Why Reward Sadism?

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
In practice, yes. In theory, there is nothing about communism that makes it inherently oppressive. I would go so far as to say that on paper, communism is a great idea. The problem with trying to use it in the real world is that then you have to deal with real people, and the whole thing falls right apart.

Well - I will say exactely the oposite !!!

In theory the comunism is a terrible utopia, but in practice the rulers of many (ex-)comunist countries find necessary ( for practical reasons ) to not apply the theory exactely as it was presented by Lenin or others and "let" some "local specific feature" which was in most cases oposed to the "pure comunism" and those make the regime suportable in some cases ...

For example - in Romania aproximately 15%-20% of agricultural lands was given in somekind of "concession to the peasants" or in the previous ( pre-WWII ) property status by the State ( as a measure of somekind of "new trends" imposed by Ceausescu in 1966 ) and the products obtained was possible to be sold ( with some restrictions, but just few times applied ) on so-called "peasant market". And, in the mid '80, those lands assured 90% of countries wool, sheep meat, 40%-50% of milk and so on. Especially in the last years of the regime, when the alimentary crisis in "state magazine" became critical this ( minoritarian ) segment of producers assured many of common people needs ...

Sorry, but I don't belive that your statement of a "good theory, bad applied" is valid ...

And for player1 fanatic - to be honest the following is also true : Titoism != Communism ...
And anyway - the ex-Yugoslavia was probably the only decent comunist regim in the Eastern Europe - my personal opinion of course.

Regards,

P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ... I hope my main ideea was somewhat clear ...

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Why not base Fascism on the idealized Fascist government, where there are no class differences, everyone works for the common good; people are allowed to have their own property and privacy, but no one is allowed to gather so much that they can oppress other members of the national family; the environment is green and clean, yet industrially strong (I bet most people don't know to what exent the Nazis were environmentalists), with every citizen a nature lover; everyone is physically fit, etc?

...and the public order is guaranteed, and let's not forget phytotherapeuticals and 'Green' medicine in general.
But not the Autobahn, this was started before.

Roundman, this is a very good point. For any reason most people believe Communism would be a good concept that only failed due to corrupt/ megalomanic leaders, while Fascism would be just the way Hitler at al ruled. Let's not forget Hitler gained power by free elections, and Mussolini (though IIRC he made a coup d'etat) would have been elected for sure during the 20ies in Italy.

Note I'm absolutely not supporting Fascism, and I'm not against the Greens at all.

The point why no Civ, especially not Germany, should have Fascism as favorite Government, is that it would cause bad press in this countries and subsequently legal conflicts/ bans, leading to not being allowed to be available to minors. A somewhat illogical POV, similar to the 'No terrrorism due to 9/11' topic, but IMHO correct.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

At Smoking mirror: Let me first just say that I enjoyed your posts thorougly and agree wholeheartedly in much of your "rants" and particuarly in your conclusions
I'd like to add a few comments though:

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
O.k. I will admit that we in the west have been less violent and oppressive than other parts of the world, and thats probably why they lost out, and we prospered.

1) If the above was globally true, the least violent civs in the world would most likely become the most succesful ones. As it isn't so, I think we'll have to admit that violence is part of nation- and civ-building (which imhso is more in tune with the rest of your views too).

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
There is no good and evil, ony people, thier actions and the result of those actions.

2) Good and evil exist, if nothing else, on the philosophical plane in that we (groups of people) define good and evil to reflect actions that are/aren't acceptable on a moral level. Any other notions are Nietzschian BS and although I've read it I don't approve of it

I'll just elaborate that after I read some other posts in the thread (I am of the firm belief that no philosopher have thwarted human mind in a negative direction any worse than Nietzsche did )
This is NOT directed at Smoking mirror.
The world as such has come to agreement that some actions ARE indeed "evil" and therefor banned them in the human rights convention. Put any word you like on it, but that's an agreement made by literally all nations of the world stating that there are indeed some universal dos and don'ts with regards to human behaviour.
Apart from that: disqualifying people from debating moral issues on the grounds that them carrying a notion of good and evil make them biased, is in itself being biased because you're putting emphasis on their way of defining their surroundings instead of listening to what they have to say or what they do.

