Tough times to be a fascist

[gay_Aleks]

Fascism sucks in Civ4. Permanent alliances just drag you down. Universal suffrage combined with free speech is better.

Bah, Representation wins every time. 1 from every specialist plus 1 happy in every city? Count me in.

 

[jackelgull]

China and Japan have been involved in a saber rattling contest over disputed territories since WW2.

If it wasn't for the US, Taiwan and many Japanese islands would be a part of China.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm unsure whether China could effectively invade Japan, or if there even were any plans.

Especially, post-WWII, where Mao was too busy making farmers "grow" steel and also kill several million people through famine.

 

[classical_hero]

Fascism sucks in Civ4. Permanent alliances just drag you down. Universal suffrage combined with free speech is better.

That is if you are a peacenik. If you want to be a warmonger you need to go Police State, Vassalage, Slavery or Feudalism, State property and Theocracy. With that you can take over any civ you want.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or, you know, you could surround your cities with farms, and then spam slavery. Bam, you're drowning the enemy in numbers!

 

[classical_hero]

That is what any good MP player does.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

China and Japan have been involved in a saber rattling contest over disputed territories since WW2.

If it wasn't for the US, Taiwan and many Japanese islands would be a part of China.

Eh. Taiwan is a thorn in their side and will always be rattled at, and the 'territorial disputes' with Japan may involve some saber rattling but they actively affect about twelve humans...the contested islands are more like ocean claiming signposts than actual territory. But as I said, if they are thinking of actually doing anything, ever, they are clearly thinking the US is going to up and decide to let them...because they are 'preparing in a negative direction' for any confrontation with the US.

 

[tetley]

Tibet? Taiwan? Japan? China is plenty aggressive.

 

[classical_hero]

But they aren't America or Israel, so they can't be fascist.

 

[jackelgull]

I'd call China fascist.

America and Israel have some fascist ideals, but to fair the idea of extremism nationalism isn't limited to fascism alone. Our policy in the middle east has been pretty aggressive, so has Israel's policy with Palestine. American liberty's are shrinking and the government has been trying to better its ability to spy on its citizens just like fascism. But we aren't fascist. Liberty has yet to completely disappear, and the government so far has yet to act on its information to arrest dissenters, so we aren't fascist yet.

I think the thing to remember, is that many of these actions are taken with everyone's best interests at heart. That said, fascism was an idea of government that was suppose to do the same. It failed miserably.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Weird. I wouldn't really describe "fascism" as "a form of government in which everyone's best interest at heart". If we look at the few examples we have of fascism, we'll see there's a pretty clear show, that, only the Party's interests are taken at heart.

 

[Zack]

Weird. I wouldn't really describe "fascism" as "a form of government in which everyone's best interest at heart". If we look at the few examples we have of fascism, we'll see there's a pretty clear show, that, only the Party's interests are taken at heart.

I would describe it as a form of government pleasing to Hitler.

 

[Zack]

edit: double post, obliterate with overwhelming force

 

[gay_Aleks]

I would describe it as a form of government pleasing to Hitler.

Dunno man. With all that is stacked against fascists, at least their trains ran on time.

And nothing else.

 

[jackelgull]

Weird. I wouldn't really describe "fascism" as "a form of government in which everyone's best interest at heart". If we look at the few examples we have of fascism, we'll see there's a pretty clear show, that, only the Party's interests are taken at heart.

The thought/ rationale behind fascism was that the government was less selfish than the individual and would do what was right for everybody if it was given all the power. That was the theory, in practice though, giving power to the government doesn't work out in everybody's best interests.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tibet? Taiwan? Japan? China is plenty aggressive.

I did say in my lifetime, which did leave out Tibet. If my own country did not have a significant number of notches in their gun during my lifetime I would be a lot more inclined to hold Tibet against China probably.

Taiwan...Imagine if Ireland told the rest of Great Britain to sod off, and then received arms from a foreign power like the US...how would Great Britain feel? Er...this may not have been the best example. Anyway, as far as I know the closest this conflict has come to being active is that one side or the other uses big speaker towers on an island in the Formosa straight to blast propaganda across the water at the enemy.

As to Japan, the most recent 'conflict' came from a Japanese attempt to claim some islands that have been squabbled over since the dawn of time that have no actual value at all. However if they belonged to Japan some obscure maritime treaty would allow Japan to not only claim territorial water around them but some chunk to make them contiguous with the main territorial water of Japan...thus Japan suddenly 'owns' the primary shipping lane between China and the USA and can charge for right of passage. If China didn't say not just no but heck no, the US would have, no doubt about it. That seems like Japanese aggression to me.

Bottom line, China spends less than a third on defense of what the world's policeman primary thug er, largest spender does, so they can't really be up to anything much.

 

[Tahuti]

Bottom line, China spends less than a third on defense of what the world's policeman primary thug er, largest spender does, so they can't really be up to anything much.

China banks on its nuclear arsenel so it is hardly telling. While China's threat to global peace has been monstrously overrated (not unlike your favourite country in the Middle East, no offence), military spending is a very poor metric of gauging overall aggressiveness or military potential.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not a modern day facism boils down to something thread. You disappoint me.

Modern day Fascism boils down to Kitsch and Neo-Hegalians.
It's that simple, really.

 

[ParkCungHee]

China banks on its nuclear arsenel so it is hardly telling. While China's threat to global peace has been monstrously overrated (not unlike your favourite country in the Middle East, no offence), military spending is a very poor metric of gauging overall aggressiveness or military potential.

While I agree the threat posed by China has been overstated, or at least, is systemic, rather than a result of their government, China most certainly does NOT bank on it's nuclear arsenel.

They have not strongly invested in second strike capabilities, or that much in the way of long range rockets. China strongly relies on it's conventional army to pull it's weight in diplomacy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

China banks on its nuclear arsenel so it is hardly telling. While China's threat to global peace has been monstrously overrated (not unlike your favourite country in the Middle East, no offence), military spending is a very poor metric of gauging overall aggressiveness or military potential.

We have more nuclear arsenal than anyone and still outspend our nearest rival by better than three to one...what does that tell you?