The Economy

[orange]

This has been discussed to death, but I wanted to see some fresh ideas on the subject...

Ask yourself these questions...
* Should there be a separate section in Civ 3 for choosing an economic system?
* If so, how would such a system work?
* How will economic systems affect production and happiness?
* How can we set up a system that won't be "Americanized" in that Communism sucks and Capitalism rules?
* How can government and economy work together?
* Should certain government's work well/poorly with certain economies?
* Are economies learned through tech or are they always available?
* Should different economic systems affect trade? If so...how?
* Should a Democratic/Capitalist AI look poorly upon you if you are Communist/Communist?
* Is it possible to allow a Communist government with a Capitalist economy, or a Democratic government with a Communistic economy?

My idea is that there should be a slider that determines government (1-9), and one for economy.
Then all available forms of economy and government are available in the beginning...(regardless of tech)

Example...
Government
1 = Anarchy
2 = Communism
3 = Stalinism
4 = Despotism
5 = Monarchy
6 = Constitutional Monarchy
7 = Republic
8 = Democratic Republic
9 = Direct democracy
*really this is a loop, as Direct Democracy is essentially Anarchy...so consider it a circle

Economy
1 = Marxist Communism (no free enterprise or gov control)
2 = Laize-Faire Capitalism (absolutely no government control on economy)
3 = Capitalism (very little government control)
4 = Moderate Capitalism (moderate government control)
5 = Moderate Socialism
6 = Socialism
7 = Strict Socialism
8 = Statism (there is a better name for this...but I forget it. Most evident in 3rd world countries)
9 = Stalinism (Complete government control to institute communism)
*this is also a loop as Stalinism is supposed to lead into Communism

Now certain combinations are bound to cause revolt = e.g. what people of a democracy will allow Stalinism?
and what Communist system can allow Capitalism?
However, certain systems (e.g. Communism and Communism, Democracy and Capitalism) will result in enormous corruption. This needs to be reflected somehow...

I'm tired of typing...more to come later.

Thoughts?


------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[airdrik]

Communism isn't a govermnent type. 'Communist' governments are actually (generally) dictatorships with communist economies (China was actually a 'monarch'-communist gov, chairman Mao Zedung was looked at as the emperor of communist china. After that, I don't know, we didn't get that far in my eastern civ class).

You can have a democratic government with a communist economy, and that would be the ideal government for a communist economy as the people would be able to collectively decide what is best for the economy.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited December 18, 2000).]

[orange]

No...actually Direct Democracy is the opposite of what communist societies want. They want nothing to be voted on. In a commune, things just happen. Everyone works for the good of society. Anarchy is really the best government for a communist economy. But not anarchy the way we view it, anarchy the way communists view it.

What you described is a Stalinistic government. The ideal communist government has no man of power...and everyone works for the good of the society (commune). I believe Marx allows for a figurehead...but that person has no real power.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Nikolai]

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 01:56 PM what Communist system can allow Capitalism?

Actually, Sovjet under Lenin HAD a kind of capitalism! After the revolution, Lenin tried to make real communism, but it failed, and in desperation to keep the power, Lenin accepted a capitalistic system!

However , when Stalin got the power, he reintroduced the communistic version.

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[orange]

I wouldn't call it capitalism...more like moderate socialism...

But even if that were the case, one of my questions is "should a Communistic government be allowed without a Communistic economy?" (Lenin's "Communism" was really a kind of Stalinism...or even Despotism with a socialistic economy)

Should we go textbook definition of Communism, or relate it to what countries make of it? And if the former, should we allow any other economic system but Communism to go along with it? (Because true Communism is an economic and governmental system)

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 12-17-2000 02:05 PM Communism isn't a govermnent type. 'Communist' governments are actually (generally) dictatorships with communist economies (China was actually a 'monarch'-communist gov, chairman Mao Tse-Tung was looked at as the emperor of communist china. After that, I don't know, we didn't get that far in my eastern civ class) ....

And a good thing they didn't teach you more nonsense like that, too!

Here are some standard definitions of governments.

Dictatorship: the country is by a single person (by force) with absolute power.

Monarchy: the country is ruled by a single (wealthy) family (with more families administrating counties) bound by law.

Republic: the country is ruled by chosen representatives of the (economic) elite, for the elite

Communism: the country is ruled by a single party (of commoners) with absolute power. (Often there are elections to decide the representatives of counties.)

Democracy: the country is ruled by chosen representatives of the (common) people, for the people

Fundamentalism: the country is ruled by the (religious) elite with absolute power

Of course in the real world there can be mixtures, extremes and even exotic types of government, and new types are bound to show up in the future (referendum, delphi, artificial intelligence).