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
My position is that its good to have "evil" things in educational computer games, but you should make them ballanced to show that using force to get what you want is ultimately a futile act.

3) Civ3 is in no way balanced like that. It's unlikely that you'll ever beat emperor or higher difficulty levels if you won't take the to the Babs
I'm not sure that Civ is a worse game if "evil" tactics can win it. It really depends on what you want out of a game really. I mean, even if Civ had an even higher standard of historical correctness than it already does, I don't think ppl think of it as an how-to guide to acheiving and maintaining world supremacy. That then, makes the moral issue kinda redundant w/r to the whole game. The worst you can derive from it is that questionable ethics might win you a game. As if we didn't know that

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
Just for the record, I'm also going to vote liberal next time, (not voting for tony again) and I also suport britan taking its place in a United europe.

4) I'm from Norway, so I may be off here, but isn't Tony's constituency in Scotland? So South of Stonehenge, where you live, there should be another Labour partymember to vote for. You've prob done your lesson here, but I think I'd vote Robin Cook (btw; there's a man who's standards you got to admire, at least in the Iraqi affair) or ppl from his wing of the party above Libs anytime. Pity a declared socialist doesn't have a socialist party to vote for

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by player1 fanatic
Most people who bash Communsim here say:
Communsim similar to Fasism in oppression.

But:
Stalinism != Communism

And only Stalinism was similar to Fasism in oppression.

Both "Authoritarianism" (read: "Fascism") and "Communism" existed on a spectrum, from the theoretical ideal (really, only coherently expressed for Communism, originally and brilliantly by Marx and Engels -- I mean, really, have you ever tried to read "Mein Kampf"!?) to the perverse execution (Stalin and Mao et. al. in Communism's case). Indeed, Lenin -- no saint himself -- warned against Stalin on his deathbed.

My point is that Communism -- Marxism -- does have rigorous, theoretical, humanist underpinnings which arose out of the same type of reaction that caused Sinclair Lewis to pen "The Jungle": that rampant, unchecked capitalism is bad for most; this is why; here are the alternatives (with of course a "true" Marxist state never arising anywhere -- something to do with human nature, evidently ) whereas fascism was a gut emotional appeal to past glory, the "purity" of one's own people, and the perfidy of all others who are, by definition, inferior. Ethnic cleansing, anyone?

My point is that "ideal" Communism has never existed (modern European social welfare states with capitalist underpinnings interestingly coming closest) whereas "ideal" fascism did.

It's also important to note that Marx & Engels' work led to invaluable work in historiography, in changing the Western view of history from the "great man" school of thought to the notion that societies are built upon underlying structures, those being the nature of the technology and resources available and the manner in which these are organized (owned and worked).

-Oz

 

[Patroklos]

Facism has no mandatory fixation on race. It can be applied to whatever trait you wish to use to link the constituency you want. Just because the examples we had used race (and I would remind you Mussolini was not always so keen on this and before bieng leaned on by Hitler used minimal racial ideology) and perpetuated other "evils" doesn't mean the system as a whole is flawed. Look at the mess the Wiemar Republic and other democracies in history can make of that system. We have not seen the last Fascist government, and once the memory of the first failed experiments fade over time they will emerge again. The fact is democray in its current forms shows its limits when population increases and other stresses are applied to it. Alot of "democracies" are actually socialist states, and socialist states are not oh so far from Fascism on alot of levels.

-Pat

 

[thestonesfan]

Well put, Patroklos.

The operative aspect of fascism, communism, and socialism is collectivism, which is the primary driving force behind all of them. They are all similar means to the same end - sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the state. Which, as history has shown us time and time again, is not a sustainable form of government.

