Governments...

[Elgalad]

Switzerland is a Federal Republic that employs a Parliamentary election process. There are two houses in the Legislative branch: the Federal Assembly and the National Council. The Executive branch, called the Federal Council, is elected by members of the Federal Assembly usually from its own members to serve four year terms. The Federal Assembly also selects the President and Vice-President from members of the Federal Council. These officers serve one year terms.

It is important to note that a Democracy is very different from a democratic election process. Many nations in the world use a democratic process (all or most citizens have the franchise to vote) but that does not make them Democracies. They have been commonly referred to as such, but they are not.

In a Democracy government, there would be NO government officers, other than (possibly) persons who volunteer to oversee the election process. Elections would be used to solve all questions of policy. There would be no laws to protect the minorities, there would be no so called 'civil rights', there would be no true freedom, because any question or disagreement would be settled by the majority. Emotion would rule the day and any person who could influence enough others would effectively become a dictator. Democracies are impossible because they inevitably devolve into either Anarchy or Despotism.

-Elgalad

 

[PeteAtoms]

Pure democracy wouldnt work very well in a very large nation. In a democracy, majority rules, obviously, but when the majority is in charge there is no one there to protect the minority, so in a republic we have representatives to speak for them

 

[Albow]

huh? Why would a democracy have to be like that??? why would a democracy need to have no officials? pls define democracy ... I don't think you would see your ideas in the definition

anyway, the point of the topic is that there is not enough variety in Civ re government types, and I think that is true and should be looked at.

 

[Elgalad]

It was a little to brief of an explanation. Basically I was referring to the type of government that has no representatives, only direct vote of the people to decide all issues. That sort of government doesn't exist anywhere today in a nation form. As Pete said, trying to get that to work with a modern nation would be impossible for many reasons, even if one includes the ability of the internet to handle the election process. But the government that Civ (the game) has traditionally used that is Called a 'Democracy' is actually more of a representative democracy, where the citizens elect representatives and the government has many more checks and balances and other limitations than a standard 'Republic'. Republics by the game's definition are more like the old system in Rome where only a minority of the citizenry actually Had the ability to vote and only a minority of Those were able to serve as Senators. It was a tiered class system that nevertheless used representation, though it was much less fair than the democratic federal republics we have today.

It's really just a point of naming conventions, but I wish that the devs would use titles such as the designers of the Double Your Pleasure mod chose to go with. In that alternative, there are more governments, including 3 types of monarchy.. (monarchy, absolute monarchy, and constitutional monarchy) as well as a federal republic (like the United States and other so called western 'democracies today), communism, and fascism, as well as a fundamentalist state government and lastly social democracy. Those additions would only help the game, since the (sad few) governments we have in vanilla C3C are so lacking, even with the addition of Feudalism.

I think on another thread there is a discussion about overhauling the entire way governments work, using some system like the one Alpha Centauri used. That might even be preferable, if a little unwieldly.

-Elgalad

 

[dh_epic]

I think the best thing to do is use the base governments and offer other sliders / switches within governments, some of which open up based on technologies or are prohibited based on your history or other factors.

Are you free in the market sense and culturally conservative?
Or do you value checks and balances on the market, and freedom for many values?
Do you think health care, social security, and education are basic rights, or do you think they are concepts that people should access if they can be afforded?

Just basic decisions about how regulated your economy is, how many rights you guarantee your citizens, and how free your people are -- within the parameters of democracy or fascism.

 

[Elgalad]

Something like that would appeal to me much more than the current system, definitely. It's not just a matter of having more options, though that adds to gameplay. It's also more realistic since it lets the player (civ) tailor their actual government more to their style of play. Instead of just having "well I'm at peace, so I guess I'll stick with Democracy" or "I'm at war, fascism time".. you could make decisions within your current government that might increase worker speed at the expense of say unit support. Or increased scientific research rate that reduces overall citizen happiness (entertainment/luxury level). Things like that are sorely needed, in my opinion.

