Nationalism as new Gov't Type ?!?!?!

[Andu Indorin]

The more I think I think about this, the more wrong it strikes me: Nationalism as new government type.

Despotism, Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Communism, Fundamentalism: You can make valid arguments that each of these represents a form a government that has had an actual historical existence. (The same can be said for "Fascism" patch.)

Nationalism is not a form of government! A broad sociohistorical phenomenom that begins to emerge with the French Revolution/the Wars of Liberation: Yes. The demand for self-government among native peoples against foreign rule: Yes. The demand for self-determination among minorities against the predominance of a ruling majority: Yes. The force of a popular sense of shared identity beyond the local particularisms of traditional societies -- a force that modern despots, monarchs, Republics, Democracies, Communists, and Fundamentalists (and Fascists) have tried to exploit: Yes.

A form of government: No.

(My apologies. I am decidely editorializing. But making Nationalism -- in its many varieties of self-determination and self-identification -- into a form of government that has never actually existed ... This is just plain wrong!!! It is against history, against social science; and it would demean the game of Civilization as other proposed improvement could possibly do so.)

 

[BlueMonday]

I'm sitting on the fence about this one. I really have to play the game before I will say its good or bad. The effects sound fantastic, but I wonder how it play out.

I guess I'll have an answer in a few months...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[Squirrel2004]

Your right, it's not really a form of government. But I don't give a sh*t because it's something new. Hey, maybe it will become a new form of government decades from now, it's just based on different ideas then you said, but shares the same name. I'll have to try it. Maybe it works a h*ll of a lot better than other governments. But maybe not.

Squirrel2004

 

[CornMaster]

Not to start an arguement here but:

Democracy - Is the way that we elect our leaders. By voting. Plainly means that we vote for our government. Not a government type.

Communism - Is an economic model. Not a government type.

I see why these are included. For simplicity. People don't want to have a lesson in politics and government in order to play Civ.

I think the Nationalism is going to be better that Fundy, and more realistic.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0> I AM CANADIAN! <IMG SRC="http://images.honesty.com/imagedata/h/207/85/32078598.gif" border=0>
CivFanatics Moderator and Tech Support
CivFanatics Civ 2 Ladder
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

 

[gjts00]

I think that it's being called Nationalism, instead of Fascism, more because of a desire to be politically correct, instead of being realistic.

------------------
Listen, strange women lying around in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system government.

 

[Andu Indorin]

gjts00: You may be right about "nationalism" instead of "national socialism/fascism" as a more politically correct term.

And CornMaster: you're definitely right that the current government options in Civ2 combine both politics and economy. But I'm basing my diatrebe on the following description from PC.IGN's Civ3 Preview Update: Part II :

Available later in the game, Nationalism (a NEW government type) is analogous to the ideology of early nineteenth century Europe.... To switch to Nationalism your culture rating must be quite high. The benefit of Nationalism is that you can mobilize your economy for war or peace. Mobilizing for war halves the cost of all military units and improvements, but doubles all others. Once mobilized for war, you must select an enemy. You cannot switch out of a wartime economy until the war ends. Mobilizing for peace has the opposite effect, halving the cost of other improvements, but doubling your military expenditures.

If a substitute, politically correct term for fascism, then the date is off by a century. On the other hand, in terms of the proposed dynamics, only France during the Napoleonic Wars; and the North and the South during the U.S. Civil War, really came close to achieving this type of "total war" economy prior to 1900. In word, I find their proposal to be historically hard to defend.

Also, the dynamics as described can be historically applied to all of the current "modern" forms of gov't. Wouldn't it make more sense to offer this option to all of the "modern" forms of government (i.e., Democracy, Communisum, Fundamentalism, and "Fascism") under the "title" of a "Wartime Economy/War Ministry"?

As suggested elsewhere, I'd recommend that this proposed "government type" be an addition to the tech tree, allowing each of these governments to employ this "total war" option. (The prerequisites might be public eduction -- which should included in Civ3 anyways -- and industrialization.)

