages (after Fuedalism-Think Medici) and Totalitarianism in the Fascism slot. Each would be successively improved, with Totalitarianism as the best of the lot. Spice the latter up a bit by making it hate based, using a random, unused civilization population as the object of such things as Gulags and Concentration Camps with required resources used to build and deport the 'hated' race. Said race would automatically appear in every city as a portion of the population as soon as the government was chosen. The Secret Police HQ should also be allowed in Totalitarianism but the concept should be tweeked to reflect the hate base. The building, when finished, would actually allow the construction of deportment based camps which would be vital to the ability of the player to keep the population out of unrest. They would work kind of like a radar tower, or maybe like a Fortress. I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea. What I have shared is the tip of a Proverbial Iceberg of ideas. -if you are to tell a lie, tell a big lie, as more will be likely to believe it- Joseph Goebbels

 

[dh_epic]

There's a really key difference between Fascism and Totalitarianism, though. I mean, obviously Fascism is Totalitarian, but it's also one of the "popular" forms of government, with Democracy and Communism. It really genuinely tries to appeal to the people, whereas other dictatorships are unapologetically repressive.

Both are militaristic and repressive of human rights and freedoms. Both incorporate religion heavily into their means to maintain power. Both use fear as a motivator.

But Fascism more often uses fear of the ENEMY to bring people onside. Other Totalitarian states use fear of the ruthless leader getting angry at his own people.

And Fascism appeals to a sense of Nationality and Patriotism -- people still pledge allegiance to their country, that is seperate from the interests of their leader. (It just so happens that their leader is the only one brilliant enough to protect the state).

Fascists will go so far as to have free elections to maintain the sense of popularity. Totalitarians won't, instead holding power indefinitely, or having one party elections. The key is that Fascists will engage in behaviors to rig the so-called free elections.

Most of all Fascists protect corporate power to the detriment of workers, whereas other Totalitarian states would repress everyone. Totalitarian states don't generally care about wealth other than what they have themselves. Fascist states know that there is much to gain from having wealth concentrated into the hands of a few billionaires, and keep a cozy relationship through cronyism.

I leave you with a quote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

It's up to you to decide whether there's a significant difference between regular run of the mill Totalitarianism and the more recent Fascism. I'd argue it's like the difference between "Violence" and "Murder", or "Food" and "Vegetables". The question is if Civilization ought to go to that level of detail to differentiate the two.

 

[sir_schwick]

I have this same complaint with how governments are represented currently in Civ. The abstraction and level of detail taken are not the problem, just the way it is presented. Many communist states have called themselves 'Democracies' because they theorhetically represent the people. Fundamentally Communism was an economic system in direct competition with capitalism. I am not a history expert, but we must ask if the Authoritarian/Totalitarian direction many communist nations took had any relation to the violence that brought them to power.

 

[dh_epic]

It's a very valid point, Sir Schwick. Afterall, there's enough people who talk about Stalinism instead of Communism or Socialism, not to mention Trotskyism.

Ultimately, I think government needs to be a multidimensional thing, rather than a drop down list.

 

[Percy]

fascism is not totalitarianism, nor is nazism. they are authoritarian regimes if you wish so. nazism was referred to by Juan Linz as "a distinctive branch grefted on the fascist tree".

edit: Communist states are by essence totalitarian, since they had to impose politics that involved control over every side of the country. you cannot allow divergent opinions in the sector of a country when all the country is strongly based/linked to that sector.

 

[sir_schwick]

Communist states are by essence totalitarian, since they had to impose politics that involved control over every side of the country. you cannot allow divergent opinions in the sector of a country when all the country is strongly based/linked to that sector.

Communist economies do not have to be Totalitarian. Totalitarianism refers specifically to absolute loyalty to the state, including always acting for the state. Many countries have nationalized part or all of their municipal functions, major industries, etc. However you can still stress personal freedom and expression even when the government controls the economy. That is why I asked:

I am not a history expert, but we must ask if the Authoritarian/Totalitarian direction many communist nations took had any relation to the violence that brought them to power.

 

[Percy]

well, since i have been studying that closely this year, i thought i might qualify to answer your question. btw, one of my coursework, a teacher regretted that i didn't mark enough the difference between nazism and stalinism, since the appearance of "common" totalitarianism is only that, an appearance.

ps: i'm talking about uni courses, before you tell me that courses in high school are not that good

edit: totalitarianism refers to the "total" control of one person/party over all the sectors of the country (economy, army - of course -, culture, media, etc).