The ironic thing is that Nazism was by far the most successful implementation of large scale collectivist policies in history, and all modern day socialists denounce Nazi Germany as some kind of perverted capitalist project and the complete opposite of socialism.

The term "National Socialism" is far more fitting to Nazi policies than people give it credit for. If Hitler truly hated communism, he was one of history's biggest hypocrites.

 

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
Well put, Patroklos.

The operative aspect of fascism, communism, and socialism is collectivism, which is the primary driving force behind all of them. They are all similar means to the same end - sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the state. Which, as history has shown us time and time again, is not a sustainable form of government.

The ironic thing is that Nazism was by far the most successful implementation of large scale collectivist policies in history, and all modern day socialists denounce Nazi Germany as some kind of perverted capitalist project and the complete opposite of socialism.

The term "National Socialism" is far more fitting to Nazi policies than people give it credit for. If Hitler truly hated communism, he was one of history's biggest hypocrites.

"Socialism" = state sponsored "social welfare (well-being)", which can be implemented under any number of regimes, whether Totalitarian or Democratic. In Civ, ideally, this would be an adjunct to the (non-existent) economic model.

"Totalitarian" = BOTH, e.g., Hitlerism and Stalinism = "Totalitarianism" ... Yes, I know I repeat myself -- and shall continue to do so, re: Hitler and his hatred of communism, from my earlier post:

"Both fascism/authoritarianism AND communism were profoundly anti-individualistic; many in the democratic west favored fascism because they saw some ghostly historical reiteration of latter-day Teutonic Knights standing up against Heathen Hordes. Few tears would have been wept in London and Paris if Hitler had only been interested in driving east!"

So the "problem" is that Civ tries to roll Government type (basically, a matter of how individualistic the society is) with Economics with Culture ... *sigh* anybody remember the far better modelling of all this in Alpha Centauri?

-Oz

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Dargoth


Ahem

North korea
Communist China
Various Warsaw pact states in Europe
Vietnam
and the USSR after Stalins where all communist and all of them where involved in Brutual and repressive equal to Fascism

And in the case of North Korea Id say their WORSE than the Nazis

Don't forget about Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. After all, his thugs killed anyone who wore glasses. His regime was responsible for the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia, and killed millions of people, through execution and forced starvation.

 

[Patroklos]

Hey all,

I have been institutionalized to hate to say this, but I would have to say I agree with more Fascist doctrine that I disagree with. Communism is a paper government through and through. Russia was in a state of ruin when the communitst took over, and were in a worse state of ruin basically up to the present. Germany was the opposite. It was in a state of ruin before the Nazi's took over, and within 5 years was reborn with an econmy and military greater than most in the world. Now as I stated before it is a shame the Nazi's had to be sick evil b@stards and choose rasism as their prime motivator, but you can see the potential inherent in the system. I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with nationalism, and most of the modern western countries recieved their boost into the modern industialized world through it (1860-1918).

The 1930-40's were the first test of a true nationalist system, and like most first tests it failed miserably. But it is not the first test of a form of government to fail but later become a viable system upon future trials. Anyone remember the French Revolution (the Americans had democracy I know, but we were not a overpopulated developed country suffering from the social upheavals of the time, but contemporary standards, so our "success" isn't ideal for a working experiment). How many bloody civil wars and upheavals did England have before they worked out their Parlimentry system?

We should take what we learned, ie the power of national unity, sacrifice for greater goals etc. etc. and apply it to the future, while simultaneously cutting out what was rotten with the precision of a surgeons scalple (not from a country with socialized medicine though, j/k). However, we have put blinders on that part of history which sort of makes the sacrifice of those who suffered through it meaningless.

-Pat

 

[King Of America]

Hey, you go away for a few days and look what happens...

A few responses....

1. Civ is an a-historical game. It's not just that it involves people meeting who could not have possibly met, and it's not just that it suggests that you could live 6050 years (unless you're SirPleb, Bamspeedy, DaveMcW., or any of the other great players who can get done just a bit early), it's that you can plan your entire technological progress before you settle your first city!! Does that sound like reality to anyone?

