Oh My... Looks like I'm gonna have fun!

[mimi]

Just found that chart of the difs in govts... and am REALLY looking forward to giving fascism a whirl - sounds really cool. No more "missus nice girl" for me.

BTW, what tech is needed for fascism [edit: I mean "where in the tech tree is the fascism tech located"]? My first game is gonna be (rare for me) an eliminate anyone who looks at me game! Wheee- HAW!!!

None of this building stuff 'cause I gotta keep the people happy.

[Swissy]

Fascism is should be after industrialization like communism. The two government systems sort of parallel each other.

[Brundlefly]

Fascism is really just Despotism, isn't it? Why have both types of government? It is redundant..

[mimi]

Workers twice as fast and no food penalty (I think)... sounds good to me.

[Terser]

Originally posted by Feephi
Fascism is really just Despotism, isn't it? Why have both types of government? It is redundant..

Despotic leaders are largely interested in personal power and aggrandizement. They sustain their rule through brute force and aren't necessarily interested in promoting an ideology or reshaping society.

Facist leaders, on the other hand, usually assume power supported by a pseudo-religious political movement and have a large number of enthusiastic supporters. Facist leaders may not be particularly interested in personal comforts and wealth, but instead are focus on the true substance of power. Although facist governments have dissenters(as all governments do) much of the population supports the government and embraces its ideology. Society itself is changed to suit that ideology, often with disastrous results for minorities or anyone else deemed nonconformist and non-conformable.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Terser


Despotic leaders are largely interested in personal power and aggrandizement. They sustain their rule through brute force and aren't necessarily interested in promoting an ideology or reshaping society.

Facist leaders, on the other hand, usually assume power supported by a pseudo-religious political movement and have a large number of enthusiastic supporters. Facist leaders may not be particularly interested in personal comforts and wealth, but instead are focus on the true substance of power. Although facist governments have dissenters(as all governments do) much of the population supports the government and embraces its ideology. Society itself is changed to suit that ideology, often with disastrous results for minorities or anyone else deemed nonconformist and non-conformable.

Not sure that I'm convinced of the distinction you are making. Saddam Hussein was widely considered a despot, however he rode to power on the backs of the Sunni Muslim and changed society to conform to Sunni ideals. This is more in line with your definition of fascism. Likewiese, Hitler was largely considered a fascist but any exploration of his character shows him as a megalomaniacal despot, imho.

[Terser]

Originally posted by Feephi



Not sure that I'm convinced of the distinction you are making. Saddam Hussein was widely considered a despot, however he rode to power on the backs of the Sunni Muslim and changed society to conform to Sunni ideals. This is more in line with your definition of fascism. Likewiese, Hitler was largely considered a fascist but any exploration of his character shows him as a megalomaniacal despot, imho.

Hitler-Facist
Saddam-Despot

-Hitler rose to power enthusiastically supported by the Nazi party. He and his supporters actually won election to politcal office through democratic means, although it ended up being the last election that was held for a very long time...
-Saddam rose to power largely through thuggery and strong arm tactics. The support of a large scale political movement (the Baath Party) basically came later as a way of consolidating his power.

-Hitler never showed much interest in wealth or personal comforts. Aside from the Berghof, Rolls Royces, and strutting through monumenetal government buildings he seemed to shun materiel wealth in favor of focusing on promoting his insane ideas.
-Saddam, in contrast, appears to have viewed his rule of Iraq as a way of enriching himself and his family. How many palaces were there? Dozens? Each of which contained how many frescoes and gold fixtures? There doesn't seem to be much ideology at work with Saddam--not political, nor religious, nor moral. It was all about his personal wealth and comfort.

Hitler-tried to fundamentally alter German society through genocide, propaganda, an emphasis on conformity, the adoption of some socialist principles, etc. etc.
Saddam-aside from a campagin against the Kurds and the abortive invasion of Kuwait Saddam appeared willing to largely maintain the status quo. It was all about him, not his ideology.

[grappleman]

Good points, Hitler was definitely a fascist and Saddam was most certainly a despot. I think his 60-some palaces can vouch for that one.

[bongo]

Why 60 Palaces? One Palace and one Forbidden Palace is enough for any game

(I know that many of his palaces were built just to send a message to the people, 'You're starving while I'm building palaces. You shouldn't rebelled against me in -91. Mwuhahahaha. Suckers')

[SirOsis]

You can have 3. Be a Communist and build the Secret Police HQ small wonder.