 

[sir_schwick]

Okay, so you are saying by the shear virtue of communist governments exerting total control over the economy, that control extended into the other sectors of society. Its a inherent flaw rather than a situational flaw.

OT - did you ever see the Star Trek OS episode where John Gill, political scientist from Earth, set up a Nazi regime on a planet b/c he thought with the right leadership it would not commit the evils of Hitler?

 

[Percy]

no no, i'm saying that leninism (which was later on distorted by stalin) is marked by a rather simple theory (to simplify, i'm not an expert historian either, and i'd welcome anyone willing to correct me =) ): the change in the society is so radical that it cannot occur by itself.
it has to be pushed forth by an elite (they called themselves the "vanguard party"), even against the direct will of the majority (a kind of "we do that for your own good, you'll realize it later"). and communism is not just about economy, but about all the aspect of a state. the "proletariat" is supposed to control the state. in the leninist version, this control was to be _temporarily_ assumed by the vanguard party, (the Bolshevik), which would later on withdraw. anyway, the control over the state is supposedly total, which means all "sectors" of the state, economy, communications, culture, etc.
it is supposed to be one single body with a common thought, each part being useful for the other, etc. so divergent opinions within this body cannot really be tolerated. you can hardly walk if your legs don't want to carry you to the same place
this ended up justifying control of thought etc. the problem, beyond that (if we care to assume for one moment that he WAS right, and that people need to be forced for a greater good, which isn't necessarily wrong by itself), is that repression sort of fed on itself. the more people were controlled and exiled/sent to prison, the more they could come back and complain about that, which led to more and more repression, ending by the crimes of stalin.
it is interesting to note, though, that Lenin was not exactly a "bad guy" (while stalin was a monster, without question). He actually really believed that the single party would withdraw etc. he was much more close to marxism than Stalin. Stalin merely used leninism to take control of the country, but changed many things (the biggest example is maybe the international status of communism. marxism/leninism is about communism as a worldwide regime, while stalin closed the ussr on itself).

as i said, i'm no expert, it just happens that i worked quite a bit on it, so any correction is welcome (and highly interests me =) )

ps: sorry if some sentences are weird, i'm not a native english speaker, it's sometimes hard to express my thoughts correctly =P

pps: no, i never watched Star Trek (no don't hurt me, AYYYYY) ^^

 

[sir_schwick]

it has to be pushed forth by an elite (they called themselves the "vanguard party"), even against the direct will of the majority (a kind of "we do that for your own good, you'll realize it later"). and communism is not just about economy, but about all the aspect of a state. the "proletariat" is supposed to control the state. in the leninist version, this control was to be _temporarily_ assumed by the vanguard party, (the Bolshevik), which would later on withdraw. anyway, the control over the state is supposedly total, which means all "sectors" of the state, economy, communications, culture, etc.
it is supposed to be one single body with a

Okay, now I understand your point.

pps: no, i never watched Star Trek (no don't hurt me, AYYYYY) ^^

That is okay. I just found that particular episode interesting because this great humanitarian/political scientist came to this planet in ruin. He used Naziism to rebuild, unite, and rejuvenate this alien civilization. It seems to Kirk and his crew that this guy went nuts and became a tyrant, but really one of the subordinates of the new government was manipulating the scientist behind the scenes. Originally the scinetist thought that Nazi principles were not inherently evil, but the leaders that had utilized them in WWII.

 

[Percy]

well... i don't think you can really say that Nazi principles were not evil. i mean, i think that communism isn't evil. stalinism WAS, no question. i think authoritarian/dictatorial regimes are not inherently evil, but that's open to debate (free will vs "that's better for you, when you're old you'll understand").

however, nazism was, to simplify, based on nothing. it was merely using scapegoats, combined to exacerbated nationalism. to workers it promised to be social, to bourgeoisie (broadly speaking) it promised free trade etc, it promised a better lebens raum ("living space"), promised that the german people would be able to be proud of themselves (while they had been crushed by the treaty of versailles, which arguably "created" the conditions for hitler's rise to power).
essentially, nazism was pure demagogy with nothing to back it up. Hitler was saying everything and its opposite, but the thing was: he said it VERY well. he could read into people's hearts, and tell them exactly what they needed.
so, about the star trek thing, i think it's more of an "ignorant" thing (like in hacker movies, when they try and hack passwords by actually typing them on a keyboard ^^ or when they have those fancy animations on top-secret files =D ). however, dictatorships in essence are not necessarily bad, if the leader works for the best of the people, instead of just his own good. but i fear it's human nature to bother about yourself before bothering about others =)
oh btw, there was this very nice sentence (i think), by a French humourist (i am not sure whether he actually created it or not, but that doesn't count for much), Pierre Desproges. he said more or less: "Democracy is the worse of the dictatorships, because it is the one imposed by the majority other the minority."