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
[This message has been edited by Ribannah (edited December 17, 2000).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

actually airdrik is right, communism is not an actual government, its the leaders that rule the government.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I think there should be more government tipes:

1. Monarchy

2. Fundementalism

3. Communism (this is not a government!)

4. Republic

5. Democracy

6. Despotism

7. Modern Socialism (Nazism, it was not the soldiers that were nazis, it was an actual political party, led by Hitler)

8. Fascism (like Socialism)

9. modern Communism (China)

oops, double post!
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 18, 2000).]

[orange]

No...I'm going to agree with Ribs on this one. Communism isn't just an economic system. It's a life-style that can be instituted only by a communist economy and a communist government. No one controls the government in Communism, making it unique. There is no dictator, no person with ultimate power, no legislature. Communism is a system without a leader, everyone simply works for the good of a commune. A "Communist" system with a leader or group of leaders is "Stalinism" (or Maoism) which is supposed to lead to true Communism (but as we know, never does). There has been much argument on these forums in the past about whether to have true Communism as a government type because it doesn't work. The other side of the argument is that no system is true to its ideals, so Communism should be allowed.

Anyway, any more ideas on the topic at hand? Think about the bullet points made in my first post. Do you have any thoughts on these?

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[orange]

Diablo - Socialism is not a government system in and of itself. It's an economic style. You can have a democratic socialism or a dictatorship socialism. So I don't think Socialism should be a government type.

I agree, Facism should probably be a government type (left out of my original ) because it has been used. Perhaps a boost to military (ie free support for certain units)

I don't see Fundamentalism as a true government type. Really it's a monarchy of sorts, or even a despotism. One man rules. And if Fundy is a choice, everyone will choose that over Despotism. Fundamentalism, if apparent in Civ 3, should only be available to certain types of Civs IMO. This will be much easier if religion is apparent in the game, as Civs can have fundamentalist systems when the religious content of the Civ is above a certain percent.

By Modern Communism, do you mean "Stalinism"?

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-17-2000 07:07 PM Fundamentalism: the country is ruled by the (religious) elite with absolute power

Nope, what your talking about is a 'Hagiarchy' or rule by religious saints or priests. Fundamentalism is more of a religious condition than polithical.

[eNo]

The problem is that a free-market/capitilist economy is the only one that has ever worked on a large scale basis. Marx made some false assumptions when he predicted that fall of capitilism and the rise of commnuism and communism also relies on people's good will, which, unfortunately is not very trustworthy.

I think the only things you should be able to change: is the type of leadership (tyranny, monarchy, republic, democratic, fundamentalist/facist/hagiarchy) and the degree of government intervention in the economy or the degree of socialism. Degree of socialism would simply mean how active the government takes part in education, health care, etc. I group facist and hagiarchy together because the relevant idea of the two is that they both have fierce notional loyalty among the people.

------------------
eno_rules@hotmail.com

[orange]

Good points E. I was originally seeing a sliding bar from one economic extreme, complete state control, to the other, Laize-Faire. I suppose that's always an idea. And then for government "rule by one" to "rule by all" (well, stated better of course...you get the idea)

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[airdrik]

To help clarify some things,

Communism is where the government owns and governs EVERYTHING.

Socialism is the same thing, only instead of government ownership of everything, it is the people's ownership of everything. In a socialistic society, all profits are pooled and distributed evenly among everyone.

BTW, the Nazi party in Germany was a facist party run by Hitlar, who eventually named himself the 'dictator' of Germany (actually he didn't name himself that, he just saw to it that he got the top job and when he did he eliminated all opposition, which is how a dictator generally comes to power)

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 12-18-2000 03:52 PM Nope, what your talking about is a 'Hagiarchy' or rule by religious saints or priests. Fundamentalism is more of a religious condition than polithical.

Strictly speaking, you are right that my description is of Hagiocracy, but most people aren't familiar with that term. Fundamentalism is the ideology that goes with it.



------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[orange]

quote: Communism is where the government owns and governs EVERYTHING.

No. Replace "Communism" with "Stalinism" and then I agree.

Taken from a site on Marxism and Communism -
Communism in theory stands for total public ownership and rejects private property and personal profit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In practice, however, the state determines how strictly the doctrine is applied in any particular country.
^
The above is where Stalinism kicks in...this system is meant to lead to true Communism, where society works for the good of the commune...but this has not happened yet. Stalinism remains, or degenerates to a dictatorship because of the easy corruption and lack of trust among people.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"
[This message has been edited by orange (edited December 19, 2000).]

[Pangaea]

they need like manufacturing types.... like if a city is near mines and such, it would be a minning city, near major roads, maybe a car making city (Detroit?), technologically advanced city (silicon valley)

and all cities shouldn't become as good as the tech level you are at....
like parts of china (Beijing) are very advanced, with cell phones, computers and TV's, and then parts of it are vast farmlands, with nomads still roaming the lands and living in tents.

