more governments

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Optimizer
Why should a government type be tied to a specific religion?

Because some governments are.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia

An obvious example that springs to mind is Communism and its industrial focus. Perhaps we could have a tweak that allows Communist states to produce one extra shield icon for each square already producing one?

Unfortunately, we only have 2 settings to work with, one for the trade bonus, and 1 for the tile restrictions like you have in Despotism. However, since gov specific buildings are supposed to be working now there is some possibilities along those lines that way. There's a thread going where a few of us are discussing some ideas if you're interested.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=42194

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
Can't you guys just stop the fascism-discussion? Every intelligent poster knows fascism is an evil thing. It's pointless to try to convince those who don't see it. You won't convince eachother, just accept it.

Hey, don't blame me, I was just minding my own business when he decided to jump down my throat.

[belchingjester]

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Actually I LIKE the idea of an Islamic State, I getting tired of the quasi christian generic RELIGION being promoted. People don't worship generic gods (except possibly the Unitarians). When you research Religion or Philosophy, you should get or be able to choose a particular religion or philosophy.

Actually, individual Unitarians believe in various specific types of deity (or non-deity); as a group, however, there is no particular "god" that is advocated.

The Simpsons had Ned Flander's kids playing "Billy Graham's Bible Thumpers" or some such game - you throw bibles at the heathen to convert them. One of the kids said "Darn, I winged him - now he's just a Unitarian!"

On the subject of gameplay , however, I don't see how adding different religions really does much, especially when you consider (IMO) medieval Islam was more enlightened/tolerant than medieval Christianity. I could see adding some general categories for type of theocracy (pacifist, belligerent, etc.) but these are too much like personalities.

What I could see adding is a "peace-time mobilization" (after discovering Free Artistry?) similar to the war-time mobilization. Maybe it should not get as much of a bonus (maybe 25 or 50%), and maybe you should be allowed to build only defensive units (and not upgrade to offensive units either). Exit once you attack another civ's units/cities, can't reenter for 10 or 20 turns?

Sorry, random thought. Is it any good?
-belchingjester

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Willem
Hey, don't blame me, I was just minding my own business when he decided to jump down my throat.

I don't blame you for anything. I agree with every word you said, but I just think it's pointless to continue the discussion about it.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
An obvious example that springs to mind is Communism and its industrial focus. Perhaps we could have a tweak that allows Communist states to produce one extra shield icon for each square already producing one?

This would also have pollution side effects, which strikes me as being quite close to the grey and dreary picture that Maoist China and Stalinist Russia call up to mind...

And communist cities should prodfuce less food. Stalin's agricultural plans all failed, and the same goes for Mao's. In fact, those plans even caused starvation.

So it's a shame we can't edit the game that way...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

I don't blame you for anything. I agree with every word you said, but I just think it's pointless to continue the discussion about it.

Well then why are you?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

And communist cities should prodfuce less food. Stalin's agricultural plans all failed, and the same goes for Mao's. In fact, those plans even caused starvation.

So it's a shame we can't edit the game that way...

Maybe Mao's plans failed, but the current policies in China haven't. They've actually been producing surpluses for awhile now, which is quite an accomplishment for them. And last I heard, they're still a Communist government. That's why I think there should be 2 communal govs, Socialism as well as Communism. And good point about the Stalinist policies, that could be included by adding the tile restriction like in Despotism. Then create a gov specific building that allows a 25% boost in production to compensate for the loss of shields.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Willem
Well then why are you?

If you prefer thinking I'm blaming you for something you can't help, fine.

Maybe Mao's plans failed, but the current policies in China haven't. They've actually been producing surpluses for awhile now, which is quite an accomplishment for them. And last I heard, they're still a Communist government.

They are in name communists, yes. But practically they are just a despotism with elements of a limited free market.

That's why I think there should be 2 communal govs, Socialism as well as Communism.

If you use the term 'socialism' for a specific kind of communism, what do you do with the real socialism?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno

If you use the term 'socialism' for a specific kind of communism, what do you do with the real socialism?

OK, you lost me there, please explain. Right now there's only Communism, no Socialism. And as for the Chinese being more like Despots, that's what my few of Communism implies. Socialism is a more cooperative form, more along the lines of some the European nations, such as Sweden, or even Cuba. Utopian Socialism would be a better way to describe it. It hasn't really happened yet, just various experiments in that direction.