 

[BlackBetsy]

I'm actually uncomfortable with the concept of fascism in the game, and I hate having my civ in fascism. Unspeakable evils occurred under the most significant fascist regime in history, and being reminded of that - and actually benefitting from it in civ - is repulsive to me. Civ III removed fundamentalism from the game (I don't know why) and I'd like to see fascism gone in Civ IV.

Sure, it's just a game, but this one has always put me off a little bit.

I do agree that "right wing authoritarianism" or "military dictatorship" might be a better option. And, when you think about it, the only time I use fascism is when my democracy simply can't handle the wars I'm fighting. I just want to get rid of war weariness and still have some ability to research. I'd prefer a military dictatorship which is more akin to a war-time mobilization government than anything.

 

[sir_schwick]

I'm actually uncomfortable with the concept of fascism in the game, and I hate having my civ in fascism. Unspeakable evils occurred under the most significant fascist regime in history, and being reminded of that - and actually benefitting from it in civ - is repulsive to me. Civ III removed fundamentalism from the game (I don't know why) and I'd like to see fascism gone in Civ IV.

Mussolini was pretty strict in the police state sense, but no more than other totalitarians. Now some pretty great evils were committed under Naziism and Stalinism. But if you are referring to genocide, I think we can all safely say it is only relevant when committed on caucasians and semites.

Spoiler :

For all of you about to cry rascist(sp?), I am appalled by the apathy of peoples around the world to the genocides in Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia, Argentina, and a variety of other countries since 1945. Although genocide is one of the greatest evils of humanity, I still think it needs representation in Civ. We cannot ignore the evil marks of history or what caused those evil marks.

 

[BlackBetsy]

Mussolini was pretty strict in the police state sense, but no more than other totalitarians. Now some pretty great evils were committed under Naziism and Stalinism. But if you are referring to genocide, I think we can all safely say it is only relevant when committed on caucasians and semites.

I don't disagree with any of that. Stalin was as bad as anyone - and he hated and killed everything that walked or crawled. I don't like communism either and avoid it in Civ, too, but see it as a more legitimate historical form of government for probably irrational reasons. None of my feelings are rational on this...fascism just creeps me out.

We Americans were pretty nasty to the natives in North America - although disease was probably 95% of the reason for the destruction of the native population as opposed to outright murder in the holocaust or Rwanda sense.

I wonder if the makers of Civ have read Guns, Germs and Steel? Civ plays a little bit like it (civs in contact with other civs on big continents have big advantages over those on remote continents).

 

[yoshi]

NOTE TO ALL:

This forum is for Civ4 Ideas and Suggestions, not historical debates.

Since you don't know how governments are going to function in Civ4, this dicussion is not particularly relevant.

If you don't like Fascism's stats in Civ3 either post your concerns in the Civ3 - General Discussions forum or be creative and edit the rules yourself using the excellent user-friendly Editor supplied with Civ3 (C3C in this case).

If you want to talk about what governments should be like, post your comments here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85542


Refrain from cramming this forum with irrelevant threads.

 

[Dida]

No Nazi or concentration camp in civ4. That is just terrible and incorrect. enough said..

 

[dh_epic]

The problem with Fascism's worst critics (and biggest proponents) is they immediately think "Hitler". For every person that's offended about the very idea of including Fascism in a game, there's another person who thinks the entire POINT of Fascism is to build a Holocaust Small Wonder.

What both these people forget is that Fascism was, for a while, an intellectual alternative to Democracy.

All the atrocities just happened to be included. That would be like saying that Democracies should be able to build a "Slavery" Small Wonder, or build "Lynch Mobs" in each city. My beef with these suggestions isn't that they're offensive, it's that they've made the intellectual error of "overfitting". Fascism has little more to do with killing Jews than Democracy has to do with killing Africans.

 

[sir_schwick]

That is everything that needs to be said. Thank you dh.

 

[CurtSibling]

fascism should have a problematic corruption.

Peace weariness caused by the xenophobia.
Ethnic forced labor. Meaning that forengeirs could be only forced, and paid labor when the city doesn't have eny forengeirs.

Better mobilization.

Barracks would produce elite units, and +1 on the health bar of every unit.

and, a negative effect on the diplomacy.

I agree that these would be good representations!