The Economy

[hHydro]

If Firaxis were implimenting a SE system like in SMAC, where you can mix and match govt types and econ. types, then both of these setups should be allowed.

A democratically elected government administrating over a communistic/planned econmy sounds feasible (sounds like the strata council in my building! ). The other combination is much more interesting. Imagine how a communistic (aka ruled by a party of commoners) government would mesh with a freemarket capitalist economy. I can't think of a realworld example, but that shouldn't mean that it shouldn't be an option.

Ironically, if the definition of a communist GOVT (not economy) is rule by a party of the common people, then Communist GOVT + Communist ECON = what we commonly regard as "communism". HOWEVER, with a communist GOVT and freemarket ECON, won't it be the will of the people to run their market economy into the biggest powerhouse possible, without the restrictions and political seesaw of the republic or democratic gov'ts?

I'm going to run with this, almost as much for my own entertainment as for any real benifit to my arguement, so feel free to level critisisms. What do you think about this;

When people talk about a future where coorporations rule instead of governments, I see that as a sort of Communist GOVT/freemarket ECON setup. Just like shareholders, the people of this 'civ' are a part of the company and all work toward the good of the company, while the union is administered by the CEO/COO/CFO etc. Yet a freemarket economy exists in that you, as a common person, can still market your idea/invention into a profitable venture and improve your status of living, however your 'government' exists only to help administrate this economy and help nuture the freemarket system. In turn, the civ enjoys material profitability without the overhead that comes with a government concerned with micromanaging social programs. It would not decide law or policy through a house of commons or senate, nor would it have the dynamic of a two- or multi-partied system of elections.

As far as applying gameplay advantages and disadvantages, you would assume that this combination would require advanced tech to make it available in the late-game, and you would assume that they get economic benifits and maybe research benifits from the freemarket economy, but don't enjoy happiness or the sae human right benifits & free speech that you get from a democracy. The non-elected party government might have high efficiency (due to a coorporate-like chain of command, and lower beaurocracy) but would be more succeptable to espionage or revolt. (it becomes easy to go to the poor and the 'have-nots' who *aren't* at the top of the foodchain, and bribe them to sell secrets or promise them a better life under a more humanitarian gov't.)

...Just a random thought of course. As is probably obvious, I'm a big fan of the possibilities of an advanced form of the SMAC Social Engineering table.

-----hHydro

[lord of the mark]

you people are confusing communism, the Marxist concept of the "whithering away of the state" with Communism the 20th c political system. the former, whether it is possible or not, has no place in civ, since it is not part of history, but comes at the end of history, when the class strugle has ceased.

Communism as a practical phenomenom is a POLITICAL system - it means rule by a centralized proletarian political party following Marxist principles.

While one would expect such a regime to implement a socialist economic system, it is capable of implementing an alternative one for pragmatic reasons, as the USSR did under the NEP. Whether a party that implements a capitalist economy for the long term (IE current China) can still be called a Marxist party is questionable.

Of course a socialist economy can be implemented without a communist regime - it can be implemented by a military despotism, and in theory at least, by a democracy (though there are real conflicts between the state power availble under an extreme form of socialism and the limits on state power requried for a democracy to function)

Stalinism involves the emergence of a single despot over and above the proletarian party.

"Eurocommunism" posited the emergence to power of a communist (centralized proletarian) party to power via democratic means, and maintianing democratic forms. Whether this program could ever have been accomplished (or was even sincere) is open to question. It should not be confused with the older democratic socialist movement.

Socialism should be kept distinct from "statism" at least conceptually, though not necessarily in Civ. Socialism involves the intervention of the state in the economy on behalf of the working class - statism can involve the intervention of the state in the economy for other reasons - Brazil under the military is perhaps the clearest example. This would seem to point to 2 seperate social engineering factors - one for market economy versus central planning, and one for social justice, which would allow for a central planned economy without pusuit of social "justice".
Note well that socialism is often called "statism" by its enemies, who are skeptical of its motivations.

[hHydro]

hehe.. Hey Lord.. looks like you and I were both writing our "Mega-posts" simultaneously.

Damn fine points my friend!

Now if only SOMEONE could give us a hint as to whether or not Firaxis is using fixed governments, or Govt/Econ/Social table like in SMAC. As interesting as this thread is, it could be completely irrelevant.

