What should the Civ VII political system be like?

[Evie]

If you confuse the technology used to unlock a civic with what the civic actually represent, that's a you problem.

The rest of us can tell the difference. State Property does not equate to Communism.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

State ownership is a product of Marxism - communism, it has nothing to do with the ownership of the ancient era, and not whether it is compatible with monarchy and with a monarchical system of any kind

Have you ever actually read Marx?

He refers to Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek classical writings in his own commentaries and letters about Das Kapital and the Manifesto. Heck, Plato's Republic is widely considered to be the first (known) description of a 'communist' society - as in, calling for common/state control of all property. Unlike Marx, Plato also foresaw that to achieve that would require a controlling group of leaders with absolute dictatorial powers.

Several Christian and the Zoroaastrian Mazdak movement in Persia all advocated 'common ownership and control' of all property. This was, in fact, one of the most common organizations of Christian monastic foundations throughout the period of the 7th to 16th centuries CE as well as 'splinter' Christian sects like the Hutterites, Anabaptists, and Waldensians.

Later, Thomas More's Utopia described a society based on common ownership of all property - and Lenin after 1917 suggested that they raise a monument to More as a 'founder' of Communism!

Communist principles of state or common ownership and distribution of property were widely advocated during the Enlightenment (mid-18th century) by writers such as Rousseau and Morelly in France and was later picked up during the French Revolution as a potential political doctrine - reference the works of Babeuf, Restif, and Marechal.

In Marx's own lifetime, several social reform movements were based on communal ownership of all property, such as Robert Owen's New Harmony community in Indiana, USA (1825 CE) or Charles Fourier's Brook Farm (1841 CE)

So, by the time Marx and Engels produced the Communist Manifesto in 1848 CE, they were trodding a very well-worn path of proposing State ownership/control of property of all kinds that had philosophical, political, economic, religious roots going back at least 2000 years. State Ownership was not a product of Marxism, nor were any of the doctrines identified as Communist in the 19th and 20th centuries: they were Consequences of numerous prior attempts at getting people to live that way, virtually all of which failed in actual practice, as did the modern Communist attempts in the end.

 

[luca 83]

by not putting ideology you make a big mistake communism and fascism are powerful weapons and great ideologies. you evie read state property in civ iv and will refer to marxist communism

 

[luca 83]

Have you ever actually read Marx?

He refers to Aristotle, Plato, and other Greek classical writings in his own commentaries and letters about Das Kapital and the Manifesto. Heck, Plato's Republic is widely considered to be the first (known) description of a 'communist' society - as in, calling for common/state control of all property. Unlike Marx, Plato also foresaw that to achieve that would require a controlling group of leaders with absolute dictatorial powers.

Several Christian and the Zoroaastrian Mazdak movement in Persia all advocated 'common ownership and control' of all property. This was, in fact, one of the most common organizations of Christian monastic foundations throughout the period of the 7th to 16th centuries CE as well as 'splinter' Christian sects like the Hutterites, Anabaptists, and Waldensians.

Later, Thomas More's Utopia described a society based on common ownership of all property - and Lenin after 1917 suggested that they raise a monument to More as a 'founder' of Communism!

Communist principles of state or common ownership and distribution of property were widely advocated during the Enlightenment (mid-18th century) by writers such as Rousseau and Morelly in France and was later picked up during the French Revolution as a potential political doctrine - reference the works of Babeuf, Restif, and Marechal.

In Marx's own lifetime, several social reform movements were based on communal ownership of all property, such as Robert Owen's New Harmony community in Indiana, USA (1825 CE) or Charles Fourier's Brook Farm (1841 CE)

So, by the time Marx and Engels produced the Communist Manifesto in 1848 CE, they were trodding a very well-worn path of proposing State ownership/control of property of all kinds that had philosophical, political, economic, religious roots going back at least 2000 years. State Ownership was not a product of Marxism, nor were any of the doctrines identified as Communist in the 19th and 20th centuries: they were Consequences of numerous prior attempts at getting people to live that way, virtually all of which failed in actual practice, as did the modern Communist attempts in the end.

