Thoughts on the replacement of Fundamentalism with Nationalism

[monkspider]

I have come to an understanding from my time here in these forums that the great militaristic government Fundamentalism has been replaced with Nationalism. I have no choice but to disagree with this move on the part of Firaxis. First of all, i have never really heard anyone consider Nationalism to be an actual type of GOVERNMENT anyway. When I think nationalism, i think of the political atmosphere that existed in Europe around the time of World War I or the Napoleonic era. It is not a type of government, but a general political feeling that exists in a country. I have never encountered anyone who likened nationalism to types of government like Democracy, Monarchy, etc.
I feel Facism or Fundamentalism would have made much better choices for the highly military-esque type of government in Civ 3. Is nationalism intended to be a "PC" name for facism perhaps?
I think the replacement of fundamentalism with nationalism is a bad move on Firaxis' part, actually taking the game a step backward in a sense. I am just curious what they're thinking was. Did they offend american theologians by making a purely religious state the most barabaric form of government perhaps?

[Ralf]

If Civ-game nationalism fits in well gameplay-wise, and is well-balanced compared with the other choices, then Im all 100% positive.

[Gatekeeper]

Monkspider, et al.:

I, too, wish they had left fundamentalism in as a form of government. If not that, then some sort of government that would be conducive to being a badass on the battlefield. I suppose communism and nationalism are meant to fulfill that void ... but it's going to be strange without fundamentalism.

The way I understand it, we have the following governments to select from:

1. Despotism.
2. Monarchy.
3. Communism.
4. Republic.
5. Democracy.
6. Nationalism.

I want more governments, like CtP had!

CYBERAmazon

[monkspider]

Classic quotes on Fundamentalism

"The diplomatic penalties for "terrorist acts" (such as bombing improvements, poisoning wells, and so forth) committed by diplomats and spies is reduced, since the world comes to expect no better"
Civ 2 MPG Manual, page 58

LOL, that quote always amuses me. Especially since the government is supposed to be based purely on uncompromising interpretation of religous dogma that would no doubt condemn such violent actions.

*sniff sniff* We are going to miss you Fundy , if you are still out there Firaxis, please reconsider this decision!

[M. le Comte]

That's not a good idea from Firaxis

Civ wants to be quiet realistic.

If you add such a form of govt, which has nothing to do with reality, you kill a bit the atmosphere of the game.

Firaxis should have created more govts as in CTP, but without making the mistake to create unrealistic govts.

Sticking at History could reveal the existence of more than fifteen types of govt.

There has yet been a discuss on that topic, but it's a bit long, so just check it on the original thread.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=24843

[red_jon]

Isn't 'Nationalism' just Fascism? I get the feeling the just don't want to use the word 'Fascism' - like in Civ2...

[General Ludd]

Nationalism is more of a style of goverment then a goverment in itself, any kind of goverment can be nationalistic. Basically, any country who considers itself to be culturaly (or in otherways) superior is nationalistic. It often leads to ethnic cleansing and the such.

I think it can be interperated as nearly the same as fundementalism, only the leader would have to rely on his followers patriotism as opposed to religous faith.

[Ribannah]

Nationalism, Fascism nor Fundamentalism is really type of government, they are all social movements (like Liberalism, Conservatism and Socialism). Theocracy and Military Junta are.
Personally, I would place Nationalism in the tech tree before Democracy rather than after, with Enlightenment and Printing Press as prerequisites.

"Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of "feeling" and "identity" and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a "people" rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic "identity nationalism" and Liberal "civic nationalism" were essentially middle class movements.
There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of "inclusion" - essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a "citizen". In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism.
The German method, required by political circumstances, was to define the "nation" in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases
produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states"."

[JellyDonut]

When I think of a Fundamentalist government, I think of something like the Taliban. Fascist rings up Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. But Nationalist? Not really a government. The first time I heard of it, I thought it was a euphemism for Fascism, and I still think that. I would prefer that Firaxis not worry so much about saying "Fascism" and get in touch with reality. Maybe it was a move to get people to choose that government without feeling semi-guilty . In either case, I'm going to be editing some text files.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My belief is that Nationalism is all encompasing Fascism-like. What I mean is that it means Germany, Spain, and Italy under Fascism and Right-Wing military juntas in Central America.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
My belief is that Nationalism is all encompasing Fascism-like. What I mean is that it means Germany, Spain, and Italy under Fascism and Right-Wing military juntas in Central America.

I believe so also, although Im not sure. Democracy/Republic is the"good guy" alternatives, counterbalanced with Communism/Nationalism as the "bad guy" alternatives.

[Ribannah]

* Repeats her last post and mumbles something like: "read dictionary ..." *

Originally posted by Ralf
Democracy/Republic is the"good guy" alternatives, counterbalanced with Communism/Nationalism as the "bad guy" alternatives.

Why are you calling the first two good and the last two bad?

[N35t0r]

because he thinks that communism is Stalinism, and Nationalism is what the Nazis have...

or because they would be more 'war prone' than rep-demo, and war is bad...

[ancient]

i think nationalism is good, because it almost definately requires high culture to keep it together, making it and adequate replacement of fundementalism, yet it needs more skill and is less power full.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why are Communism and Nationalism 'bad'?

Because in Civ games, Communism is the USSR/China. Those are the only types of Communist government to exist on Earth. Nationalism seems like Fascism. So both seem 'bad'. But does it really matter?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why are Communism and Nationalism 'bad'?
Because in Civ games, Communism is the USSR/China. Those are the only types of Communist government to exist on Earth.