[lord of the mark]

hydro - guess im confused by the use of the term "party of the common people" as equivalent to a commnuist party

common people can (and has) included petty bourgeois(shopkeeper class), yeoman farmers and wealthy peasants, as well as proletarians. A better term for such a party would be "jacobin" or populist. Historically such parties have (at least in Europe) been reluctant to part with democracy - though peasant parties have been more willing, as have fascist parties (though such parties have been open to the upper classes - and have disavowed the populist agenda) A better example of such a party might be the Peronists in Argentina,the PRI in Mexico, or other 3rd world parties.

An explicity Communist party, historically, has meant a party that at least nominally advocates the interests of the proletariat (and occasionally, the poorer peasants)(the Maoist version made the poor peasants the centerpiece - which is why Maoism is/was unorthodox)

The best example of a an explicitly communist regime implementing a capitalist economy is, of course, contemporary China. OF course one may question whether this is meaningful, given how nominal the ties of the Chinese Communist PArty to the working and peasant clasess is. Such contradictions are not necessarily associated with a capitalism economy however. Brezhnevs USSR had a fully socialist economy, yet it would be a fair stretch to claim that the 1970's CPSU was in any way a "workers party"

[hHydro]

Lord, you definately seem to know more about the details of real-world 'communism' (both theoretial and realized models) than I.

My argument really is more to do with how to implement these ideas about what communism 'is' into a social table such as was used in Alpha Centauri. And as I said, it's highly possible that they will adopt an 'absolute' government type, in which place my idea is moot.

If they DO implement a table of social/gov't choices, then again, I suggest that a 'Communist'/one-party GOVT combined with a free market ECON should be possible in the game. As you say, contemporary China sounds like a realworld example of this (although maybe too bland for a computer game - too similar to 'communist govt/SOCIALIST econ'). For a little more 'spice' we could exaggerate these traits and make the Communist party/freemarket gov't an intriging way to play the game.

I think the desision how to properly impliment 'communism' will be MUCH tougher if the government choices are indeed 'absolute' as they were in Civ 2. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Nikolai]

quote: Originally posted by eNo on 12-27-2000 03:55 PM 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.

A new end game??
Hmmm... Well, but then it should be a x% chance that it goes wrong and you get a system like Sovjet or China. And this chance should be high, since, as we know, Marx' ideas haven't been realized.
It could be a kind of Utopia. Thoughts on this??


------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no
[This message has been edited by Nikolai (edited December 28, 2000).]

[Markus The Mighty]

As far as I understand this thread, you're arguing basically about a 2-dimensional SE.
But in ACthere are more choices than just 'policy' and 'economy'.
You have other choices which can improve some aspects of your policy/economy, take for example police state/planned/military.
You could have choices of society values (AC: military/knowledge/wealth), or, my very own idea, which character your government has.
I read a book by Ian Kershaw, "Hitlers Macht" (I don't know the English title, but it's about the character of the nazi rule in germany). There, the author states that there are three different government characters:
traditional rulerships, which relate to national/religious traditions that say who's the one who wields power in which way and who follows the ruler/s after his/their death/s, like monarchies or theocracies
legal rulerships, whose role is ruled by (written)laws, for example any kind of constitution, like the representative democracy of European or American style
and
charismatic rulerships, which arise whenever people don't believe in other forms of rulerships: One man is claimed to be the one who has some kind of natural talent or purpose to rule over the country, and is carried by a fanatic mass of believers who support him. Remark that this kind of rulership is the most primitive and pure form of one being wielding power over others, as there is in fact no control over him by laws or traditions, the only fact that holds him on the throne is that a lot of people believe that he is better than anyone else. This form of rule doesn't usually last very long and is often changed into another form of rulership.

Nazism would be for example police state + capitalism + military values + charismatic rule, or Iran-style Theocracy would be police state + traditional rule.

------------------
"Am Anfang war das Wort" - J.W. Goethe, "Faust"

"So they've learned from me" - Napoleon
Bonaparte, during the Battle of Leipzig

[orange]

Hydro - thanks for the good post

What you talk about seems like virtual democracy and pure capitalism, which in a way resembles communism (as I mentioned earlier) that's why, in a way, the model I proposed is a loop

Lord - "Welfare State" could be used as well to refer to a non-Socialistic economy similar to Brazil.

quote: As interesting as this thread is, it could be completely irrelevant.

Well, why don't you say whether you like the idea of this kind of system or not. That would add more relevance to the thread, especially if many people want this type of system

Markus - of course there are other things that define your Civ, such as what you strive for, how rulers are chosen, etc. But I put that in a separate category than economy and government...

...In fact, what you talk about could touch on a whole new concept. I'm not sure if it's the same, but look for a new thread started by me...



------------------
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"