Why doesn't Order and Freedom/Liberty cancel out each other?

[killmeplease]

order should cancel liberty
under communism one cant act independantly. everyone's activity is subordinated to a needs of a collective.
also it leads to suppression of freedoms as it is shown in hayek's "road to slavery"
but in some ideal world maybe it will not happen

firaxis game designers alwayes were communist sympathizrers it seems
just see how planned economy is represented in the civilization game series
civ3: communism is the better late-game civic
civ4: state property is the must (until corporations were introduced in bts)
civ5: order is the best late game policy tree also

 

[killmeplease]

imho order should be an early-game policy tree instead
as the economies of the first world's civilizations were directly managed by priests or local governors (ensies in sumer and nomarchs in egypt)

 

[Randall Turner]

order should cancel liberty
under communism one cant act independantly. everyone's activity is subordinated to a needs of a collective.
also it leads to suppression of freedoms as it is shown in hayek's "road to slavery"
but in some ideal world maybe it will not happen

firaxis game designers alwayes were communist sympathizrers it seems
just see how planned economy is represented in the civilization game series
civ3: communism is the better late-game civic
civ4: state property is the must (until corporations were introduced in bts)
civ5: order is the best late game policy tree also

There you go. Was sort of hoping a Rooskie would chime in. Planned economy implies "control", which implies loss of individual freedoms.

Edit: Hayek's book is "Road to Serfdom" in English translations. Rated as one of the best non-fiction works ever published.

The reason for the production, in my view, is that the strict state's control is causing what it was meant to: Order. The people know their place, and work for their own good, allowing a rise in Production. Although, like I said, some Freedom had to be taken away for that to happen.

It's probably modeling Stalin's forced collectivization and industrialization of the USSR in the 30's - which came at such huge human cost it's staggering, almost beyond comprehension.

The Civ 5 policies have no relation to reality.

 

[aatami]

It also depends which communist ideology is in question. Those more sophisticated probably know some, such as Anarchist communism. I, in fact do not approve of Marxist communism.

 

[Bandobras Took]

There you go. Was sort of hoping a Rooskie would chime in. Planned economy implies "control", which implies loss of individual freedoms.

Yes, but any form of government implies "control," which implies loss of individual freedoms. That's the whole point of governments in the first place: to limit individual freedoms in order to create a more stable community.

 

[Keejus]

That isn't how Communism works at all, though, in spite of the Civpedia entry. If it stated that Democracy was all about oppressing minorities, that wouldn't be true, either.

 

[awesome]

take a look at some of the other policies in the tree. nationalism, for example, doesn't necessarily cancel out freedoms and can even be a result of them.

 

[Randall Turner]

take a look at some of the other policies in the tree. nationalism, for example, doesn't necessarily cancel out freedoms and can even be a result of them.

Ala the French Revolution and the Napoleonic period, sure. Not that Nationalism has any business being in a tree with Communism and United Front, of course. Move Nationalism into the Liberty tree. Replace it with Police State, or some of the other anti-Freedom policies that go along with an "order" philosophy.

The whole organization of this Civ 5 policy system is some weird mish-mash of arbitrarily grouped and misrepresented social concepts.

 

[JWAT44]

Communism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. They are unrelated.

no. socialism is economic, communism is political.

 

[JWAT44]

Ala the French Revolution and the Napoleonic period, sure. Not that Nationalism has any business being in a tree with Communism and United Front, of course. Move Nationalism into the Liberty tree. Replace it with Police State, or some of the other anti-Freedom policies that go along with an "order" philosophy.

The whole organization of this Civ 5 policy system is some weird mish-mash of arbitrarily grouped and misrepresented social concepts.

i agree with that. nationalism is better in the honor tree though (military bonus) but it is something that came later in history so it is hard to place. btw order could cancel out commerce (commerce is more capitalist while order is socialist)....

 

[Karl_Rove]

Move Nationalism into the Liberty tree. Replace it with Police State, or some of the other anti-Freedom policies that go along with an "order" philosophy.

Then what about socialism? It's necessary to go through socialism to get to communism, but socialism and liberty/freedom are not incompatible. Of course the specific SP of communism could negate liberty and/or freedom, but I think that things like that would just make policies unnecessarily complicated while not making the gameplay any better.

BTW: Nationalism couldn't be replaced with police state--that one is in autocracy and should belong there.

Personally I like what this guy said:

I imagine social policies more like an evolution of the government through time, as in your country doesn't die throughout it's history theoretically and retains at least some potion of the last major governmental institution within the culture of the country in question. Whereas switching to Autocracy causes a huge shift and change of regime when compared to any form of republic or democracy found in Liberty or Freedom.

Because if you start to view social policies as being all active components in your society's social institutions you start creating some crazy societies and governments ex. a Theocracy with Free Religion, which is plain silly to me, because i figure that a nation-state that allows freedom of religion lacks an institutionalized state religion. Whereas if you allow a state to evolve, as I imagine it, say you take the policy of "Theocracy" and then take the policy "Reformation" and then "Free Religion" it makes much more sense, as in your society was once a Theocracy and it still affects some aspects of government but technically your society now respects free tolerance of religion due to a large Reformation in society.