-Elgalad

 

[dh_epic]

Plus you could temper anarchy due to revolution... I think a very culturally conservative democracy could make the jump to fascism pretty easily... whereas a highly regulated economy in democracy could lead to communism quite easily. Some jumps would require 7, or even 10 turns of anarchy. Some jumps would be quick.

The converse of this is that you wouldn't have to switch governments to change course. You could gradually shift things and hope that minor changes would be enough, and you wouldn't have to resort to revolution.

A real balanced choice:

- change gradually without anarchy, but accumulate people who don't favor change
- change fast and sudden, wipe out the dissenters, but wait through anarchy

To me, real balanced choices make the game more worth playing.

 

[NP300]

As for Marxism - I don't know how realistic it is to include it since no civ has reached it. It's kind of an utopian government, right?!

I just love it how Marxists argue that the USSR, China and no other country has ever been communist. Do we hear Nazis saying that The Third Reich wasn't really National Socialist?

 

[NP300]

USA does not have a left wing form of government...

If you look at the whole range of political movements ever invented by man (extremes being nazis in the right, commies in the left)

This left-right stuff is outdated. The Nazis are usually regarded as "far-right" but they incorporated many ideas regarded as "leftist". They incorporated socialist elements, such as social security and paid vacations for workers, hence the term "Nazi" actually stands for Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialist (National Socialist German Worker's Party). They also incorporated other elements now regarded as left-wing, such as euthanasia, and some environmentalist concerns, including animal rights laws.

Likewise, Pim Fortuyn was often regarded as "far-right" but in reality he was a liberal, as he was for gay rights, abortion, and the like.

 

[dh_epic]

I just love it how Marxists argue that the USSR, China and no other country has ever been communist. Do we hear Nazis saying that The Third Reich wasn't really National Socialist?

There's a difference. Hitler basically invented National Socialism (but not Fascism). Not the Soviets, not China, not Cuba -- none of them invented Communism, nor Socialism.

You'll actually hear a few intellectuals argue that Hitler was a poor example of a Fascist. But then again, you'll hear plenty of intellectuals saying the USA is a poor example of a Democracy.

In reality, most systems are mixed. Half the reason Capitalism works so well and has been around longer than Marx expected is because we're not nearly as awful as he predicted we'd be -- we have checks and balances and regulations to try to level the playing field and keep corporations accountable to the people (even if Enron and Worldcom show that we haven't found the right balance yet).

Sorry, don't get me started on political theory. I guess my only point is that the sliders should be in there beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that way you can reflect on how people put their own spins and modifications on the pure "theory" of a government.

I mean, the Greeks had something that resembled democracy and something that resembled slavery at the same time. Slavery is no more integrated into democracy than it is diametrically opposed to it, at the most practical level.

 

[NP300]

There's a difference. Hitler basically invented National Socialism (but not Fascism). Not the Soviets, not China, not Cuba -- none of them invented Communism, nor Socialism.

You'll actually hear a few intellectuals argue that Hitler was a poor example of a Fascist. But then again, you'll hear plenty of intellectuals saying the USA is a poor example of a Democracy.

Yet, Hitler did not really invent National Socialism. The ideas were there since the 1880s and known as "nationalist socialism":

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/nat-soc-isr.html

"Nationalist socialism, properly understood, appeared in Europe in the last years of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth as a alternative to both Marxism and liberalism. In contrast with social democracy, this ideology of national unity par excellence was the product of an encounter between anti-Marxist and antireformist tendencies in socialism on one hand and ethnic, cultural, and religious nationalism on the other. The uniqueness of European nationalist socialism, whose origins can be traced to the pre-Marxist socialism of Proudhon, in relation to all other types of socialism, lay in one essential point: its acceptance of the principle of the nation's primacy and its subjection of the values of socialism to the service of the nation. In this way, socialism lost its universal significance and became an essential tool in the process of building the nation-state. Thus, the univelsal values of socialism were subordinated to the particuutlistic valules of nationalism. In practice, this was expressed by a total rejection of the concept of class warfare and by the claim of transcending social contradictions for the benefit of the collectivity as a whole..."