[Fresno]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Chinese government would be socialism and the Soviet-Russian government would be communism.

Comparing Cuba and Sweden....

What do you mean? Sweden is a democracy, you know. They might have had many socialist cabinets, but that doesn't make them a socialist state.

In my country, till eight years ago the christian parties always were in government. Does that mean I live in a fundamentalist state?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Chinese government would be socialism and the Soviet-Russian government would be communism.

Comparing Cuba and Sweden....

What do you mean? Sweden is a democracy, you know. They might have had many socialist cabinets, but that doesn't make them a socialist state.

In my country, till eight years ago the christian parties always were in government. Does that mean I live in a fundamentalist state?

Actually Holland is along the lines of what I have in mind as well, maybe even more so. I hate to use the term welfare state, but that's the best that I can think of at the moment. For instance, here in Canada we have a public health care system whereas the US doesn't. The socialism I have in mind is a blend of public and private enterprises, much like you have in your country. I realize comparing Sweden and Cuba doesn't do the concept justice, but those were the only examples that popped in my head at the time.

BTW, do you by chance live in s'Hertogenbosch? I was born there.

[Fresno]

So you mean that those countries take more care for their poorer citizens as the USA does? The American government is very different from the European governments indeed, but it hasn't got anything to do with socialism. It has more to do with the fact that in Europe, people generally tend to be politically more progressive as the Democrats, not to mention as the Republicans. But calling that 'socialism' is too simple, because also conservatives, liberals and christians are more progessive here.

If you want to stress the difference between the 'welfare state' and other democracies (like the USA) by making it two different governments, I would suppose you name the European model 'Democracy' and the American model a 'Corporate Republic,' like it was in CtP.

About Den Bosch: because of your first name I already thought you must have some connections with the Netherlands (sorry, I hate it when they call it Holland). I don't live in Den Bosch, I live in a place you probably don't know, it's in the province of Drenthe.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fresno
So you mean that those countries take more care for their poorer citizens as the USA does? The American government is very different from the European governments indeed, but it hasn't got anything to do with socialism. It has more to do with the fact that in Europe, people generally tend to be politically more progressive as the Democrats, not to mention as the Republicans. But calling that 'socialism' is too simple, because also conservatives, liberals and christians are more progessive here.

If you want to stress the difference between the 'welfare state' and other democracies (like the USA) by making it two different governments, I would suppose you name the European model 'Democracy' and the American model a 'Corporate Republic,' like it was in CtP.

Yes, yes, I know I'm using poor examples. Like I said, the term Utopian Socialism would be more appropriate, it hasn't really occured in the world, at least not yet. Unless you consider some of the hunter-gatherer tribes like the Kalahari Bushman, which doesn't really work in terms of a modern society.

What I'm looking for is something that fits in the game using the communal corruption model, with some of the aspects of a Democracy. And calling it Socialism is the easiest thing to call it. It's simpler than calling it Social Democracy, or some such thing.

[Spiffor]

Maybe we could have a choice between "democracy" (the currently centralized one, French or English-like) with "federative democracy" (USA, German-like) where corruption is slightly higher but communal, then better for large civs, but less adapted to small ones.
Just trying to help finding a name for this low/communal corrupt gov.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe we could have a choice between "democracy" (the currently centralized one, French or English-like) with "federative democracy" (USA, German-like) where corruption is slightly higher but communal, then better for large civs, but less adapted to small ones.
Just trying to help finding a name for this low/communal corrupt gov.

Well part of the problem is that there is no control over the communal model, just the one setting. So it has to be a form with the same basic foundation as Communism, just a different approach. And I think Socialism expresses that rather nicely. My problem now is coming up with names for the new buildings I have to create.

I'll have 6 different versions of things like the Cathedral, all with characteristics unique to a government form. Plus I'll have to create some "Medium Wonders", some gov specific wonders that do what some of the currenty ones do now. Like the Sistine Chapel. I've figured out most of it, but there's still I few I'm not sastified with. Looks like I'll be busy for awhile.

[paulmagusnet]

Originally posted by facistdictator
Paulmagusnet I dont think your opinion is very accurate or intelligent.

Opinions by their nature are inacurate. Few peope here are professional historians, and so it is less than likely that any statement is accurate, but I do try to read extensivly on these subjects and have personal experience in some related areas. To the extent that I can, I try to be use facts much as possible. If you'd like, I can send you quotes straight from source material that contradict a number of your own assertions.