Only Marx tried to define the concept of the market , class , workers , means of production are you who have not read Marx enough other attempts from the essenes to the utopians were idealistic attempts of society , Jean-Jacques Rousseau also criticized property and sympathy with wild society but it was not communist, Thomas Moore was not communist , the English levellers were not communists , the state property in civ IV and referred to communism of Marxist socialist type son of the industrial revolution

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What I mean is that there is a limilimite to shuffling governments simplest example you can't be monarchist and have state ownership, be liberal and have a theocracy

Is North Korea not considered a form of monarchy (hereditary dictatorship) who practices state ownership?

 

[luca 83]

State Property is an economy civic in Civilization IV.

Strategy​

State Property negates the effects of corporations and the maintenance penalty for distance to the Palace, and increases food production from Workshops and Watermills. This civic is most useful for large empires, or civilizations with overseas territory.

Civilopedia entry​

The state property civic describes an economy in which the citizens have no private property: everything belongs to the State. The State owns the factories, the farms, the universities, the grocery stores and virtually everything else. A citizen may own his or her clothing, furniture, and vehicle, but everything else he has is given to him by the State, and may be taken away any time the State sees fit.

In a utopian society there would be no need for private property. Each person would contribute his or her best to the State; in return the State would distribute its largess according to each citizen's needs. Unfortunately, state property is quite a bit less fair when applied in real life. The State determines what each person gets, but often those decisions are based upon the citizen's political orthodoxy, family connections, or ability to pay bribes. The citizens feel that they are not rewarded for the quality of their efforts, and thus they see no point in achieving excellence. Innovation is pointless if one doesn't personally benefit from the innovation.

Civilization IV Civics [edit]
Government	Despotism Hereditary Rule Police State Representation Universal Suffrage
Legal	Barbarism Bureaucracy Free Speech Nationhood Vassalage
Labor	Caste System Emancipation Serfdom Slavery Tribalism
Economy	Decentralization Environmentalism Free Market Mercantilism State Property
Religion	Free Religion Organized Religion Pacifism Paganism Theocracy

communism state property

 

[dagriggstar]

Luca, what is the economic system of an empire where private property does not exist that predates Marx ?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Firaxis devs deciding to turn the "technology" Communism into the way to unlock the civic State Property do not have priority over the fact State Property is neither exclusive or invented by Marx. So a model were you can use State Property and/or Socialism mixed with others aspects of society is 100% valid.

Now, it is also valid to (like Firaxis did for CIV4) select a determined path to get a form of Government. Then considering CIV is a game (not a simulator) the abstraction and gamification could be subjectively defined by the devs to achieve both flavor and benefits in a preferred game design. So @luca 83 if you want it that way for your prefered design that is OK and respectable, BUT you should try to stop presenting your preferences as historical/ideological truths with not valid alternatives.

 

[luca 83]

Luca, what is the economic system of an empire where private property does not exist that predates Marx ?

none the muntzer experiment failed and was depressed the jesuit colonies in brazil recounted in the film mission but were repressed, the commune of paris repressed, perhaps china before the first emperor where property was partly communal the reign of the priest Gianni but it is a legend, the aztec reign but partly

 

[luca 83]

Firaxis devs deciding to turn the "technology" Communism into the way to unlock the civic State Property do not have priority over the fact State Property is neither exclusive or invented by Marx. So a model were you can use State Property and/or Socialism mixed with others aspects of society is 100% valid.

Now, it is also valid to (like Firaxis did for CIV4) select a determined path to get a form of Government. Then considering CIV is a game (not a simulator) the abstraction and gamification could be subjectively defined by the devs to achieve both flavor and benefits in a preferred game design. So @luca 83 if you want it that way for your prefered design that is OK and respectable, BUT you should try to stop presenting your preferences as historical/ideological truths with not valid alternatives.

No politics is fundamental and it is not simulation but ideology if the working class takes power and statalizes the means of production and a completely different and new system in the game I admit could triumph unlike our history but the community system is too different and radical to live with monarchy , even with democracy , which is different from communist proletarian democracy , tell me how can a monarchy , with state property coexist with the nobility? With a dynasty? Logically? It can exist with a bureaucratic model of the Stalinist type, with a police system (first comes the dictatorship of the proletariat then the classless society )

 

[AffineConstant]

Luca, what is the economic system of an empire where private property does not exist that predates Marx ?

