Repulsive Political Agenda

I just came across the Civics Tree options for Capitalism and Communism, and I found evidence of a repulsive political agenda in CIV VI. Communism, which has been a dismal failure everywhere it's been tried, gives one better troops, more production, and increased influence. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a particularly dangerous fallacy given the preponderance among gamers of young people who have no personal memory of the Communist "Golden Era".

I was in China 35 years ago, right after the Glorious Cultural Revolution devastated their economy. Sympathetic young Chinese who wanted to practice their English with me commiserated on the plight of the unemployed in America (we were just emerging from the miseries of the Carter era). I looked around and saw crowds of undernourished Chinese in their pajamas, the wealthy ones pedaling bicycles but almost no private motor vehicles, women pounding their laundry on rocks in the muddy Yangtze River, and a million breakfasts being prepared inside one-room huts over charcoal burners, and I thought "You would LOVE to be unemployed in America!"

The story is the same everywhere: USSR, Venezuela, Cuba.. show me just ONE workers' paradise that has prospered. OTOH Capitalism, which seems almost a deprecated ideology in CIV VI, has been associated with a global prosperity unparalleled in human history, one that has lifted most, if not all boats. Even in the past decade you can easily see the economic decline of America under the most leftist administration since Carter, and the enthusiasm of financial markets with the end of that sad era.

I recognize that it's only a game, but it's also an art-form in that it can influence the world-view of younger players whose real-world experience is necessarily limited. Artists have an ethical responsibility to show truth, not to parrot the stale lies of the political Left.

 

Democracy is already the consistently strongest of the final three governments because of its policy cards. 3 Economic, 2 Wildcard is simply better in most games than Communism or Fascism. You severely overestimate the bonuses of Communism simply from its Legacy and Government bonuses. It also is the ONLY government in the whole game that gives 2 Diplomatic cards, which could be interpreted as the only government to encourage global cooperation. Communism just looks nice cause of a lot of big words. Maybe it's different on higher difficulties or multiplayer, but from where I stand it's the easiest way to a victory.

One thing I noticed is you don't seem to be nearly as disgusted with Fascism as you do Communism. As someone who lost nearly all of my family on my mothers side to WW2, that seems far, far more disgusting to me personally. Fascism gets 2 Wildcards, +6 military, +20% unit production, +1% unit production per legacy. Personally the idea that the first to fall of the great 3 ideologies is useful at all is kindof weird. I would never want an art-form to encourage the same younger players that Fascism is a good option either. But I have to put aside my disgust at that to recognize that it simply is only a game. Those bonuses are truthful to an extent, and balanced for the rest of it. There is a reason democracy seems to be the best for me in all my games.

EDIT: I can't believe I'm just noticing this right now but try to post this in NOT ideas and suggestions. I'm still new to this forum but I think General Discussions would be better.

 

A strategy game where you are given a few options but only one is worth taking because it is stronger than the others.
I dislike that the game can provide fairly pointless options to provide a watered down political dogma.
That is what history and education is for. It is also an oversimplification for the sake of a game mechanic (good) of many more complex governments we have and have had in existence.
I liked in 5 I could choose Oligarchy because of its distinct benefits to me rather than just always choose democracy as in 6.
It is an emotive subject but it is not encouraging us all to become communists if each goverment has differing but fairly even benefits. It is purely just a good mechanic then

 

Come the revolution, JMRatBum will be first against the wall, the Capitalist Running Dog Lackey.

 

Capitalism deprecated in Civilization VI? Communism glorified?

Please read the Civilopedia about capitalism and communism and tell me more. And read about the communism policies too.
In civilization VI the deprecated system is communism. Communism works in the game mechanic that is right, but fascism works too.
This is because the game needs balance and all systems must work, it is in no way intended to glorified that ideology.
In fact the ideology commended in the Civilopedia is capitalism.
I think that is a mistake to underestimate communism. After of the October Revolution, Russia became in a world power with the time. Be aware that the first astronaut that went to the space was from the URSS, Yuri Gagarin. We can criticize many things of communism, but it can't be said that it has not meant a great advance for many peoples.

 

"We can criticize many things of communism, but it can't be said that it has not meant a great advance for many peoples." With respect, I would point out that communism has been responsible for the deaths of countless millions and the enslavement of a billion or more, just in the past century. This is a great advance?

 

Isn't it the case with liberal capitalism ? I'm sure you're thinking about Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and so on. But what about Pinochet, Trujillo, Soeharto, Videla, ... May it be capitalist, communist, or whatever, what you despise is totalitarism and criminal states, and even the most beautiful ideology in paper can become hell on earth with a dictator in its hands.
Cuba, for instance, is no rich country, people have very few, and censorship is high, but on the hand, people are granted a roof, food, healthcare, and education.
In capitalism, the country may get rich economically, you may very be the poorest soul on earth if you don't «succed», and don't count on help, since you're the one who failed. Plus, capitalism is revealing more and more its flaws, politically, economically, environmently, socially, ...
Finally, this is a game: no one in their right would think of «oh my god, he grabbed some land I wanted : prepare for war !», nuke a country because it is closer to send a spaceship than you, or that Thomas of Aquinus can create Buddhism !

 

I totally agree. In addition, a person who kills in the name of an ideology does not invalidate that ideology, it only invalidates the person who kills. Unless it is an ideology based on terror.
For example if you kill in order to close nuclear plants you should be imprisoned, but this does not discredit the peaceful struggle against these plants.

 

Monarchies still exist to this day. However, monarchy is promptly abandoned upon unlocking fascism, democracy, or communism in-game.