As for whether a particular opinion is intelligent or not, you'll have to point to an example and show what for. There are people on this board whose depth of knowledge, style of prose, and rational arguments leave me breathless with envy, let me know when your are ready to impress me with your accume, I'm always ready to listen.

If people chose to talk about a certain subject of history that does not classify them as supporters of that historical era.

I'm sure that you intended to word this a little differently, but I understand the sense of it and I agree that talking about a subject is not the same as agreement with or advocacy of that subject. Ok.

I also like the history of ancient rome so go ahead and tell me that I'm praying to venus or some heathern god. I think some of the different dynasties of ancient China are also very interesting so go ahead and say I'm cutting someone's head off with a samarui sword.

DO you have a prejudice against non christian gods? Liking history is of course not what we are really talking about here, and you should know this, we all like history and discuss our favorite eras. But here is a quote from another post:

I actually have to partly agree with FacistDicator -- I think I understand what he means. I agree in that I disapprove of the slaughter of millions of people. However, when you truly look at the man that was Hitler, you see that he was not pure evil. . . . .

Now, this isn't just a discussion of history, it's an advocacy of a particular point of view that invites a response both as to accuracy and valuation. Case in point beng that I personally don't think the murder of 20 million subject peoples can be mitigated by building a nice road. I mean, what is the bar for being evil, does Hitler have to get his dog pregnant too? So when someone expresses not just awe but longing and nostalgia for the power and idealism of this movement, it does bring to mind a justifiable view of that person's persona, ie Hitler youth. I also don't just discuss the facts, I also bring a point of view and express my inclinations. But here in a public forum expect that we will be judged, which is not the same (I hope) as being flamed. I've wanted a death-camp minor wonder for facist style governments, because thats what they do, its how they actually function, not because i'm in love with the idea of turning millions of people into lamp shades, book covers and fertilizer.

I'm sorry next time I'll ask the Great all knowing Paulmagusnet what parts of history he likes so I can be under his dictatorial boot.

It's so nice to have one's divinity recongnized, donations are acceptable. If disagreeing with you constitutes being under my boot, welll, those boots were made for walking and thats just what they'll doooo. I'm sorry you're allergic to facts but the record of those great dictatorships speaks for itself, if only we are willing to listen. To be fair, sometime soon I'll put up a nice post on the subject and then you can have your chance to prove it or me wrong, if you can. Or you can just vent, thats ok. By the way, I'm not so formal, you can use the short form Paul. I hope that when I criticize it's based upon and related to statements and facts and not the person.

I would understand you making your hasty remark

I made no hasty remark, it was a thoughtful and deliberate remark that referenced no particular person at all. However if you feel it applied to you, well, if the boot fits, wear it with pride.

if I were saying I'm a nazi and

A rose, by any other name.....

So just so you know I have friends of different color, and friends of different religions.

I didn't know, they must be thrilled to know you.

My name on this forum is simply game based. I like having that type of goverment in the game because I like to win by war.

Yes, and my usual handle is Dr. Lizardo, which also does't mean that I'm a wacked out scientist possesed by a Red Lectoid. But if I talked like John Lithgow after he forgot to take his Prozac people might begin to suspect that I was.

So chill!

I'm in Russia, I have no choice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno,

Sorry, but not everyone agrees that those governments were evil or even what constitutes evil, and some of them purport to be intelligent. That being the case, the conditions that allow for a particular government to form, its effects and how we perceive them are very germain to a discussion of how to simulate them for a game called civilization. Intended or not, the game is a teacher and a voice to many, so it is important that we at least try to do something based on fact. Here on this board we don't even have working definitions of what Socialism, National Socialism, Capitalism etc are, let alone the nature of Evil. I suppose if Dr. Evil were the head of a government we might be able to point at him and say 'There's Evil'. Short of that we have to discuss the facts or at least refer to the Cliff Notes on the nature of Evil. My central theme is that it is irrelavent that the particular leaders were evil (they were), the nature of the governments themselves was pernicious and irrational.

Is there a file for leader names? We could add Dr. Evil and Bart Simpson. It would be great if we could give them some special abilities.

================================================== =====

A few references:

For a good book on the German war effort with discussions of how their tanks compared to their advasaries and what the generals really did, I recommend 'Knights of the Black Cross', a good read with lots of source material.