Get over it, Civ is a-historical. It may offer insights into what works in democracies; it may do a very good job of showing at least possible links between goivernent types and economic and technological devlopment; it gets much more "right" than "wrong", which is we all spend hours with it, but it should not be mistaken for a history lesson.

Side note: I find games that "teach" history so realistically that it hard to have other outcomes--and I have played them--fun once.

2. Because it is an a-historical game, the company (or compnaies) involved have a good deal of lattitude to decide what details they want to put in it. They can make deaths as graphic as they want; they can decide to include rape; they can decide to make it possible to win by going to the stars (before 2003, even!); they can decide that there were monotheists before the Medieval Ages or they can decide that holy relics actually have enough power to let you win a game. Lots of choices. Choices that people have been arguing about for a while. I disagree with some of those choices and I felt a need to say so.

3. Long-time Civ players may have noticed that it is no longer possible to poison water supplies and plant nuclear bombs inside cities. Maybe all the people who shouted PC should make some noise about that, eh?

4. Re: Fascism--I am not basing my game-buying choice on its inclusion or exclusion, so maybe I should have omitted it. I just am surprised that a form of government that last less than 20 years (less than half a turn in some parts of the Civ universe), left its main proponents dead and its people at the whims of their conquerors was given the same game status as Monarchy--i.e., an government option.

By the way, credit where credit is due--it costs a civ a fair amount to go into fascism--a point that seems to have been lost on most posters. Had Mesoamerican human sacrifice and the Inquisition come with built in costs, I wouldn't have posted my original message.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Ahem...while I think most people would be surprised about the number of minor Nacional Socialism/ Fascism concepts they'd agree with (ex Architecture - Guess 90% of you all would prefer a Cottage-style Nazi worker's house like in Wolfsburg to a 'democratic' scyscraper), the economical successes are widely a myth. Mussolini was somewhat successful in developing rural areas, and terrain improvements (eradicating Malaria in Italy for example, by clearing the Po delta swamps) helped to produce sufficient food, but instead of developing the Industry, he spent far too much money for the colonnies and military
And Germany: Hitler was elected when the Crash from 1931 had killed the German economy. But the economy recovered in GB or US in the Mid-30ies without a Fascist rule. The Nazi economy was largely based on debts, and pressing money from the people forced to emigrate. The only real success he had was lowering the pressure from the reparations for WW1. There are reasonable calculations the German economy would have collapsed again around 1942, if they hadn't started the war, allowing them to instead ruin the Czech, Polish and French economy.
Now I'm gonna be quiet, since this is completely of topic.

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Doc Tsiolkovski
But the economy recovered in GB or US in the Mid-30ies without a Fascist rule.

This is true, but FDR modeled his programs to some extent off of Mussolini. Many at the time were comparing FDR and Mussolini, and back then it wasn't an insult. FDR, Mussolini, and Hitler all used Keynsian, heavy government spending policies to remove their countries out of depression. Some programs worked better than others, but throughout the 30s, Fascist economics served as an economic model to some extent. AS for the collase of 1942, who knows? Maybe the American economy would have collapsed as well. Remeber, the war was the main reason why America was able to pul out of its depression. I don't really know enough about the British situation at the time to comment on it.

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hey all,

I have been institutionalized to hate to say this, but I would have to say I agree with more Fascist doctrine that I disagree with. Communism is a paper government through and through. Russia was in a state of ruin when the communitst took over, and were in a worse state of ruin basically up to the present. Germany was the opposite. It was in a state of ruin before the Nazi's took over, and within 5 years was reborn with an econmy and military greater than most in the world. Now as I stated before it is a shame the Nazi's had to be sick evil b@stards and choose rasism as their prime motivator, but you can see the potential inherent in the system. I honestly believe there is nothing wrong with nationalism, and most of the modern western countries recieved their boost into the modern industialized world through it (1860-1918).