The tech level of each city should be dependant on what improvements are in it, and the natural geographical influences nearby

and having cities produce specialty goods, and trading them to other civilixations would be great. Such as exporting cars, or importing high tech electronics from Japan....

or open up oppurtunities for foreign investment...

in the CivII version, trading silver, silk, dye or whatever only really provides a quick source of income, but doesn't really benefit everyone that well

too late to post anything of meaning, sorry for the gramatical/spelling errors need a coffee or something

[orange]

It's ok Pang

Actually you have some good ideas. I like the idea of having a breadbasket for your nation...but I assume they will set this up more in the city layout then in economy.

I'm also hoping certain cities prosper while others fail...especially when dealing with trade.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[airdrik]

Actually you can't include Socialism as an option, but Direct Democracy+Communism/Stallinism=Socialism.

[orange]

Hmmmm...I'm not sure I follow.

You combined two government types. I don't think it's possible to have a democratic stalinistic government. I'm thinking people elect a dictator who rules for life and has full control over everything?

If you meant Communism/Stalinism as an economy choice...how can Stalinism be an economy?

Could you clarify?

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[orange]

*bump*

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Grumbold]

I think an expanded SMAC system which allows shifting economic emphasis between different criteria would be good. It will allow us to slowly diverge from the historical paths of despotism, monarchy, democracy etc toward new paths balancing social, economic and scientific growth in our own ways.

[airdrik]

Well, since Socialism is Communism where everyone owns and runs everything, and Direct Democracy is where everyone decides on everything in the government, then if you combine Direct Democracy with Communism, then you get Socialism.

BTW, could you describe the differences in government between Stalanism and other governments? Because I still don't quite get how you are saying it works.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited December 24, 2000).]

[orange]

I don't see how you are combining two forms of government to get an economic style

Communism (government/economy) = rule by none. Everyone works for the good of the commune and everyone is given equal amounts of the total yield. There is no reward for working hard, there is no penalty for working poorly. There is no upperclass, there is no lowerclass...there is just one straight middle class.

Socialism (economy) = The state has full power to redistribute wealth to the people. The goal is similar to that of Communism - no social classes.

Two different ways of going about the same thing.

Stalinism (Government) - One man in a one party system is given complete power of the people. This form of government is in essence a beneveloent dictatorship...but it is meant to bring forth true Communism (Government/Economy)

So what I was saying in my first post is that Communist governments should only be allowed with a communist economy (because technically one cannot exist without the other)

Examples of government/economy pairings...
Government________________Economy________________Example
Democratic Republic______/Moderate Capitalism = United States
Stalinism______________/Socialism___________= Former USSR
Despotism______________/Strict Socialism____= Nazi Germany
Republic_______________/Strict Socialism____= India
Republic_______________/Modified Socialism__= Modern China
Stalinism______________/Socialism___________= Mao's China
Democratic Republic____/Socialism___________= Modern Russia
Constitutional Monarchy/Modified Capitalism = England

(I think those are all fairly accurate...please point out any errors that I'm sure I've made )

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"
[This message has been edited by orange (edited December 24, 2000).]

Orange,

I believe that the government structure of true Communism is close to that of a Republic. While the government is not supposed to be obtrusive it does make decisions. Those decisions are from a body that is elected by the people through a series of elections.

[orange]

hmmm...I was always under the impression that true Marxist Communism was the asbence of government in all forms...because there would be no need for one. I'll have to reresearch (was that proper?) the subject...

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Nikolai]

quote: Originally posted by timfry on 12-24-2000 06:56 PM I believe that the government structure of true Communism is close to that of a Republic. While the government is not supposed to be obtrusive it does make decisions. Those decisions are from a body that is elected by the people through a series of elections.

In a search on www.britannica.com , I found this:

quote: classless society in Marxist thought, the ultimate condition of social organization, expected to occur when true communism is achieved. According to Karl Marx, the state represents the dominant class in society, with the primary function of repressing other classes. After the class struggle has resulted in the victory of the proletariat and the establishing of a socialist society, however, there will be no further need for such a repressive institution; theoretically the state then is expected to "wither away."

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[orange]

Yah, that's what I was always taught Perhaps the government form "Marxism" or "Marxist Socialism"?

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[eNo]

I agree with orange and Nikolai.

Communism doesn't have a ruling class/government so switching the leadership to communism would basically end the game.

[orange]

and that's where the conflict begins!

See we get some who argue that Marxism can be implemented, and that it should be an allowable government/economy and others say that it "won't work" so we shouldn't allow it as a government.

Also consider this...

quote: * Is it possible to allow a Communist government with a Capitalist economy, or a Democratic government with a Communistic economy?

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"