Government Types

[monkspider]

I find it interesting that in civ terms we assume communism immediately translates as Stalinist totalitarinism. Frankly, whenever I used Communism in the game I had just assumed it was a true marxist state after maybe the first 20 years or so of existance.
Perhaps there should be two different types of governments existing in the game?
Marxism and Totalitarinism?
Marxism, could be an advanced government not appearing until late in the game (assuming the difficulty in pulling off a true Marxist society).
Totalitarinism could represent the facist and Stalinist governments of the 1930's, as well as general totalitarian police states in general.

[Mannamagnus]

It's a leftover from the cold war.
The Soviet Union has never been a real communist state nor has China. Had the US helped in stead of agitated Cuba could have been the first communist state.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by monkspider
Marxism, could be an advanced government not appearing until late in the game (assuming the difficulty in pulling off a true Marxist society).
Totalitarinism could represent the facist and Stalinist governments of the 1930's, as well as general totalitarian police states in general.

Almost perfect, but...
I agree with you when you say (or write) that true communism has never been reached. In a true marxist communist society, no place for State, because the State is always a tool in the hand of the dominant class. So proletarian dictature is, according to Marx, just a way to crush capitalist dictature. The proletarian dictature must have only one goal: the destruction of State. If not, it would just be replacing a dictature by another...
But let's stop talking about political philosophy.

Perhaps could this difference be implemented as True communism/Anarchy government (if you don't understand why I'm talking about anarchy, read my last reply in that thread). It would be an interesting ideologic alternative to liberal democracy as the ultimate form of government. Instead of commercial and industrial efficiency with Democracy, make your people reach unexpected level of happiness...

But, no offense to the American that will read that, there's just a little problem with that: I don't think a game designed to be release in America could include Communism as a potentialy good government. Firaxis would oppose itself the risk of not being able to sell its game in the United States.

[M. le Comte]

Oh !! I forgot something

Just another little element:

You can't put Stalinism and Faschism in the same "totalitarian government". True, they share de same methods to reduce to silence their dissidents... But it's not the same production and economical system at all. It shouldn't have the same consequences on the game to live under faschist rules and under communist rules. At all.
And if you put communism and faschism in the same govt, where do you put dictature such as Franco's one in Spain, Salazar's one in Portugal, the colonel's one in Grece, or Chilian's one etc. ?

[Inverse Icarus]

ther hasn't ever been a real socialist society in the world.

such a society is classless, with the workers calling all the shot's for the nations decisions.

all "communist" countries to date have had a ruler, an almost toltarian ruler, and an "elite" class, almost a mockery of Marx's writings.

[red_jon]

M. le Comte, the Corporate Republic isn't really democratic. You can't vote for the CEO of a corporation...

[sekong]

Feudalism adn Noble rank idea--related with ARMY and Great Leader

About the neccessary of Feudalism, I just have a new idea related to it:

Inspired by the GreatLeader and Army concept,
I'm think about a Noble rank system in Monarchy.
Here is how it works:
Requirement:
1)CIV under Monarchy.
2)After discovery of Feudalism
3)Special events happen, such as winning of a combat, or even discover a new continent or get goody from hut, etc.
Then the King have the option promote a Noble.

Attribute:
1) There are several level of Noble rank. In the following I'll use 2 as an example:
Earl and DUKE.
-Earl cost 1 gold/turn to mentain, can control up to 2 units. Promote from general unit.
-DUKE cost 2 gold/turn, can control up to 4 units. Promote from Earl.
-Each Noble unit need to be assigned to/supported by a city. (Feudalism
-The city supporting a Noble unit will have higher rate of corruption
-The longer a Noble unit exist, the higher corruption it course.
-Lost of Noble unit should by following:
i) Revolution ( because Noble Unit only exist in Monarchy.
ii) Lost of the city supporting it.
iii) Dead in combat.

Discussion:
Why we want to add this? Because it correspond to the history. Before great leader and Nationlism, there was big wars by
those Noble. Game is more balanced, since Monarchy have its advantage. Game is more interesting. Instead of waiting
for a random promote of Great Leader, you can promote Noble "AT A COST".

I think it will be a good way to prevent "early republic"

[Falconius]

all "communist" countries to date have had a ruler, an almost toltarian ruler, and an "elite" class, almost a mockery of Marx's writings.

It cannot be otherwise, owing to human nature. In any revolution, one group overthrows another. Even with promises of equality for everyone, the new ruling group (or class) feels it necessary to maintain their hold on society and continually works to strengthen its position, at the expense of all others.

As it was put in Animal Farm, "All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Anyway, regarding how Govs work in Civ II, I always thought it was ridiculous that there was no waste/corruption under Communism, when in reality, the Soviets had very difficult problems with widespread corruption. Civ I was actually more realistic in this aspect, giving Communism some corruption, but making it equal in all cities regardless of proximity to the capital. Hopefully Civ III will return some corruption to the commies.