On the Soviet side, 'Stumbling Colossus' is the first of a series and covers the period just prior to and up to Hitlers invasion, from Soviet military historical records and German records.

While not explicitly about government forms, they are good indirect indicators of government functioning in war and should clear up some historical misperceptions.

'The Sword and Shield' is a personal history of the KGB by a former officer, very interesting insights from the inside, though as the author defected, one has to weigh the views expressed in that light.

'Dark Sun', a detailed history of of the making of the Hydrogen Bomb.

'Ominous Parallels' (L. Peikoff), discusses the Wiemar Republic and the philisophical origin of National Socialism. A flawed work, but its central concept suggests an answer to the greatest riddle of the 20th century: how did such beastly systems arise from a people of such high culture and idealism.

'Eat The Rich' (PJ O'Rourke), a light read. This is to economics what 'Bored of the Rings' is to 'Lord of the Ring'. But it has some insight, as far as it goes, and should inspire an interest in looking deeper.

[nationalist]

Fresno,

Just wanted to comment on your comment about Fascism. There is a difference between Fascism and Nazism. Fascism in itself is no more evil than Communism. Though there have been whole books written about fascism, in a nutshell it is an extension of democracy. Fascist, unlike dictators, only come to power when they have overwhelming popular support. Once they have that support, they use it to do the will of the majority and force the majority's opinions on everyone else in the country. It is basically the "mobocracy" that the American founding fathers sought so hard to avoid: majority rules regardless of what happens. They are hyper-nationalistic ( they think that they are better than any other people), and tend to be militaristic due to the nationalist rhetoric inherent to their government. The governments are lead by a strong, idealized, father figure type. They tend to arise when nations are in very hard times, and allow for extremely quick industrial and economic growth.

Fascists are not all Nazis. There have been a number of fascist governments in the world beside Nazi Germany ( Mussolini's Italy, Perron's Argentina, Franco's Spain, and some would say France under Napoleon and Napoleon III, along with some other less notable cases), and those Fascists did not commit genocide. Genocide was central to the Nazis. Sure, Fascists governments aren't the nicest governments if you aren't one of the majority, but they tend to be less oppressive than Soviet style Communism (except for the Nazis. Both the Soviets and the Nazis were totalitarian, but that's another story.)

Anyhow, to get to my point, I think that Fascism should be the modern version of Monarchy, where Democracy=Republic and Communism=Despotism. It should have the same commerce benefits as Democracy (Fascists are capitalists), but greater corruption. It should be good at fielding an army. You should be able to conscript 3 units from each city, and those conscripts should have three life bars (to reflect the militarism of Fascism and the popular support from Fascist) After that, units should be the same as Democracy. To reflect the industrial benefits of Fascism, factories should produce one extra shield in every shield producing square and rush building should cost half as much as in Democracy (fascists, with the exception of Nazis, didn't use slave labor. Therefore there should be no population killing rush building.) The same martial laws that apply under communism should apply under Fascism. The drawbacks to Fascism should be that the per turn culture benefit from each building should be halved (representing the surpression and destruction of dissenters) and, most importantly, alienation from the other Civs due to belligerent nationalism. This alienation will make trading far more difficult and the probability of alliances and sneak attacks against you far more probable. To balance the system, Democracy should recieve 1.5 times as much culture from buildings as it does now, and AI will treat Democracies with far more trust, making trades easier and sneak attacks much more unlikely. Communism will remain as is.

Fascism is a real and historical form of government, and should be represented. Contrary to Fresno's opinon, many intelligent people know that fascism isn't totally evil ( at least no more evil than communism) and know that there is a difference between Fascists and Nazis ( Genocide being the main difference). I think that it would be a good middle step between Democracy and Communism, just as Monarchy is in ancient times. It would be a nice new addition to version 1.18. What does everyone else think?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Willem


And last I heard, they're still a Communist government.

As has already been pointed out, China's not nearly Communist enough to be classified a "Communist" state. This is where I long for the old SMAC system of social engineering. China is at present somewhere in transition between a Planned and a Free Market state, with vaguely Police State politics. Its values at present most closely follow Wealth, with a lesser emphasis on Power.

*sigh* SMAC SE choices, where are you?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Willem


I hate to use the term welfare state, but that's the best that I can think of at the moment... The socialism I have in mind is a blend of public and private enterprises, much like you have in your country...