But then again, we must remember that these previews are previews; and the information contained may not be completely accurate. ...

(As for Fundamentalism, I don't think the form of government needs to be dropped; substantially modified, yes. But dropping it altogether may not be necessary.)

 

[gjts00]

Originally posted by Andu Indorin:


Available later in the game, Nationalism (a NEW government type) is analogous to the ideology of early nineteenth century Europe.... To switch to Nationalism your culture rating must be quite high. The benefit of Nationalism is that you can mobilize your economy for war or peace. Mobilizing for war halves the cost of all military units and improvements, but doubles all others. Once mobilized for war, you must select an enemy. You cannot switch out of a wartime economy until the war ends. Mobilizing for peace has the opposite effect, halving the cost of other improvements, but doubling your military expenditures.

.)

The govt system described above, sounds pretty cool to me. Finally, we'll be able to wage war & make money at the same time, while keeping the populace happy between monarchy & communism. I'm sure that it will be my govt of choice.

------------------
Listen, strange women lying around in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system government.

[This message has been edited by gjts00 (edited June 03, 2001).]

 

[Damien]

It's a simplification to describe the govs under Napoleon and Fachism...b4 the french revolution people accepted to make war because they were obligated by the gov(actually not exactly...they went to battle to defend their country too of course).
With the french revolution,people went to war in order to defend the revolutionnary ideas.In Nationalism,people are (too)proud of their country and would give anything for it.
What i mean is that in nationalism,the fatherland comes b4 anything else.
Do all for your nation...a good argument for leaders to slave the people

 

[Andu Indorin]

Originally posted by Damien:
It's a simplification to describe the govs under Napoleon and Fachism ... What i mean is that in nationalism, the fatherland comes b4 anything else.
Do all for your nation... a good argument for leaders to {en}slave the people.

Indeed, you've raised another reason why Nationalism is NOT a form of government; if this "design proposal" is in fact in the works, they are opening up the proverbial "Pandora's Box."

 

[DBSD13]

Its strange how we mix things up without knowing or caring for the mistakes.

Shouldn't:
Capitalism to Democracy
Communism to Socialism
Nationalism to Facism
Depotism to Dictatorship
Imperialism to Monarchy

Its just a trick of word. Rit? Coz I dun really kow where I'm heading to rit now

Anyway Its just a game and although this is a game of "Civilization" it doesn't need to be too close to reality. I dun see ppl arguing that there's no such thing as a BFG or a photon launcher in 1st person combat, or Strategy games "build" units from barracks one at a time or other games not "historically" accurate or the Sims' pathetic mating system. Give them a break!

They are working really hard on this game already. If you want a real-life like game, why dun you try this one call "Earth: A Reality" its really gd. Its just like Earth and you play it 24 hours a day. Its a combination of ALL the games u have played and only through careful planning will you suceed. There's one draw back. No save game option.

I think thats y ppl like games. They are like the reality except you can save the game and play differently all the time.

Like I said, I dun kow wat I'm leading off to.. Sorry about going off topic.

 

[Andu Indorin]

DBSD13:

Yeah, you're probably right: it's just a game.

But since Civ is a damned good and damned popular game; and because I teach "Civ" ... well, sometimes it's frustrating when history is misapplied and I have to "unteach" that which has been "taught."

 

[Anthony Coulter]

Like many others here, I admit that nationalism is not technically a form of government. Also like many others, I think we should sit and wait for more details. I like the thought of an economy that can mobilize for war and peace. I like the whole "army" idea in unit combat. I like the idea of a government that is inaccessible until you accumulate many culture points. The concepts fit well together, and they should be interesting to play. If you don't want to think of it as nationalism, I suppose that you could think of it as fascism if you would like.

Concerning the differences between certain forms of government... Many of those are confused for good reasons.

Capitalism to Democracy - True democracies are generally based on the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want. Capitalism (or, more specifically, a free-market economy) is based on the same thing. Additionally, both democratic and capitalist nations want people to own property with minimal government interference.