[Inverse Icarus]

ahhh animal farm.

"no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets."

[jdlessl]

Re: Very long reply reply

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Anarchy.

Agree.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Despotism.

Very informative, thank you.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Monarchy.

I'm a little unclear on the difference between the Type II Despotism and Monarchy. The despot is established by military might, the monarch by divine right/hereditary rule; any other significant differences? I'd think we'd lump them all into 3 stages of the Despotism class of governments: Thymocraty (catchy name, by the way, I like it), Monarchy, and Dictatorship. Though why one would need to research Dictatorship is beyond me...

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Republic/Democracy

It takes a high degree of technology (we don't have it today) to make a true Democracy on a large scale, so I'd think that under Civ, Republic and Democracy would be merged into one clever-sounding government; they're pretty similar anyway.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Feudalism

I liked MOO2's system, where Feudalism was a primitive form of a Confederacy; basically a more distributed system than a Monarchy/Despotism. Allows the Head Honcho to control larger amounts of territory ('large' defined in terms of the available communication and transportation technology), but there's a greater chance of revolt by an ambitious outlying Prince.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Fundamentalism is the government of the religious institution.

Not quite. Fundamentalism means there's some document or system of beliefs that are strictly adhered to no matter what. Look at how Americans regard the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A Theocracy is rule by a religious institution, and this by no means implies fundamentalist leanings. Some religions are more flexible and welcoming of the new than others. Fundamentalism is more a modifier of an existing government; it could just as easily apply to a Democracy as Anarchy. Social Engineering could model this kind of thing quite well, but, well, you know.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Both fascism and communism are totalitarian systems. But they are not based on the same production system (collective vs capitalist).

Sort of. Fascism is totalitarian, but 'true' communism is not. Communism applied to the real world does always seem to turn into a brutal Dictatorship, though. Interestingly, nobody knows what you might end up with in a real communist nation since nobody's ever succeeded in establishing one for. Which is why I don't think they should use it. As was pointed out, they use entirely differenct economic models, but then type of government and economic system need not, and should not, be linked. But that way lies SE, and, well, you know.

One thing, though. Fascism seems to me to qualify as a simple Dictatorship with severe racial overtones.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Anarchy -> Proudhon's system, invented in the middle of the XIXth

Sounds interesting, please elaborate.

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Fundamentalism -> Taliban's system

See my arguments above. The Taliban is an ultra-Fundamentalist Theocracy. And a brutal one even for that...

Originally posted by M. le Comte
Corporative republic -> ultra liberal democracy where corporations govern (perhaps US soon ?)

If so, they're headed towards it in entirely the worst way (ie, government and corporate powers increasing at the expense of the individual. Best way would be corporate and individual power increasing at the expense of the government). I've always liked Vernor Vinge's descriptions of Anarchy/Corporatism (utopian as opposed to, say, Snowcrash's dystopia). Police and justice services could be done by a corporation just as well as the government (probably better, since in most nations that's a government monopoly and we all know those efficient those end up). Social programs of various types have been done by non-government groups for quite a while. The biggest drawbacks I can think of are the loss of anti-trust actions (it's said that capitalism's biggest enemies are successful capitalists) and monitoring things like environmental regulations (not that they do a particularly good job of it right now anyway), and defending against hostile external governments or groups more powerful than any armed individuals/companies. Obviously not bloody likely in the Real World (TM), but it'd still make for an interesting game of Civ; what position in the world would you as the immortal leader occupy? CEO of the largest company and using your shares you control all the others?

Originally posted by red_jon
the Corporate Republic isn't really democratic. You can't vote for the CEO of a corporation

If you're a shareholder you can.

--
Jared Lessl

[M. le Comte]

Anarchy / True Communism

Originally posted by UberKruX
ther hasn't ever been a real socialist society in the world.

Wrong wrong wrong.

During the XIXth century, several philanthropic bosses in Western Europe have created some small socialist society. I say "socialist", because "the communist party manifest" has been written in 1848 by Marx, and has not been successful, or even known, at once. So communism has Marx and Engels described it did not exist.
Those bosses, who were just capitalist owners, founded small cities in Britain (France) and in Scotland (UK) - it's the two example I can remember. These cities' system were based on a collective and cooperative production and self-administration. They have disappeared when their few creators died, and though they were just local and time-limited systems, they have existed AND worked.

[M. le Comte]

True

Originally posted by red_jon
M. le Comte, the Corporate Republic isn't really democratic. You can't vote for the CEO of a corporation...

That's true. Talking about corporative democraty was an error of language.

[M. le Comte]

Re: Re: Very long reply reply

Originally posted by jdlessl

I'm a little unclear on the difference between the Type II Despotism and Monarchy. The despot is established by military might, the monarch by divine right/hereditary rule; any other significant differences? I'd think we'd lump them all into 3 stages of the Despotism class of governments: Thymocraty (catchy name, by the way, I like it), Monarchy, and Dictatorship. Though why one would need to research Dictatorship is beyond me...