The Order policy track does not necessarily imply a lack of Liberty or Freedom like the Autocracy does, in fact if we look at the Policy of "United Front" and apply that to the cold war era, both the USSR and USA would have taken that policy it's just that the USA took only the policies of United Front, Nationalism, and Socialism, whereas the USSR invested it's cultural point all the way through Planned Economy and Communism as well.

This is just how I imagine and somehow justify the names of the policies in my convoluted thought processes, and somehow I think this might be what the designers intended.

Makes enough sense for me. Your civ once was a flourishing democracy, but now it has become communist. Yet there are still elements of freedom woven into your national identity.

 

[JWAT44]

There you go. Was sort of hoping a Rooskie would chime in. Planned economy implies "control", which implies loss of individual freedoms.

Edit: Hayek's book is "Road to Serfdom" in English translations. Rated as one of the best non-fiction works ever published.



It's probably modeling Stalin's forced collectivization and industrialization of the USSR in the 30's - which came at such huge human cost it's staggering, almost beyond comprehension.

The Civ 5 policies have no relation to reality.

not to mention that the production and economy was still worse than the rest of the world. communism has a way of not working to potential because utopias don't work in the real world.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Move Nationalism into the Liberty tree.

Because, as we all know, McCarthyism, the height of American Nationalism, was a time of liberty for all American Citizens.

 

[Randall Turner]

Because, as we all know, McCarthyism, the height of American Nationalism, was a time of liberty for all American Citizens.

Oh, yeah, "McCarthyism" and Nationalism are virtually synonymous, aren't they.

Where do you guys get this stuff?

Do you understand why "Liberty" and "Nationalism" are linked? It has to do with the developments in the French Revolution and the backlash against the French aristocracy by the French populist movement.

Prior to the French Revolution, France was governed by a ruling class with a strong international identity. French aristocrats had more in common with the ruling classes of other European countries, both culturally and bloodline, than they did with their own subjects.

hold on here, this'll get long and I think I can just link a Wiki article, this is so mainstream knowledge...

pff, the main article will do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

excerpt:

"The term nationalism was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (nationalismus) during the late 1770s.[19] Precisely where and when nationalism emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that surfaced with the French Revolution and the American Revolution in the late 18th century"

etc, etc. google is your friend.

 

[bronzeager]

Communism is an economic system. Democracy is a political system. They are unrelated.

good point, and for this reason shouldn't Order and Commerce negate each other? Surprised this has not been mentioned.

Also, would be nice if Autocracy wasn't negated by two separate paths. Maybe rename Liberty so it isn't quite so opposed. "Progress" would probably be a better opposite to Tradition. And the concept of Liberty seems a little foreign to civs in the Ancient, Classic, and Medieval eras.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Oh, yeah, "McCarthyism" and Nationalism are virtually synonymous, aren't they.

Where do you guys get this stuff?

(snip)

pff, the main article will do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

excerpt:

"The term nationalism was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (nationalismus) during the late 1770s.[19] Precisely where and when nationalism emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that surfaced with the French Revolution and the American Revolution in the late 18th century"

etc, etc. google is your friend.

Yes, the main article will do nicely.

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. It is usually the belief that a nation has a right to statehood. In the 'modernist' image of the nation, it is nationalism that creates national identity. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures.[5]

Conversely, nationalism might also be portrayed as collective identities toward imagined communities which are not naturally expressed in language, race or religion but rather socially constructed by the very individuals that belong to a given nation. Nationalism is sometimes reactionary, calling for a return to a national past, and sometimes for the expulsion of foreigners. Other forms of nationalism are revolutionary, calling for the establishment of an independent state as a homeland for an ethnic underclass.

Nationalism emphasizes collective identity - a 'people' must be autonomous, united, and express a single national culture.

You should perhaps read the article you actually link to; most of the concepts embodied there were around long before the French Revolution and have absolutely nothing to do with Liberty or Freedom.

Now then, would you like to define Nationalism in terms other than that defined by the article you said "will do?"

 

[President Evil]

How about Tradition vs. Order? Tradition is all about small Empires, Order is about big empires. Aristocracy is in Tradition, but Communism eliminates social classes. A Monarchy transitioning into a Communist State. Russian Revolution anyone? Seems to conflict perfectly. While Commerce and Patronage could conflict because Commerce has Protectionism which is limiting foreign trade, while Patronage welcomes it. Everything seems to go together well. I really don't see anyone having use for Order if they truly need Tradition anyway.

 

[Randall Turner]

You should perhaps read the article you actually link to; most of the concepts embodied there were around long before the French Revolution and have absolutely nothing to do with Liberty or Freedom.

Now then, would you like to define Nationalism in terms other than that defined by the article you said "will do?"

Of course not. Liberty and Equality, and repudiation of "natural authority" as embodied in an Aristocracy with the God-given right to govern as a class, are so tightly bound to the American and French Revolutions you can't discuss one without the other.

Nationalism and the birth of the Nation-State, ie, the modern concept of a government of the people, likewise.

That original article is very brief, but yes, it'll do.

 

[Soronery]

order should cancel liberty
under communism one cant act independantly. everyone's activity is subordinated to a needs of a collective.

No, that would fascism.

 

[Randall Turner]

No, that would fascism.

Oh, Soronery, I would be very careful about calling a Russian poster's former political system "fascism".

But that's just me.