Communism to Socialism - Socialism is the first step from capitalism to communism. Once you're socialistic, you're pretty darned close to communistic. Which reminds me, I have to read "Communist Manifesto" as a summer assignment before school starts back up. Speaking of school...

Despotism to Dictatorship - To my knowledge, a despotism is any government in which one or more people have absolute control over everyone else, generally backed by the military. Despots are not bound to constitutions or "grand laws." I thought dictatorships were the same way, but you are only allowed to have one leader (instead of several, which would instead be called an "oligarchy.")

Nationalism to Fascism - This one is somewhat questionable. I do admit that nationalism is more of a "feeling," a love of one's country. America had plenty of nationalism during World War Two, when soldiers proudly marched off to war while their wives moved into the factories. People would do anything for their country. Fascism, I think, is a system similar to "socialism" in which the government chooses who gets to do what. Supposedly, you still need a permit to plant a shrub in your front yard in Germany. That would be fascism if it was true. (Perhaps some German civfanatics could confirm or refute this.)

Imperialism to Monarchy - Back to the track we were on earlier, a successful monarchy tends to go imperialistic. Monarchies tend to operate with one central leader, whose family members get lower positions throughout the kingdom. A large monarchy has a huge kingdom, or an 'empire,' hence 'imperialism.' Imperialism doesn't require a monarchy (Rome did it with a republic for a while), but many truly imperialistic nations tend to become monarchies. (Rome's senate was rendered useless by the Caesar despot/monarch, and Britain was a monarchial imperialism for quite some time.)

And in conclusion...
Yes, the governments and systems are all slightly different from each other. Fortunately, in game context, they are allowed to blur somewhat. Under a democracy, you get bonus trade and no wasted resources, yes? With a capitalistic economy, you have plenty of trade, and everybody is so busy struggling to survive that they can't afford to waste anything. The monarchy allows you to support three units from each city, regardless of size, making armies on the front lines (by size 1 cities) as easy to maintain as armies produced in your large core cities. Corruption is a problem when you get far enough from the king's palace (the capital) because people feel that the king is "over there" and they are "over here." That falls in line with imperialism. Really, the tweaks the game offers are generic enough to allow some interpretation. And I really would like to fiddle around with nationalism. Imagine that expensive hydro-plant only costing half as much...

-----Anthony

 

[hannibol43]

Nationalism reflects a type of government if you will but I agree it is not necessarily a government. But I think we are going too far with the definition. Nationalism as I see it is designed to account for the governments that have been experienced in the times of large wars WWI and WWII or Egypt during the Suez Canal incursion, Israel in the 50's or during a country wide movement like NASA trip to the moon or the Soviet Union and Sputnik. All of these would not be considered a "Nationalism" Governemt but a period where the countries mobilized there resources to a common goal.

Also Anthony, I think you are mispresenting some of the aspects of governments Democracies have nothing to do with Free Market society except they compliment each other there have been socialist economies with democratic goernment and so on. Some of what you said i think was accurate and some a little shaky but, pls don't take the wrong way, good comments.

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

------------------
1Peace 1Love

"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

[This message has been edited by hannibol43 (edited June 06, 2001).]

 

[EntirelyBS]

well, whether it was a real government isn't entirely the only point. I mean, neither Communism as Marx envisioned nor Democracy as a form of freedom have ever really existed.

 

[stormerne]

This is a fascinating discussion with some great insights into government types in real life throughout the world. But let me turn it round. Given the limitations of a game scenario, what is the full range of government types that is feasible in CivIII and how would they best be represented?

Supposing you were in Sid's shoes. Knowing the sorts of things you can vary and control in the game itself, what would you try and represent and, in game terms, how? And if you came up with the gaming idea that's currently called Nationalism, if it was that good an idea what would you call it if not Nationalism? Would you try and represent Theocracy, for example, and if so how (and how would be different to the Fundamentalism we're waving goodbye to?)?