There are and have been quite a few more, but it doesn't answer the question.

Nationalism seems like Fascism.

It does a little in Civ3 from the tech tree and some speculation in this thread, but in the real world they are rather unrelated ideologies (Nationalism would be an early prereq for Fascism, but with much in between). I guess we won't know until the game is released (Dan?).

So both seem 'bad'. But does it really matter?

That's for Ralf to say as he brought it up .

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Ribannah
That's for Ralf to say as he brought it up .

Oh God, yet another historic relativity-debate? With civers who just cannot see the forest because of this or that tree standing in the way?

No thanks!

[monkspider]

Ralf was obviously making an over-generalization in saying that Communism/Fundamentalism are the "bad guys" and Demo/Rep the "good guys". Calling them the most war-prone is slightly more apropriate, though still not all encompassing. A good civ player may prefer Communism for it's production bonuses, while still being a relatively peaceful, science-driven country, using "We love the comrade days" to keep up pace with foreign Demos/Reps.
In real life however, there truly are no "good" or "bad" guys in the world. There have been without question, HIGHLY intellectual Soviet/Chinese thinkers who consider the United States to be the bad guy in the world scene. While this may be unthinkable to most citazens born and raised in the United States, these foriegn opinions are certainly valid and no better or worse than our own.

On topic though, I am simply hoping this whole "nationalism" thing turns out to be some joke by the game's programmers, akin to calling Julius Caesar "Brother Bluto".

[genghisvick]

Nationalism is going to represent the govenments Germany, Japan, & Italy before & during World War II.

[N35t0r]

If you read the civilopedia, it mentions that communism is such and such way, but that in real life it is not much so due to corruption; so i understand that civ is actually mixing both the utopic view of communism with what it was IRL to base their govt. type.

[Ilkuul]

I say BOOO to Nationalism and all these theoretical arguments. Give me good ol' Civ2 Fundy any day!

[Soren Johnson]

I'm not sure where all this started, but Nationalism is NOT a form of government in Civ III. Nationalism is a Tech which allows you to draft citizens and switch to a war-time economy.

Hope this clears things up...

[monkspider]

Wow, that certainly does. Thanks a lot Soren!
Just remember, you heard it here first folks. An offical declaration from Firaxis stating that Nationalism is *NOT* a type of government in Civ 3

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis
I'm not sure where all this started, but Nationalism is NOT a form of government in Civ III. Nationalism is a Tech which allows you to draft citizens and switch to a war-time economy.

Hope this clears things up...

Whoa! This IS news. So what replaces Fundamentalism? Theocracy? Or is it only 5 Gov-typers in Civ-3? Pleace answer this, because it would clear things up even further.

[korn469]

hehe where is UberKrux? i'm sure tech wins for one might want to share this piece of information with him

Ralf,

from the screen shots it looks like there will only be five forms of government

despotism is the default

then monarchy, republic, democracy, and communism are all techs on the tech chart (enabling those forms of government)

besides theology, there is nothing that theocracy could fit under, and fundamentalism isn't a tech in civ3

almost makes you wish they had SE doesn't it

EDIT:

Soren the Nationalism replaces Fundy rumor came from the pc.ign May, 25th preview

The solution to this lies in the game's new government, Nationalism. Available later in the game, Nationalism is analogous to the ideology of early nineteenth century Europe. Think Napoleon here. To switch to Nationalism your culture rating must be quite high.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by korn469
almost makes you wish they had SE doesn't it

No, I can assure you - I would never go that far.

But I wouldnt cry either, if they added some few weighted Sim City-style ordinance-options to each Gov-type. But some of these tweaks can already be done by allocating specialists.

[BlackStone]

I liked the Fund-da-mental option but i think that both it and nationalism are abstract concepts. I don`t believe that there are or have ever been and fundy govs in the world. It is a term angled at certain religious groups throughout the world as a stigma based label to imply backward ideas and the justification of anything. As somebody posted earlier a true fundy gov would represent the virtues of whatever faith it followed, the govs and groups associated with it today could be more accurately described in terms of facist gov label.

[d_dudy]

that's the impression i've always had of nationalism.

i said that in some earlier thread, i'll try to find it.

if anyone remembers me posting that, let me know.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by BlackStone
I don`t believe that there are or have ever been and fundy govs in the world.

Afghanistan? Iran? The US in 10 years?

But I do agree with you that fundamentalism is not a form of government. Fundamentalism is, if anything, a characteristic of a government, i.e. Afghanistan believes deeply in the Qur'an but that doesn't say how the government should be structured, but it is more often used as a quality of certain close-minded individuals and groups. It (as well as Nationalism) are not governments in themselves but qualities governments can have.

As for the other governments, Democracy should be discovered in ancient times, i.e. the ancient Greeks, and be structured like their government. Republic might represent the modern republics rather than the Roman republic just for the sake of introducing a form of government similar to many, many countries' today, to be introduced at the end of the Middle Ages or the beginning of the Industrial Period (the French Revolution). Communism should be discovered at the beginning of the Modern Period (the time of Lenin) and should represent a Soviet-esque government because true Communism (Marxism, not Leninism-Stalinism) would be WAY too efficient and beneficial for balanced gameplay . Despotism is good as the default/ancient government.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by BlackStone
I liked the Fund-da-mental option but i think that both it and nationalism are abstract concepts. I don`t believe that there are or have ever been any fundy govs in the world.

Both is true for Democracy as well.