The 1930-40's were the first test of a true nationalist system, and like most first tests it failed miserably. But it is not the first test of a form of government to fail but later become a viable system upon future trials. Anyone remember the French Revolution (the Americans had democracy I know, but we were not a overpopulated developed country suffering from the social upheavals of the time, but contemporary standards, so our "success" isn't ideal for a working experiment). How many bloody civil wars and upheavals did England have before they worked out their Parlimentry system?

We should take what we learned, ie the power of national unity, sacrifice for greater goals etc. etc. and apply it to the future, while simultaneously cutting out what was rotten with the precision of a surgeons scalple (not from a country with socialized medicine though, j/k). However, we have put blinders on that part of history which sort of makes the sacrifice of those who suffered through it meaningless.

-Pat

I agree with you pretty much 100%. There are many good points to Fascist ideology, but the bad parts were so heinous that they make any attempt to look at the good parts seem innapropriate to the average person. (at least the bad parts of Nazism. Most don't know this, but Mussolini's Fascists really didn't persecute minorities in Italy until the end of the war, when Italy was basically occupied by the Germans)

 

[Sarevok]

I agree, Fascism is intense nationalism, which is a good thing, but everyone puts hitlers Germant and the holocaust together and then the idea of faxscism is automatically branded as evil. Im not saying it was GOOD, but people need to get rid of tunnel vision.

 

[Dargoth]

Originally posted by Roundman


Don't forget about Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. After all, his thugs killed anyone who wore glasses. His regime was responsible for the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia, and killed millions of people, through execution and forced starvation.

It has always amused me that Fascism = Evil and therefore needs to be condemned at every opertunity Communism = Deathly silence.

This is despite the Fact that communists regimes have killed more people han the Fascist goverments of Spain, Italy and Germany put together.

 

[Sarevok]

pretty much single communist regimes, just look at leaders.

Mao: 100M
Stalin:55M

Hitler:35M
Mussolini: 1M<X<2M
Franco: X<1M

Definetly true.

 

[warpstorm]

Has there ever been a communist society of larger size than an individual commune that didn't suffer from oppression?

 

[Sarevok]

The closest thing away from a stalinist communism from the outset is probly good ol' Fidel in Cuba. They love him there, and even though he does do a few bad things, he is generally a good leader of his people.

 

[Dargoth]

Originally posted by Sarevok
The closest thing away from a stalinist communism from the outset is probly good ol' Fidel in Cuba. They love him there, and even though he does do a few bad things, he is generally a good leader of his people.

The Cuban pople love Castro in the same way the IRaqi people love Saddam ie If we dont tell you we love you, then you'll shoot us. But as soon as your gone we'll be happy to tear down your statues and beat them with a our shoes

 

[Capt Buttkick]

Have any of you people haililng Facism even read any of the philosophies it builds upon?
It's Might-makes-right, Survival-of-the-fittest (yet societybuilding is what should make us more than mere beasts) More-power-to-the-strongest-man (invariably not a woman) drivel all the way.
At least communism had a positive take on humanity at the outset, in that all people are equally important. The fact that this in most communist countries was turned into its shadow variant: all people are equally UNimportant, is imhso more a consequence of human frailty and that the models for true communsim weren't followed than it is a sign that the underlying philosophy was wrong.

I'm also not sure I understand those of you from the US that claim you've been indoctrinated about how bad facism was while comunism was never critizised. I mean, where I'm from, acountry that claims to be a social-democratic (and yes I know that sounds kinda commie, but it isn't ) country, there were lots of protest and public argumentation against our communist neighbours during the cold war. How can there have been any less of that in the country that created McCarthyanism?

Cuba: I actually believe that lots of people in Cuba are happy with their leader. That this is partly because they're so isolated now that they've got noone to compare with is kinda the US' own fault. The fact remains that Cuba, for instance, have a higher coverage of doctors per capita than most industrialised countries (I was surprised to find they had better stats in that department than Norway).