So my point still stands... It's curious how neo-Marxists deny that there has ever been a Marxist state while neo-Nazis and neo-Fascists feel no such need to deny that there ever has been a Nazi or Fascist state.

In reality, most systems are mixed. Half the reason Capitalism works so well and has been around longer than Marx expected is because we're not nearly as awful as he predicted we'd be -- we have checks and balances and regulations to try to level the playing field and keep corporations accountable to the people (even if Enron and Worldcom show that we haven't found the right balance yet).

Marx was wrong in part because he based his analysis on the labor theory of value, which is false. From the labor theory of value he drew the conclusion that the workers were exploited, and the revolution, etc. But since his assumption was false, all else that followed was also false.

 

[Elgalad]

Painting one sort of government 'leftist' or 'rightist' is sort of pointless since there is no linear scale that can truly represent any such thing. Further, such characterizations are always subjective from the point of the perspective of the labeller (and their own government). Of course some governments had similar aspects to others.. for example, Communism and National Socialism both sought to elevate the average worker above the status of mindless drone (as under feudal type states). And both historically ended up doing the exact opposite by devolving into totalitarian authoritarian regimes.

Maybe the point isn't that any nation has ever succeeded at its particular goal of creating a utopian dream government, but rather that certain nations have attempted the impossible to try to achieve those dreams. Essentially, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, et al, have all tried to achieve a Marxist state and failed for one reason or another. Noone can honestly argue that they havent come close or that they haven't proven the whole experiment into extreme socialism to be a dismal failure for the average citizen.

On the other hand, the same could be said of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Technically these three men were very different in their methods and stated goals but they did have some common results. And of course we all know that their individual experiments into extreme nationalist states all failed as well. While its sexy in academia today to view Fascism and Nazism as far more evil by comparison than Communism or Socialism.. they had good intentions too, at least publicly stated ones. We all know what the road to hell is paved with of course. But the horrific death tolls under Stalin's Soviet nightmare, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Pol Pot's Holiday in Cambodia bear out the truth that the Holocaust was Not a singular example of a bad government.

Before we Americans can start a round of self-congratulation though, we have got to remember that none of America's founding fathers thought that the American experiment would be a resounding success itself. Most thought they had to do everything in their power just to keep it from breaking as soon as it began. And later statesmen have referred to the whole concept of Democracy as being the worst of government systems.. except for all the rest. (taking liberties with Churchill )

So it all comes down to this. There are no perfect governments except those that cannot be achieved.. There are no good governments except those that work on paper. So we're left with only real-world governments that aren't as bad as others (necessary evils)... I strongly believe most people in the western world today would agree that a democratically elected representative government that has plenty of protections for the average citizen, is probably the best way to go. If nothing else, it provides the most freedom as well as the most control Over the government by the people.

-Elgalad

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I just love it how Marxists argue that the USSR, China and no other country has ever been communist. Do we hear Nazis saying that The Third Reich wasn't really National Socialist?

Not that I'm a Marxist, but I have no trouble seeing the difference between the Communism Marx had in mind and the reallife examples. And since no country has achieved this idealistic Communism that was proposed I thought that it shouldn't be in civ4.

Marx was wrong in part because he based his analysis on the labor theory of value, which is false. From the labor theory of value he drew the conclusion that the workers were exploited, and the revolution, etc. But since his assumption was false, all else that followed was also false.

Since you yourself say Marx was wrong in theory, how come you have such trouble seeing the difference between the Communism in theory and in practise?

 

[dh_epic]

First off,

It seems to me as though the article is talking about the foundation of national socialism "as it is understood", but not as it is called. I'm sure the theories of Fascism existed in the late 19th century too, but it wasn't refined and named until later, and adopted later still.

