Tweet
I got to thinking about what certain Social Engineering settings are really about, what it means for a non-elected Leader to run a Democracy, or how you can end up with a Morganite Fundamentalism. Then I wrote it down, and here it is.
Politics
Police State: The police state is characterized by an extremely strong and deep chain of command, right at the top the faction leader, supreme dictator, where every level holds the level below at figurative gun point and secret police watch for anyone to slip up. The Police State excels at mobilizing human resources to where they are needed, regardless of whether or not the people are willing. Violence is considered the appropriate means of control. Dissenters disappear, and are either never seen again or return brainwashed, people are afraid to think for themselves or come up with new ideas. Under the Police State citizens are unhappy, but if they try to do anything about it get beaten ruthlessly by the police – The secret police monitors and “reeducates” any activists that might lead the population to wide scale revolt.
Democracy: Democracy in SMAC is not the representative Democracy practiced by Democratic nations, or Tyranny by the Majority; rather it’s a structure of command that gives more say to the people. The Democracy probably extends to the local council level rather than the faction leadership level, this would give Citizens considerably say in their community without compromising military and diplomatic issues, I feel this is a more likely form of Democracy than some sort of corrupt faction-wide democracy with only one party (the Faction Leaders). People feel freer under Democracy and there are no mechanisms in place to pressure them to go to war, hence a lack of support for the Military, the local community structure allows for expert (or local knowledge) application of solutions for specific communities/bases, improving efficiency and growth.
The basic Command Structure would be:
Faction Leader and corrupt cronies -> Base Governors + Local Community Council, either elected members or volunteers, that help make decisions regarding base operations and policy (a similar council may be present at leadership level)
Fundamentalism: While for Miriam this is a religious fundamentalism I feel that for other factions the government hammers home this message “That ours is a way of life worth fighting and dying for” and equally “That the other factions way of life are inferior” (this message may not be blared out over loudspeakers, but would be the natural result of the first message). Fundamentalism would promote factional pride. On the other hand it also breeds intolerance and hate. This has the positive side of making infiltration by enemy forces difficult (they stick out like sore thumbs), when the faction goes to war the people really do believe in the war so fight harder for it. Because of all the dogma shoved down their throats most the citizens stop thinking for themselves (or are too afraid to), hence the decline in research. Ultimately the population does exactly what the leaders want, much like under Police State. However the mechanism is based on mass brainwashing rather than fear.
Economics:
Free Market: This is I believe capitalism unleashed and untamed. What capitalism excels at is extracting every last joule of energy from its human resources (aka wage slaves). Citizens are left close to the breaking point and unhappy, the police are under-funded and ineffective (and probably equally unhappy). What capitalism excels at is extracting every last joule of energy - that is the bottom line. The name Free Market makes it a bit more palatable for the 90% of the population who gets a rotten deal, while the 10% who get a great deal have all the power anyway. From the faction leaders perspective, Free Market provides an excellent method to rapidly exploit resources and build infrastructure, it helps to ignore the human and enviroment costs.
Planned: Much how it sounds, everything is planned by the state and implemented by local authorities (once again a strong chain of command, with extensive use of computers and networks). And I mean everything, people may be able to choose their partners, but there might be things like birth quotas, children are probably state educated and even raised (for efficiency, allowing the parents to do assigned work). The education and work allocation system would result in citizens who all turn out alike and don’t really think for themselves all that much. There wouldn’t be much suffering under Planned, needs would be met with efficiency and exactness. There would also be little Joy.
Green: In some ways, Green would be a lot like Planned. Citizens would be forbidden from doing certain things by strict regulations, birth would be controlled (but in a different way to Planned). The fundamental aspect where Green differs is that it would aim to instill a love of life, nature and planet in citizens, and more through experiencing the joy of life rather than religious dogma. However this could extend to fanaticism at times – Green citizens clearly have no strong qualms about going to war (and sending their native friends to war) to preserve their way of life and further spread green values. Green has powerful positive aspects; citizens are less wasteful. Thinking and philosophy would be actively encouraged. Under Green citizens would be mostly happy, though strangers to lifestyles of luxury and excess.
Values:
Power: Power involves compulsory military service and an unshakable belief (or perhaps truism) in the need of being powerful to survive. The Industry penalty mostly comes from compulsory military service by the young people and perhaps a view that factory work is weak and inferior to the warrior’s way. Clearly under Power the citizens are extremely patriotic and more than willing to go to war. War, Fighting and Winning are considered Good Things, and this is a value instilled from early years.
Knowledge: Under Knowledge, thinking and the free flow of ideas are encouraged. It would be unlikely to find information copyright laws, in fact the very idea of hording information to gain a competitive edge would be alien and perhaps repulsive to the Citizens of a Knowledge state. The Open networks ensure efficiency (less reinventing the wheel) and cross-pollination of ideas. Citizens would be enlightened and well-read. Because the networks are so open and the regulation against information-hording it is easier to steal technology from factions with Knowledge values.
Wealth: Hard work and the “Rags to Riches” dream would be strongly promoted under Wealth, in fact many things would be promoted, commercial advertising would be everywhere and completely unrestricted as corporations pump out a never ending stream of new consumer goods & services for the hard working population to buy. The Citizen under Wealth can never have enough stuff and would always be trying to keep up with the Joneses. Generally speaking the leadership and capitalists have more to benefit from Wealth values than the population, although this is mostly true of the other values.
Next up, I muse on how various SE settings interact, including with factional ideologies & society.
Comments? Agreements? Disagreements? All very welcome.