A good term for what you are refering to would probably be State Capitalism. It is a system where there is private enterprise and competition, but far more state involvement than in a typical free market economy. State Capitalism is or has been in place in Germany, Japan, China, and the "Asian Tigers" (South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc.). I don;t know much about the recent economic history of the Netherlands, but this might be what its economy was like.

[GeneralTacticus]

And communist cities should prodfuce less food. Stalin's agricultural plans all failed, and the same goes for Mao's. In fact, those plans even caused starvation.

I agree that it should be possible to edit the game this way, but I don't think it's neccesary to do that to Communism. I don't know about China (I think the starvation was a result of very bad planning and organisation, i.e. the 'Great Leap Forward', or as I like to call it, the 'Great Leap Backward'), but in the USSR starvation was a result of A: a drought, for which the communists hold no responsibility, and B: the fact that the food that was grown was confiscated to feed the workers or be sold on the world market.

On a different note, I do agree that SMAC-style SE should have been implemented. I have yet to see a single rational argument on why it should not be here, but I do recall a column written by Raingoon ages ago saying that it should go. I didn't think his arguments were worth much, but it seems Firaxis listened to him. Grrr...

[yin26]

I have yet to see a single rational argument on why it should not be here

Brian Reynolds implemented the idea, and I wouldn't be surprised if Firaxis did its best to avoid any such 'borrowings' for Civ3. Furthermore, the Civ3 crew took away firepower 'because it added needed complexity.' Wouldn't surprise me if they saw SE in the same way.

[paulmagusnet]

So you mean that those countries take more care for their poorer citizens as the USA does?

Do they? How?

The American government is very different from the European governments indeed, but it hasn't got anything to do with socialism. It has more to do with the fact that in Europe, people generally tend to be politically more progressive as the Democrats, not to mention as the Republicans. But calling that 'socialism' is too simple, because also conservatives, liberals and christians are more progessive here.

Would you please define for me what you think Socialism is and what Progressive is. In the US between 1911 and 1946 we had three Progressive political parties.

If you want to stress the difference between the 'welfare state' and other democracies (like the USA) by making it two different governments, I would suppose you name the European model 'Democracy' and the American model a 'Corporate Republic,' like it was in CtP.

It seems to me that ALL modern governments have at least some aspects of a 'welfare state'.

If ever there is such a thing as a working mixed economy, the Netherlands comes closest. I think because it is such a tolerant sociaty, has a very strong merchantile tradition to counter balance the socialism and it's small. I have friends there and I stayed with them while attending an international conference on economics, what a beautiful and neat place. One thing they were talking about was that the local governments were losing power to the central authority. Any thoughts on that trend.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Chinese government would be socialism and the Soviet-Russian government would be communism.

They are both communist, but the Soviet flavor is Stalinist, while chinese communism reflected Mao's vision of Stalinist Russia. I think at issue is more an influence of culture and individual views on a common theme of socialism. But what would you say were the specific differences between Communist China and Communist Russia.

Maybe Mao's plans failed, but the current policies in China haven't. They've actually been producing surpluses for awhile now, which is quite an accomplishment for them. And last I heard, they're still a Communist government.

If I got it right from one of my Chinese friends, they adopted semi-Capitalism and an almost Market economy to save Socialism. But what it means is a government that can interfere in any way it chooses which is a sure guarantee of systemic corruption. They were so far in the hole that even a the limited change they put in place made a fantastic difference, but the political situation, if it stands, puts an upperlimit on progress. But the Chinese may be playing the game a little smarter and slowere than the Russians.

I suppose that you could instead of thinking Socialism or Market, make it a scalable variable with sociaism on the left and Market on the right. (I'm just thinking this up as I go here, so it's just a germ of an idea). Then government structure and ideology.

So a theocracy for example, the most important thing is the religion, to serve god. SInce science and culture can be at odds with religious views, those areas can suffer. Case in point is Islam which initially attraced men of learning all around the Mediterranian. Eventually though learning and faith became incompatable (echo's of Kant) and they repudiated their science, burned the Great Library, etc. I would give theocracies more culture points from religious building and few or no points from science buildings, and some real incentive to destroy certain types of great and small wonders. Perhaps there should be 'VICTORY POINTS', which you get for doing things that would otherwise be irrational, except in terms of the goals of your government or culture. I would not allow scientist specialists, and if the religion is Calvinist not allow entertainers.

