Theo vs. OR?

[mariogreymist]

I think that USSR is like having Theocracy on without a state religion. No religion spread at all. According to the strict definition of the word Theocracy, a form of government which the religion calls all the shots, the USSR is not a thoecracy, but when we examine the characteristics of a theocracy, which persecutes other religions besides the state religion, the USSR seems to be a theocracy.

The USSR used similar tactics as theocracies do in enforcing a specific belief structure. That's different from being a theocracy. Is this really so hard to understand?

theo-

a combining form meaning “god,” used in the formation of compound words: theocrat.

Emphasis added.

 

[Badtz Maru]

Find me a single definition of theocracy anywhere in academically credible literature which includes the Soviet Union. Until you can do that, you are simply redefining theocracy.

Also: you have created a double-bind in your logic.

Iran is a theocracy. It does not ban other religions.
National Socialism was (and could be again) a religion by your estimation (not by mine). Nazi Germany by your estimation was not a theocracy because it did not ban other religions.
The USSR was a theocracy because it banned other "religions".

Okay, nice logic.

Iran is a theocracy because the head of state is the Supreme Ruler, who is also the religious leader, and the government's decisions must be reviewed and approved by a collection of clerics. It's because of that I call it a theocracy (there is more than one way to be a theocracy).

Nazi Germany was not a theocracy, even if National Socialism was a religion, because the organization of the government, although dominated by party members, was not based solely on Nazi beliefs. Hitler was not ruler because National Socialism considered him the supreme ruler of the party, he was ruler because he claimed to have been elected by the government processes that came before the rise of the Nazi party. His claim and justification to power was not that he was the top Nazi (even if that was really the reason).

The government of the USSR was built around Leninist principles. It wasn't that a Leninist became the head of an existing government that came before Leninism, the government was devised completely by Leninism. Government=Religion is Theocracy. Government taken over by members of Religion is NOT theocracy (otherwise the USA would have been a fundamentalist theocracy under Bush).

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com definition of the prefix "Theo"
theo-

a combining form meaning “god,” used in the formation of compound words: theocrat.

OK, if you're going to play word games instead of adhering to actual meanings, then there's no point in debating with you. That's like saying that "Personal" means "being deceptive" because the origins of the word "person" come from a word meaning mask.

A theocracy is a state ruled by a religion. A religion is not required to have a god.

 

[Desert-Fox]

If you really want a deity for Leninism then Lenin had almost deity status. He still haven't buried yet. Still some people visit his mauseleum often. It is like how to handle it but for USSR the Leninism was a religion and the "religion civic" was theocracy.

 

[mariogreymist]

Because some of you still don't know what the word means:

the⋅oc⋅ra⋅cy
  /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-ok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -cies.
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

Emphasis added

Lenin was (and remains so for many) revered, but was not ever considered divine by any directive or doctrine of the Soviet State. It wasn't a theocracy.

You people are making an affirmative claim. I want to see an academically sound definition of theocracy that doesn't rely on divine principles before I will bother offering any more responses (Aside from just making fun of you*), as I've already shown you guys far more respect than your argument deserves.

Also note: broad definitions of religion which can include things like Leninism, Neoliberalism, Marxism, Maoism and any other belief system do not necessarily include a deity or divinity. Without that element, a government based on the belief is not a theocracy, even if it employs similar tactics in propagating the belief system. To imply otherwise is to change the meaning of theocracy.

*which I will start doing in earnest if you keep asking me to disprove an unwarranted claim

 

[Nilmerf]

Let's compromise. Mario is right on real world application and the definition of terms. But on the other hand the best way to simulate the USSR in game would be to run Police State/Nationhood/Serfdom (ironically)/State Property/Theocracy. But at the same time have no religion in any cities.

 

[mariogreymist]

Let's compromise. Mario is right on real world application and the definition of terms. But on the other hand the best way to simulate the USSR in game would be to run Police State/Nationhood/Serfdom (ironically)/State Property/Theocracy. But at the same time have no religion in any cities.

I can agree with that. The in game functionality of the theology civic is closer to the Soviet policies on religion and ideology than any other in game religious civic. To depict the Soviet Union as a theocracy in real world terms is certainly not an accurate representation of the nature of the USSR.

I would also point out that even with all the civics choices in civ IV, real world governance, legal, labor, economic and religious policies are far more complicated than any game can possibly represent. Any nation you choose to examine will have at least one area among the game represented civics which does not fit in one way or another. Consider Free Religion in the USA: do areas where religious school boards mandate creationism/intelligent design as science get that 10% bonus? Did the presence of the Islamic and Sikh religion increase civic happiness in late 2001? The in game effects are always an imperfect representation of real world social and political phenomena. But just as the CivIV civic of theocracy best describes religious policy of the USSR even while the USSR was definitively not a theocracy, the US certainly is a state of religious freedom, even though the in game civic is not well represented in American society.

 

[killmeplease]

wll, USSR was an atheistocracy!

In my games I use the Atheism civic:
* no state religion
* no nonstate religion spread
* +1 per non-state religion present in city
* +15% in all cities.
* unlimited engineer specialists.
available with scientific method, high upkeep

As well I've changed theocracy to give support for large amounts of military units rather than xp and affecting science (-25%) and great people points (-50%) - its now very resembling of fundamentalism in civ2.

Unlimited priests to OR

 

[Baldyr]

The beauty with Civ4, I think, is that the Civics system allows you to interpret things your own way. Any given state or type of government will be represented by different Civics depending whom you ask. And one can also use different definitions depending on strategy or attitude. Or have your nation be an idealized or demonized version of its real world equivalent.

As an example I could have the USSR be a godless (Free Religion) bureaucratic police state that has enslaved its populous. Or the same nation could be a nationalistic union of local soviets (Representation) that has emancipated its citizens from bondage and is working for the cause of world peace, adopting a strictly defensive military policy (Pacifism). Or a fanatical necrocracy ruled in the name of a dead man in a mausoleum by his ancestors (Hereditary Rule & Theocracy) that has subjugated its neighbors into subordinate Soviet Republics and satellite states (Vassalage), organizing it's own citizens into the proletariat, the intellectuals, the armed services, the security services and the nomenclature (Caste System). Or...

The only constant would be the civic State Property, but I'm sure even some of the other economy civics could be redefined to pass as "socialism" or "communism". You could also always claim that your version or interpretation is a "what if" type situation or a "potential" development that never occurred in real life. After all, the aim of most types of governments (except the domains of warlords) is to benefit its citizens (and leaders, which goes without saying). People will always be arguing that they're not meeting this objective, or believe that they themselves are disenfranchised in one way or another. The question of what system serves its citizens the best will never ever be universally accepted as every form of government will inevitably contain conflicting interests (like security vs privacy, freedom vs justice, and so on).

I consider this open-ended approach to governments to be one of the strengths of this particular edition of Civilization.