 

[hannibol43]

That is basically where I stand. I think all thegovernments that are currently slated to be in CivIII are adequate for the needs and purposes of making the game cover parts of human civilization. You have to draw the line somewhere.



------------------
1Peace 1Love

"Hannibol Ad Portas!"

 

[TTG]

Look at all of the types that have been in the game since the beginning...

Despotism makes a lot of sense. One ruler, ruling by fear.

Monarchy is just like despotism, but with an improved system of ascension.

Communism is (in civilization) a country controlled by a single political party which tries to equalize things for the "people" and gain power for itself.

Democracy is a government elected by a popular vote from the people.

Republic is like a democracy, but with more power in the hands of landowners and other people of relative influence and not just the regular people.


If you look at these types, they seem to cover it pretty well, but all you have to do is look at a single type and you can see the tonnes of variations that could exist that would be so utterly different from each other. Like Democracy... The people elect the government. Ok, but how? In the United States, the people vote for local representatives to fill the two houses, then they elect electoral college members who select the head of state for them. In Britain and Canada, however, the people don't elect the head of state at all, she's a Monarch. The leader of the government, the Prime Minister, is not elected either. He or she is selected by whichever party controls the house of commons.

Or take despotism. Are the despots who ruled the simple nomadic tribes of early civilization the same as the emperors of Rome or the modern-day dictators like those in many African or South American countries?

Or you can merely look to the strange examples! Within Rome, there is a city inside a city that is actually a country that is controlled by a religion. The same thing occured in ancient Israel, where the country was a "Theocracy" (not supported by the Civilization series) which meant it was governed by a set of permenant principles decided upon by the religious leaders. In Southeast Asia, there is a country (I forget which one) which is ruled by a dead man. He has been dead for decades, but the government refers to him as the "eternal emperor" and he is still the official head of state. What do you call a government run by a dead man? Necrocracy?

My point (I got to it eventually!) is that the diversity of goverments in real life is actually an assortment of hundreds of different government types which could hardly be summarized in fifty types, let alone FIVE. Sid et al had to choose to limit the number of governments though, that would offer a good selection while keeping the game balanced. I think they made good choices. As for nationalism, I think we all have yet to see what influence it will really have on the game play, whether it will cause wars and times of peace to be more clearly distinguished, or whether it will just allow clever players to manage their resources more effectively. To me, it looks like a great new idea.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/militia.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://www.civfanatics.com/civ1/units/mbimg/phalanx.gif" border=0>
Civilization I Master of masters

Webmaster of Civilization 3 Arsenal

 

[animepornstar]

i think all pyramid building systems are basically fascistic. capitalism, communism, monarchy...

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.oea.se/oea01190/all2.jpg" border=0>

[This message has been edited by animepornstar (edited June 07, 2001).]

 

[Thunderfall]

[news] For months we thought Nationalism is a new governemnt type that replaces Fundamentalism in Civ III. "<font color=brown>I'm not sure where all this started, but Nationalism is NOT a form of government in Civ III. Nationalism is a Tech which allows you to draft citizens and switch to a war-time economy</font>", says Soren Johnson at Apolyton's forum. Soren is a programmer at Firaxis.

Why did we all think Nationalism is a new government type? An excerpt from the PC.IGN Civ3 Preview Update which was posted on May 25 will tell you why:

<font color=brown>Rather than paying a production upkeep for your units, you will pay gold instead. This frees up shields for production but puts a slightly higher strain on your economy. The solution to this lies in the game's new government, Nationalism. Available later in the game, Nationalism is analogous to the ideology of early nineteenth century Europe. </font>

[This message has been edited by Thunderfall (edited August 25, 2001).]

 

[Graeme the mad]

Thats brilliant thunderfall - I was going to come into this argument on the side of nationalism but I think with it as it stands it is a much better idea - akin to that in ctp (i liked the armies in ctp and warfare in ctp - pity everything else was so crap <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>) - however I would like fascism in the game cos otherwise in the late game u only have communism and democracy to choose between <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

[This message has been edited by Graeme the mad (edited August 25, 2001).]