A non democratic socialist governemt would most likely produce little or no culture. (How much cultural innovation came out of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?) But troops and police would be very effective at keeping cities from 'culture pop'. I would allow them to draft a city down to zero population. So my model would trade cultural and ecomnomic/science production for an ability to rapidly convert exsting resources into builds. I would reduce the unhappiness for events also because the people are being conditioned to accept self sacrifice to the benifit of others. You could have a 'Cultural Revolution' small wonder for communist government that gave you lolts of victory points by consuming culture points. Following this idea, my strategy would be to use this ability to overwhelm my opposition before my problems caught up with me. The minute things bog down, I'm in trouble.

These are just some rough quick ideas.

[DrFell]

Out of curiosity, what is it that makes fascism inherently evil? It's like saying communism is inherently evil. All it is is a form of government, just because of the way it was implemented in the real world does not make it evil.

[Fresno]

First, I'm sorry for not being able to give you a response as extensive as most of you do; English is not my first language and I haven't got very much time. Even a short post like this one takes me a long time to complete it.

Originally posted by Willem
Yes, yes, I know I'm using poor examples. Like I said, the term Utopian Socialism would be more appropriate, it hasn't really occured in the world, at least not yet. Unless you consider some of the hunter-gatherer tribes like the Kalahari Bushman, which doesn't really work in terms of a modern society.

What I'm looking for is something that fits in the game using the communal corruption model, with some of the aspects of a Democracy. And calling it Socialism is the easiest thing to call it. It's simpler than calling it Social Democracy, or some such thing.

Maybe you should look for some information about the anarchists of the early 20th century. I'm not sure, but I thought they governed a state around Barcelona for some time. Perhaps that's more like what you mean. But I have to admit I don't know very much about this.

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Sorry, but not everyone agrees that those governments were evil or even what constitutes evil, and some of them purport to be intelligent. That being the case, the conditions that allow for a particular government to form, its effects and how we perceive them are very germain to a discussion of how to simulate them for a game called civilization. Intended or not, the game is a teacher and a voice to many, so it is important that we at least try to do something based on fact. Here on this board we don't even have working definitions of what Socialism, National Socialism, Capitalism etc are, let alone the nature of Evil. I suppose if Dr. Evil were the head of a government we might be able to point at him and say 'There's Evil'. Short of that we have to discuss the facts or at least refer to the Cliff Notes on the nature of Evil. My central theme is that it is irrelavent that the particular leaders were evil (they were), the nature of the governments themselves was pernicious and irrational.

When I said all intelligent people know fascism is evil, I already realized that's a big generalization. Still, I think most intelligent people will agree with me that, despite it's faults, we should cherish democracy and shouldn't try to replace it with a government based on the power of one dictator.

Of course the definition of evil is debatable. I know that when I qualify something as evil, that's my opinion, not a fact. Indeed Civ is also about learning, and of course we should be debating about facts. The discussion I reacted to wasn't about facts anymore, only about opinions. Moreover, it seemed it became more and more agressive.Both were reasons why I wanted the discussion to stop.

I'm not against adding Fascism as a government; in fact, I already said so on other threads. So I never meant I don't want Fascism in because it's evil; I just wanted to stop the discussion about wether it is a bad thing to be fascist or not.

Originally posted by nationalist
Fascism is a real and historical form of government, and should be represented. Contrary to Fresno's opinon, many intelligent people know that fascism isn't totally evil ( at least no more evil than communism) and know that there is a difference between Fascists and Nazis ( Genocide being the main difference). I think that it would be a good middle step between Democracy and Communism, just as Monarchy is in ancient times. It would be a nice new addition to version 1.18. What does everyone else think?

Many things you said I aready answered in my reaction to Paulmagusnet's post. To be short:
- I agree fascism should be in;
- I know not everyone thinks fascism is evil;
- I'm aware nazism is not the same as fascism. I never said it was.

In my opinion, communism in practice was indeed a cruel system, but that doesn't make fascism any better.

DrFell, this part is also meant for you.

(Taken from dictionary.com)
Fascism:
1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
1b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Definition 1a (the government) is clearly the thing we are talking about. Sorry, I can't find anything positive in it. So I still say fascism is an evil thing.

[DrFell]

'1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.'