Which is one reason why Nazi-ism is synonymous with Hitler, while Fascism, Democracy, and Communism are synonymous with no such leader. For this reason, intellectuals can argue that certain leaders were poor examples of their ideology.

I'll come right out and say it -- George Bush's America is a poor example of Democracy, let alone a Republic, let alone even Capitalism. Hitler's Germany was a poor example of Fascism, and the USSR was a poor example of Communism. But these ideologies really only exist in theory, which is why we really do think of most governments as mixed -- if only slightly.

Also, Marx's conclusion could still conceivably be right -- it's just that the premises have not been satisfied for his conclusion. (The only way we'd know if he was wrong was if the premises were satisfied and the conclusion still did not occur). His theory is that if the workers are sufficiently exploited, and wealth is concentrated into sufficiently few hands, then revolution will occur. Since the workers aren't exploited, and wealth is still relatively spread out, there are no barricades in the streets.

But we owe this in large part to regulations and institutions that PREVENT wealth from getting into few hands -- anti-trust laws, and worker-rights laws. Repeal these -- let competition determine the most profitable working conditions and most profitable business practices, and you can watch those feelings of exploitation increase.

I don't want to find out if Marx was right.

 

[Stid]

i tried to follow this thread carefully and i just got confused. id never heard of west/east wing before this. im just gona be quiet on this one

 

[tmarcl]

USA does not have a left wing form of government...

If you look at the whole range of political movements ever invented by man (extremes being nazis in the right, commies in the left), the both major parties in the US place somewhere right of the center.

Now I might add that USA very vaguely classifies as a true democracy, since there's really not much choice in the political arena (communist one-party system was seen as very anti-democratic, and yet there's only one more party in the American system...) but that's slightly off-topic so I wont.

Two points:

1) While we aren't totally a left-wing (ie, communist) government, we are very left leaning in more and more of our policies.

2) The USA doesn't qualify as a democracy at all. It's a Republic. A democracy is where every eligible citizen votes on everything. We don't have that (at least, my opinion hasn't been asked by Bush lately). A Republic is where the people elect representatives to a law-making body (the Congress) to pass laws for them. It's a lot more efficient, especially for really big countries.

On a different note, I think they should get rid of Communism. It's not a form of government. Both China and the Soviet Union (as well as other Communist countries) are Republics (as I defined above). Communism (actually, socialism) is a economic system (the opposite of capitalism.

For more realism, I think it would be better to have these two options. Your either a capitalist country (free enterprise, little to no restrictions on business and trade), or a socialist one (government either outright owns all businesses, or severely restricts them).

Governments are either (in my opinion) Constitutional (Great Britain, or our own), which means there is a set system of laws that all new policies must agree with, or (I don't know the actual term) Totalitarian, which means that the leader and he alone decides what policies to implement. IIRC from history class, by the way, the Soviet Union actually had a Constitution.

Personally, I think they should institute the developments of things like the Bill of Rights, and go from there. There is absolutely no difference between having a Republic or a Monarchy, if both have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights and a Capitalist economy. In fact, there should be a way to implement this into the game.

I guess what I'm saying is that they should completely rework the entire idea of governments to make it more realistic, taking into account economy and whether or not there is a constitution.

All of this, of course, is just my opinion.

 

[dh_epic]

I think tmarcl is onto it. A lot of governments don't fit into narrow definitions.

For example, Singapore has taken on a lot of free market policies while still having what we would regard as a totalitarian, legalistic nation. China seems to be moving down the same path. Whereas when we think of most of the nations that have embraced some kind of free market (capitalism), we think of countries that also let their citizens be quite free.

Of course, long in the past, enterprise was quite regulated. They just don't regard it as such because they never conceived of an economy large enough that the government might actually slow it down by trying to manage it all themselves. This is where the room for technological innovation comes in -- in the Civ sense.

In other words, certain sliders and options become available as you research new techs. I think this would be more realistic AND more flexible, offering more empowering gameplay decisions.