Politics
Police State: The police state is characterized by an extremely strong and deep chain of command, right at the top the faction leader, supreme dictator, where every level holds the level below at figurative gun point and secret police watch for anyone to slip up. The Police State excels at mobilizing human resources to where they are needed, regardless of whether or not the people are willing. Violence is considered the appropriate means of control. Dissenters disappear, and are either never seen again or return brainwashed, people are afraid to think for themselves or come up with new ideas. Under the Police State citizens are unhappy, but if they try to do anything about it get beaten ruthlessly by the police – The secret police monitors and “reeducates” any activists that might lead the population to wide scale revolt.
Democracy: Democracy in SMAC is not the representative Democracy practiced by Democratic nations, or Tyranny by the Majority; rather it’s a structure of command that gives more say to the people. The Democracy probably extends to the local council level rather than the faction leadership level, this would give Citizens considerably say in their community without compromising military and diplomatic issues, I feel this is a more likely form of Democracy than some sort of corrupt faction-wide democracy with only one party (the Faction Leaders). People feel freer under Democracy and there are no mechanisms in place to pressure them to go to war, hence a lack of support for the Military, the local community structure allows for expert (or local knowledge) application of solutions for specific communities/bases, improving efficiency and growth.
The basic Command Structure would be:
Faction Leader and corrupt cronies -> Base Governors + Local Community Council, either elected members or volunteers, that help make decisions regarding base operations and policy (a similar council may be present at leadership level)
Fundamentalism: While for Miriam this is a religious fundamentalism I feel that for other factions the government hammers home this message “That ours is a way of life worth fighting and dying for” and equally “That the other factions way of life are inferior” (this message may not be blared out over loudspeakers, but would be the natural result of the first message). Fundamentalism would promote factional pride. On the other hand it also breeds intolerance and hate. This has the positive side of making infiltration by enemy forces difficult (they stick out like sore thumbs), when the faction goes to war the people really do believe in the war so fight harder for it. Because of all the dogma shoved down their throats most the citizens stop thinking for themselves (or are too afraid to), hence the decline in research. Ultimately the population does exactly what the leaders want, much like under Police State. However the mechanism is based on mass brainwashing rather than fear.
Economics:
Free Market: This is I believe capitalism unleashed and untamed. What capitalism excels at is extracting every last joule of energy from its human resources (aka wage slaves). Citizens are left close to the breaking point and unhappy, the police are under-funded and ineffective (and probably equally unhappy). What capitalism excels at is extracting every last joule of energy - that is the bottom line. The name Free Market makes it a bit more palatable for the 90% of the population who gets a rotten deal, while the 10% who get a great deal have all the power anyway. From the faction leaders perspective, Free Market provides an excellent method to rapidly exploit resources and build infrastructure, it helps to ignore the human and enviroment costs.
Planned: Much how it sounds, everything is planned by the state and implemented by local authorities (once again a strong chain of command, with extensive use of computers and networks). And I mean everything, people may be able to choose their partners, but there might be things like birth quotas, children are probably state educated and even raised (for efficiency, allowing the parents to do assigned work). The education and work allocation system would result in citizens who all turn out alike and don’t really think for themselves all that much. There wouldn’t be much suffering under Planned, needs would be met with efficiency and exactness. There would also be little Joy.
Green: In some ways, Green would be a lot like Planned. Citizens would be forbidden from doing certain things by strict regulations, birth would be controlled (but in a different way to Planned). The fundamental aspect where Green differs is that it would aim to instill a love of life, nature and planet in citizens, and more through experiencing the joy of life rather than religious dogma. However this could extend to fanaticism at times – Green citizens clearly have no strong qualms about going to war (and sending their native friends to war) to preserve their way of life and further spread green values. Green has powerful positive aspects; citizens are less wasteful. Thinking and philosophy would be actively encouraged. Under Green citizens would be mostly happy, though strangers to lifestyles of luxury and excess.
Values:
Power: Power involves compulsory military service and an unshakable belief (or perhaps truism) in the need of being powerful to survive. The Industry penalty mostly comes from compulsory military service by the young people and perhaps a view that factory work is weak and inferior to the warrior’s way. Clearly under Power the citizens are extremely patriotic and more than willing to go to war. War, Fighting and Winning are considered Good Things, and this is a value instilled from early years.
Knowledge: Under Knowledge, thinking and the free flow of ideas are encouraged. It would be unlikely to find information copyright laws, in fact the very idea of hording information to gain a competitive edge would be alien and perhaps repulsive to the Citizens of a Knowledge state. The Open networks ensure efficiency (less reinventing the wheel) and cross-pollination of ideas. Citizens would be enlightened and well-read. Because the networks are so open and the regulation against information-hording it is easier to steal technology from factions with Knowledge values.
Wealth: Hard work and the “Rags to Riches” dream would be strongly promoted under Wealth, in fact many things would be promoted, commercial advertising would be everywhere and completely unrestricted as corporations pump out a never ending stream of new consumer goods & services for the hard working population to buy. The Citizen under Wealth can never have enough stuff and would always be trying to keep up with the Joneses. Generally speaking the leadership and capitalists have more to benefit from Wealth values than the population, although this is mostly true of the other values.
Next up, I muse on how various SE settings interact, including with factional ideologies & society.
Comments? Agreements? Disagreements? All very welcome.
But maybe they speak for themselves or are otherwise so far-flung they are open to just about any loose interpretation one cares to offer.
A voice of reason is heard above the wildlings, especially your Fundamentalism paragraph, because "fundamentalism" does not always have to mean "religion".
Comment