A lot of the things in there are not neccessarily part of the government. Suppression of the opposition is not necessary for fascism to exist, and racism was more a nazi creation than a necessary product of a fascist government. I'm not sure what the true ideal fascist government would look like (don't have time to look it up right now), but I doubt it's anywhere near as bad as it was in real life.

[Fresno]

When I quoted the dictionary I wasn't giving my view of fascism, I tried to bring up a neutral source to show what the common meaning of it is. I wonder if a more impartial source could be found.

Sure you'll find other definitions if you looked it up in history books and so on. But those sources always give a more or less colored view of history.

[Willem]

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Do they? How?

Well for one thing, the US doesn't have a public health care system. The last I heard, 45 million people in the US don't have medical insurance. They can lose everything if they happen to get sick. It's pretty much the only industrialized nation that doesn't have one I believe.

[Willem]

Originally posted by paulmagusnet


A non democratic socialist governemt would most likely produce little or no culture. (How much cultural innovation came out of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?) But troops and police would be very effective at keeping cities from 'culture pop'.

Just because we may not agree with a societal model, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a culture. A good example, the Russian ballet. For years it has been considered one of the best in the world, even during the height of the Communist regime. And with Nazi Germany, whenever we see a swastika, we know exactly what it represents, it's a clear cultural symbol. It doesn't matter if a culture is good or bad, it's still culture, it's still serves the same functions with it's people that a more appealling one, in our eyes at least, does.

[paulmagusnet]

Question, what is, in your opinion, Socialism and Progressive? This board uses the terms in so many ways I'm not sure what is meant anymore.

Fascism is not a democracy variant, but like National Socialism, it attained power by an electoral mandate, and promply dismantled the democratic system like a spent booster rocket. Had they not done so 'democratically', they were quite willing to achive their ends through force, as Franco and Lenin did.
-------------------------------------------------

Health care. A national, I assume government run, health care system for the US would be a disaster. What we do need is a rational insurance market and safety net. Right now insurance companies 'cherry pick' which is bad.

Having a good ballet theater dosn't mean your producing good culture or being innovative. Russian ballet was technically good but marked by rigid style and defections to the west. Not a lot happened because expression was limited and culture needs free expression to thrive. The Renasance was a direct result of the freedoms enjoyed in Florence.

The swastika predates the Nazi's by hundreds of years, and exists in many other cultures that have nothing to do with them. Buddist temples are regularly vandlized by militant jewish groups who don't understand this.
-------------------------------------------------

Evil -

All socialist variations exibit some forced redistribution of resources from one group to benefit another group. In the Weimar Republic this resulted in a economic feeding frenzy that soon created super hyper inflation. In the Soviet exampe is agricultural collectivization and the murder of the Kulaks. This along with other policies led to mass starvation.

Repression is intrinsicly necessary for a totalitarian state to exist, no such state has existed with out it and the Soviet union collapsed the instant the repressive organs were no longer effective. Some people just don't want to volunteer their lives to the state so you have to make them do so.

Most variations require some class enemy to eliminate inorder to achieve Utopia, in practice that some specific type of persons be killed to make room for the new man. In fact the end game is for man to evolve into the socialist being without personal needs for property or law. A status only ants and bees have achieved.

All such existing variations practiced a form of pragmatism that allowed them to do anything as long as it achieved their ends. Law and individual liberty are seen as obsticles and the individual must forgo his perception of reality and needs in the interests of the group (how ever you define group).

Responsibility and accountability are so diffuse or non existant that corruption is worse than any monarchy.
====

All these systems arise from the 19th century philosophers (Kant, Hegal) who created the Romanticism movement to save religion from the ravages of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. America is a child of the Age of Reason, Europe succumed to Romanticism. This is why the French revolution, and every subsquent revolution or civil war, was so bloody. It was difficult for people to argue against National Socialism because it was just one of several roads to the accepted ultimate goal of a socialized sociaty, and Hitler came accross as a much 'purer' idealist than the local competition.

This is why I advocate the political forms in the game be related to philosophical direction. Having a printing press doesn't give you Democracy, the Age of Reason does.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of having different religions is so that there is some real conflicts and a way to have a theocracy that makes sense.

There just isn't much difference in the way the government types feel in the game.

Can anyone tell me how to make footnotes and icons for posting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one.." - Albert Einstein.

But, "if everything is an illusion and nothing exists, I definitely overpaid for my
carpet." - Woody Allen