While no sizeable society "without private property" has ever existed, Marx or not, there are civilizations like Indus Valley that seem to have been quite accomplished without enormous wealth disparity. Further "communal farming" isn't a Communist invention at all, communal grazing or farming was a tradition in large parts of Europe to Russia (and elsewhere?) that wasn't very efficient versus more modern practices, but it was co-opted by Lenin for the sake of getting village farmer support as the experiment in forcing them into modernity without organization didn't go well. But it's still an idea of an earlier "economic system" that could be in Civ VII. "Communism" isn't some whole cloth invention by Marx; the word is French first off while Marx is from England and only moved to France later in his life, and he got the ideas from a much longer line of thinking stretching back centuries before him.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It can exist with a bureaucratic model of the Stalinist type, with a police system (first comes the dictatorship of the proletariat then the classless society )

By your logic Communism is also incompatible with a police state, considering the "Police State" civic in Civ IV is unlocked by Fascism.

 

[luca 83]

By your logic Communism is also incompatible with a police state, considering the "Police State" civic in Civ IV is unlocked by Fascism.

No because communism needs a system of Cheka , nkvd , KGB police, to keep power and population under control and eliminate dissidents and opposing factions , internal and external

 

[BuchiTaton]

No politics is fundamental and it is not simulation but ideology if the working class takes power and statalizes the means of production and a completely different and new system in the game I admit could triumph unlike our history but the community system is too different and radical to live with monarchy , even with democracy , which is different from communist proletarian democracy , tell me how can a monarchy , with state property coexist with the nobility? With a dynasty? Logically? It can exist with a bureaucratic model of the Stalinist type, with a police system (first comes the dictatorship of the proletariat then the classless society )

Before anything you need see the difference between the ideal of Communism and the real examples of broken Socialist regimes.
First Communism is mean to be communal NOT even statal anymore. Stateless, classless, moneyless and marketless. That make you insistence on State Property quite ironic since the "State Property" or hte control of the means of production by the govenment is something that is NOT even exclusive to socialist societies and even in those some degree of private property is still going on. Not to forget that from ancient monarchies to modern capitalist democracies there are some strategic economic sectors where the government has the monopoly or a significative control like the military, security, energy, education, etc.
Again, there were plenty of "ancient" societies that were closer to achieve true communist since they were smaller societies were the "snowball effect" of accumulation of power and the vertical distancing from leaders were not such a problem as it is for post industrial nations with population in the millions.
Also you are wrong about democracy and communism, the ideal form of Communism is democratic by nature like true communities are.

Now, in the contemporary broken socialist societies we have examples that it is 100% possible to twist the ideals of socialism and mix them with the divine-like figures in the cult of personality, supreme leader dynasties and a militar elite that is what aristocracy is. North Korea, it was already mentioned a you just want to ignore it.
A king or president, a formal nobility, militar junta or politburo, even a sacred Red Bible-like book could be used to justify a ruling class as the heroic almost divine chosen group that would let the proletariat to glory. And we have clear historical examples of how socialism do not mean destroy opression, religion, nobility or social classes in practice could be just replace the previous elites with a new rebranded ones.

You want a game wen the ideal Communism could be achieved, nice I can agree with that and could be fun to implement in-game. But first put some order on what is supposed to be.

 

[luca 83]

While no sizeable society "without private property" has ever existed, Marx or not, there are civilizations like Indus Valley that seem to have been quite accomplished without enormous wealth disparity. Further "communal farming" isn't a Communist invention at all, communal grazing or farming was a tradition in large parts of Europe to Russia (and elsewhere?) that wasn't very efficient versus more modern practices, but it was co-opted by Lenin for the sake of getting village farmer support as the experiment in forcing them into modernity without organization didn't go well. But it's still an idea of an earlier "economic system" that could be in Civ VII. "Communism" isn't some whole cloth invention by Marx; the word is French first off while Marx is from England and only moved to France later in his life, and he got the ideas from a much longer line of thinking stretching back centuries before him.

Russian common land , mir were community land , but they served for the minimum subsistence of the peasants most of the land was landowners , communism means every good and common from the factory, an shop, to the land, to the houses , everything nothing and private such a system needs a lot of bureaucracy , corruption and high , and productive low , because everything and planned, serve no ... N clothes , cars, and an ideology

 

[BuchiTaton]

No because communism needs a system of Cheka , nkvd , KGB police, to keep power and population under control and eliminate dissidents and opposing factions , internal and external

That is NOT (true) Communism, under your own complaints. That is Leninism-Stalinism!!!

