Differentiating between economic systems and political systems.

[ancient]

Your economic system should be seperated from your political system. So i think the options should be like this.

With a technological advance required (to change both goverment types and economical systems)

--------------------Communism
Barter System >
--------------------Capitalism

-------------------------------Republic > Democracy
Despotism > Monarchy >
-------------------------------Nationalism

it could be modified to add different Systems but i think this system would be better then the current political system used..

[KrazyHorse]

Good point. After all, the opposite of democracy is not communism; it's authoritarianism (or fascism, or whatever you choose to call it). A democratic socialism is quite a comfortable ideology and exists in practice in many countries in different degrees. Sweden, for instance, is no less democratic than the U.S. simply because its tax rates are higher. Some would even claim the opposite. This is why the SE system of SMAC was a better idea. Damn Firaxis for going back.

[Sean]

if you have general political ideals (such as Republicianism and Democracy), you are absolutly correct. Though you need to add a few more economic options there.

However if you had a broader range of political philosophy, you could get all political-economic options anyway. Thus communism becomes complete control over politics and economics. Conservatives just control the political/moral realm and leave the econmomy alone. Modern liberals are the opposite. Classical liberals (or Libertarians) leave both options uncontroled. The game is not conducive to anarchism though (treats anarchism, rightly or wronly, as inheriently eveil). For earlier govts we have constituted Monarch vs absolute monarchy. You get the idea anyway.

Your solution is probably simpler,... now that I have tipyed my explanation...

[ancient]

well of course there will always be variations in different govternments especially in the form of liberals vs conservative and tolitaritism vs sub-tolitarism (not a word), but the game as currently stand doesnt make it possible to controll your civilizations every policy towards its peoples. And just as well that it doesnt because civ isnt a game about advanced politics, and it would just interfere with the general "fun" of the game. which is why i think my system would work just perfectly into the game.

[ancient]

actually modifying what ive origionally said


it should be harder to switch economic systems then political systems (especially if youre switching backwords) and the systems should be like this


--------------------Socialism > Communism
Barter System >
--------------------Capitalism

-------------------------------Republic > Democracy
Despotism > Monarchy >
-------------------------------Nationalism > Fascism

beter this way than before because its more comprehensive..

[Inverse Icarus]

the political spectrum is

Left-------------Center------------Right
Liberal---------Moderate---------Conservative
Democrat------Centerist---------Republican (USA)
Communist-----whatever--------Facist.

Facists, as conservatives, believe in the past, in traditional economies, where they dont change much.

Communists are completely radical (in capitialist minds) and change with the times (sometimes not well enough )

[ancient]

but thats not going to work as well.. its best just to pick a government and eco system and keep its effects in check. also the different combinations should have different results..

[Fidel]

hm ubercrux, mussolini's concept of 'corporate republic' was not traditionalist at that time. his place on the right was more of a result of his attitude towards, communists, family and church

[JamesJKirk]

Come on, you can't seriously buy that the political and economic concepts are so linear, and so divisive. I mean is there really that much of an ideological difference between US Democrats and Republicans (We want a tax cut!-We want a...uh...smaller tax cut!) And while the concept of Communism is "to the left" of the spectrum, in how it's been practiced generally thus far in history, it's really not been that different from Fascism, ie, state control of politics and the economy.

But I agree that there needs to be differentiation, and I really hope they didn't can SE altogether, and that they maybe just adapted it to fit into Civ better, ala how we've been proposing around here

[ancient]

there has yet to be a communist nation on earth and communism isnt a government type its and economic type so what you said made little to no sence (s/p?) i think my model is probably the best one thought of as of yet..

[Dr Strangelove]

I think you are forgetting that "The Republic" in Civ is not the same as the US Republican party. In Civ "The Republic" represents a sort of oligarchical system similar to Britain prior to the Charterist reforms or the senatorial government of pre-Imperial Rome.
We can debate whether the Soviet government ever fit the concept of communism proposed by Marx, but they were the first country to take the title so I think we have to settle for using the term communism and bolshevism as synonymous. The system adopted by the european social democracies is so unlike bolshevism that you can't lump them together. Unfortunately the bolshevists linked their economic and political systems so closely that you can't seperate them.

[JamesJKirk]

Originally posted by ancient
there has yet to be a communist nation on earth and communism isnt a government type its and economic type so what you said made little to no sence (s/p?) i think my model is probably the best one thought of as of yet..

I'm not saying there has been a true communist nation, I'm just saying that the Soviet countries system, in practice, wasn't all that different from that of the Third Reich (party control, subservience to the state, etc), so left-right is just innaccurate. Besides, the Communist hardliners in Russia today are considered right-wingers. But I would argue that communism is a socioeconomic theory, since it's about equality and the such, all things like that are tied together. But I do agree there needs to be differentiation between political and economic aspects of the civ, and I would propose adding a social "slider" too

Strangelove-

I don't think anyone did confuse "The Republic" from civ with the US republican party. And I think that there is no debate over whether the USSR was communist in the Marxist sense. It wasn't. At all. Marx even said before he died that he wasn't a Marxist as a result of the changes to practice and philosophy. Marx thought Communism would be possible in a country with nominal freedom and democratic roots like the US or the UK. But Communism became dominated by the radicals, such as Lenin. And in a revolution, who do you think's going to win out, moderates or radicals? And after the Revolution, Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy, which essentially was state controlled capitalism to raise money for the fledgling government, and this program stayed intact through the duration of the USSR. See? No debate. The USSR was essentially a (except for the Lenin and Stalin years) a bureaucratic dictatorship, with state and party control of the sociopoliticoeconomic life.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by JamesJKirk

I don't think anyone did confuse "The Republic" from civ with the US republican party

That's funny; I termed myself "a small-'d' democrat" and Joseph1944 told me in response that he's been both a Democrat and a Republican in his life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

there has yet to be a communist nation on earth

So why include true communism in Civ? Shouldn't governments that have existed be the ones included in Civ?

Marx thought Communism would be possible in a country with nominal freedom and democratic roots like the US or the UK.

COULD... but Marx advocated revolution in Europe. And well, no one can call Marx a moderate . He was a radical all the way.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And well, no one can call Marx a moderate . He was a radical all the way.

True dat.