 

It can be argued that USSRs Leninism and China's Maoism had very little todo with Marx’s original idea, or that on paper communism is not so different from Social Democracy. With biggest issues you'd like to lay at each one feet being mater of circumstances of where and how it was attempted ---which may not be relevant in your game world-- and that now days socialism and capitalism are just emotionally charged slogans to denounce certain policies in what is essentially muddled version of left capitalist welfare policies.

Anyway, its a game not political science course, some oversimplification in-favor of gameplay is in-order to keep things interesting. And I think that civ6 new card system scores very well here offering historical flavor, more unique gameplay and great flexibility to fit your story. In the past I also played games with more abstract forms of government where you could scale various policies ( e.g. Popular <-> Authoritarian rule, Political Left <-> Right. Free Market <-> Central Planning) but I don't think that it would be as good of a fit for civ.

 

I'm going to impose a 20-year rule here (same as r/AskHistorians) and comment briefly on the history rather than contemporary events before I move to the gameplay answer. This post absolutely has a hindsight bias - that, because it ultimately failed, it didn't work. That distorts the history quite a bit. I'll focus on Soviet history because I'm less familiar with Chinese history (although I would encourage you to contextualize the PRC with the Civil War that preceded it and the last days of the monarchy before that). The Soviet Union lasted for 70 years. When comparing Russia in 1917 to the height of the Soviet Union, it's clear that it's night and day. Morality aside, it was a success for many, may years before it ultimately failed.

Note that I said morality aside. I did that for a reason. It's entirely legitimate to say that the brutality of totalitarian Communism or the Oligarchic rule before and after Stalin was morally reprehensible and the human costs there outweighed any material benefits to the state in terms of industry, culture, and world influence. But I think the same could be said about ancient monarchies, theocratic rule, caste systems, etc., all which tend to be represented in this game because they were historically significant. Ultimately, that's why Communism is in the game - it was historically significant. And, once in the game, it has to be presented in a way that makes sense for gameplay balance. Keep in mind the significance of Communism far outweighs the significance of Fascism, which was a fad of the 1930s and early 40s and was walked back on by Franco. There are certainly fascist elements that still exist today in world governments, but it never had the same long-term global impact as Communism did.

 

It is a GAME depicting all events, good and bad that happened in human history...I liked playing monopoly...that doesn't mean I like monopolies in real life...

 

It is different when you have suffered first hand, your brain quite rightly is less likely to accept seeing any form of the cause portrayed in anything but bad light. Communsm is portrayed in many games as an even option and so it is unlikely to change here because, yes it is a game and also we have freedom of choice. The last thing I want is to be told I cannot do this. As long as I harm no-one else with my choices (physical harm) or limit their choices then Freedom is intact.

 

Civ V: BNW had the American Civil War scenario. Yes, it is possible to play as the Confederates. Does that legitimize the Confederates? No, as much as I find their ideology repulsive.

 

Well, so has capitalism, but I don't see anyone clamoring for the removal of capitalism as a playable government type.

 

I think it really depends what you are after. All three systems of government have faults and advantages. Communism can succeed at cost to your own people- the quality of life of your own people is lowered but it also gives the government an incredible degree of power, and in a game where you play as the government (and your citizens are imaginary), it can be ok to roleplay as a communist state. Fascism is a system that can succeed at the cost of international relationships. It often leads to super nationalism, xenophobia and racism. In the 30s, it helped bring Germany out of the depression it experienced after the first World War. In that sense at least, it fueled economic and scientific growth as well as military expansion, but as many have said, it had a great cost with how the ideology lead to the second world war.

Capitalism or Democracy can have advantages and disadvantages too. It often tries to heighten the quality of life of the [voters] citizens of the country, but a pure capitalist society favours the wealthy over the poor. While the poor usually can expect clean water, shelter and electricity, there is very little true class mobility (although many at the top would argue otherwise- that it's possible to rise to the top from the bottom. The top is a very small place and many of the people there were born into it. A tiny fraction of the poor are able to raise the wealth bracket their children are born into). Additionally, democratic societies are prone to slow reaction time (a product of a voting system rather than absolute power, which can take immediate action in response to events). In democracies, the people in power may often end up being the most charismatic people, not the people best suited to the office.

Depending on what you're trying to do, I think each government type has a place in Civ 6. Communism and Fascism [should] be useful when you are in a bad position- if your economy is bad, you are threatened militarily or in some other situation, these governments should allow you to take better control of your nation. At the same time, each should cause their own problems if used for too long.


I have not payed much attention to what the governments do in Civ 6, this is only my opinion on how they SHOULD operate.

Democracy should be the ideal government to have. If things are going well, Democracy should be your go-to option. However, if things are stagnating or going poorly, the other two government types should be better. In economic depression, democracy should stop being effective. Communism and Fascism will let you bounce back in these situations but at a cost, so it is best to only use them until you are stable enough to switch to democracy.

 

Has the civ series used the word "Capitalism" before? Iirc civ 3 and civ 5 both had the trilogy of ideologies but the equivalent in civ 3 was "Democracy" while in civ 5 it was "Freedom".

I notice the above posters hesitance in using the c-word above the d-word. It's a very spurious term, and especially in a modern context. IMO the ideology and governmental system of the West is best described by the term "Liberalism".

Just a pet hate of mine I suppose. I mean Capitalism had more specific meanings originally, but it's a bit of a lay-term in how it's used today.

 

You're probably right, I don't think that Civ has ever used the C word. However, most modern democratic societies are fairly capitalist, at least in that the economy is not regulated or owned by the government (beyond fair ecological and safety regulations).

 

Have seen this debate since Civ3. Must be getting old. I often switch to fascism because I need to kick ass to win the game, not because I hate the Jews.

 

Civ4 used "Free Market," while Communism was "State Property."