 

[dagriggstar]

none the muntzer experiment failed and was depressed the jesuit colonies in brazil recounted in the film mission but were repressed, the commune of paris repressed, perhaps china before the first emperor where property was partly communal the reign of the priest Gianni but it is a legend, the aztec reign but partly

How do you classify the economic system of the Inca then ?

More generally though, I'm kind of picking up a vibe that perhaps people think private property comes before (historically) like communal property. Which is strange to me because I always thought of private property as an "old world" construct that developed over time, that the "people belong to the land" sort of mentality would have come before "the land belongs to the people" mentality. Put in game (civ VI) terms, like private property would represent a civic to be researched.
I don't know why I think like this though, kind of a worldview I never really questioned I guess

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

How do you classify the economic system of the Inca then ?

More generally though, I'm kind of picking up a vibe that perhaps people think private property comes before (historically) like communal property. Which is strange to me because I always thought of private property as an "old world" construct that developed over time, that the "people belong to the land" sort of mentality would have come before "the land belongs to the people" mentality. Put in game (civ VI) terms, like private property would represent a civic to be researched.
I don't know why I think like this though, kind of a worldview I never really questioned I guess

Actually, even Marx in his analysis of economic systems described the most basic economic system as 'primitive communism' because so many tribal societies held most property in common. Of course, 'primitive communism' also implied that it wasn't 'real' Communism, his Utopian endpoint to all economic, political and social systems.

I suspect, but am not a socio-economic historical expert, that concepts of Private Property might be linked to the rise of Heirarchy as a social/political system - the realization that to make a dense concentration of unrelated people work, as in early cities, you have to have someone or some committee in charge who are not simply the heads of individual families, but can consider the requirements of the entire city, not just blood relations. Something like that would also require a division of property into family/individual ownership and city/group-wide control. The advent of large communal granaries/food storage facilities in some but not all early settlements indicates that some of them had the concept of concentrating their basic food supplies under some other-than-individual authority, while other groups and settlements did not.

Basically, as soon as people started gathering into concentrations called 'cities', they started coming up with variations on the ways they controlled or defined individual versus group privileges, rights, and property. This could provide the basis for a very early set of branching pathways in the social/civics sphere to differentiate your individual Civ that is quite separate from Technology.

 

[luca 83]

Before anything you need see the difference between the ideal of Communism and the real examples of broken Socialist regimes.
First Communism is mean to be communal NOT even statal anymore. Stateless, classless, moneyless and marketless. That make you insistence on State Property quite ironic since the "State Property" or hte control of the means of production by the govenment is something that is NOT even exclusive to socialist societies and even in those some degree of private property is still going on. Not to forget that from ancient monarchies to modern capitalist democracies there are some strategic economic sectors where the government has the monopoly or a significative control like the military, security, energy, education, etc.
Again, there were plenty of "ancient" societies that were closer to achieve true communist since they were smaller societies were the "snowball effect" of accumulation of power and the vertical distancing from leaders were not such a problem as it is for post industrial nations with population in the millions.
Also you are wrong about democracy and communism, the ideal form of Communism is democratic by nature like true communities are.

Now, in the contemporary broken socialist societies we have examples that it is 100% possible to twist the ideals of socialism and mix them with the divine-like figures in the cult of personality, supreme leader dynasties and a militar elite that is what aristocracy is. North Korea, it was already mentioned a you just want to ignore it.
A king or president, a formal nobility, militar junta or politburo, even a sacred Red Bible-like book could be used to justify a ruling class as the heroic almost divine chosen group that would let the proletariat to glory. And we have clear historical examples of how socialism do not mean destroy opression, religion, nobility or social classes in practice could be just replace the previous elites with a new rebranded ones.

You want a game wen the ideal Communism could be achieved, nice I can agree with that and could be fun to implement in-game. But first put some order on what is supposed to be.

No,in the Marxist theory foresees first a bourgeois revolution, then a class struggle between the exploited and the exploiters, the revolution , the dictatorship of the proletariat and then a classless society , but in the game realism you will have in the game a communist one-party society with a bureaucratic system and state ownership of the means of production factories , land, shops , houses

 

[luca 83]

Political ideologies should be in civ VII very much defined especially fascism and communism : with advantages and disadvantages . Monarchies should also be called absolutist,? Liberals, mps,? Totalitarian ? A monarchy with a pmosle primo prime minister, republic, oligarchy , parliamentarian, dictatorial? Aristocrat ? Example Lithuania, presidentialist? by universal suffrage?