Sorry, that's me who wasn't clear. There's still a difference between type II of despotism and Absolutism.
Only the "type I" of despotism is established by a victorious military (the example of Roman emperors, who were rised to the throne by their soldiers). That's Platon's Thymocraty. But it's not military might. No government can justify its existence by the simple might, although military might has often been a tool for political leaders to maintain order (and in Civ too...). The justication is here military glory. These leaders are used to put their heirs on the throne, but that just a consequence of their charismatic power. Heredity is just a consequence.

Despotism "Type II", enlighted despotism, is a XVIIIth century invention. Some absolutist hereditary leaders (Kings of Prussia, Tsars of Russia, Emperor of Austria) inherit of huge territory badly adminstrated. They had to fight against corruption in administration, unorganized armies, numerous languages among their population. They were philosophy lovers, they liked french philosophs. Voltaire has for a example been for a while the advisor of Frederic II of Prussia. These kings were neither replican, nor democrats, at all. They just wanted the happiness of their people, and the efficiency of their state, and so they governed their empire with rationality and reason, although they were dictators. It was an alternative to what they were fearing: the rising of the idea of Nation and People sovereignty. Louis XV of France tried to transform its government into enlighted despotism but failed, because of the resistance of aristocraty (which would have lost a big part of its might if Louis XV had succeded). There is here too the idea of divine rights, but the leader can make in is mind a difference between him and the state.

Absolutism is an other form of monarchy. It is based on a centralized form of administration, with divine right and hereditary system. It's the system which comes after feudalism, when the kings of Western countries (France and England) succeded in crushing the great warlords' political might during the XVIIth century. But the organization is not so far rationalized. And the leader is not able to make in is mind the difference between him and the state. Louis the XIVth of France is a good illustration of what is an Absolutist leader. He said a very famous sentence "The state, it's me." (L'Etat, c'est moi). It's because absolutist systems have been unable to reform themselves that they have soon been destroyed by Revolutions. In England, during the XVIIth century, and in France, in 1789, revolutions have brought new political and philosophical systems of government, where the People, or at least a part of the People, had the right to choose political orientations of the country.

I'll answer the rest of your reply soon. I just need a cup.

[M. le Comte]

Re: Re: Very long reply reply

Originally posted by jdlessl

Though why one would need to research Dictatorship is beyond me...

I liked MOO2's system, where Feudalism was a primitive form of a Confederacy; basically a more distributed system than a Monarchy/Despotism. Allows the Head Honcho to control larger amounts of territory ('large' defined in terms of the available communication and transportation technology), but there's a greater chance of revolt by an ambitious outlying Prince.

So, to conclude, we would have four different type of monarchy.

- Thymocraty : despotism in Civ I&II.
- Feudalism : as you described it. we could add the fact that commercial efficiency is reduced, because there were very few commercial contacts bedween the different Princes' territories.
- Absolutism : delete the risk of revolt by "outlying Prince", more efficiency for trade
- Enlighted despotism: less corruption, more culture

About dictatorship (not totalitarian), that's a REPUBLICAN type of govt, and not a Monarchy, because hereditary idea doesn't exist.
It's something very modern, a XXth century invention. Franco, Salazars, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and so on are the products of modern technologies. No "dictorship" tech, it would be ridiculous. But this government could be the consequence of Mass Media, "Populism" or "Propaganda".

We have forgotten the type "mix of parlementarism and monarchy", such as:
- the first parlementarist monarchies in England and in France, were the hereditary king had still a part of political might, while the parliament was rising
- the Bonapartist model, in France, where the idea of Nation sovereignty did exist, where the leader (Napoleon) had to respect a Constitution, where plebiscits (half-direct democraty) was a way to question the People on policies, but where the son of the leader would inherit of the power, where the leader was crowned by the Pape, and where the Emperor was all-mighty.

Perhaps could we mix these two kind of systems in a "Republican dictatorship" for simplification ?

So to conclude:

Type of no-government:
Revolution

Types of Monarchy:
Thymocraty
Feudalism
Absolutism
Enlighted despotism

Types of Republics:
Republic (From Athen to Genoa) (Civ I&II Republic)
Republican dictatorship (From Napoleon to Saddam Hussein)(efficiency at war, large empires, bad trade)
Totalitarian Republic (Fascism and Civ I&II communism)
Representative Republic (Democraty in Civ I&II, bud a bit less powerful)
Corporative Republic (see other replies)

Alternative types:
Theocraty (the same as in Civ II)
Anarchy (beginning of the XIXth century) (Huge happiness, very bad production, bad science, bad gold)
Communism (End of the XIXth century) (Happiness, middle sized production, middle sized science, bad gold)
Direct democraty (Happiness, high trade, middle sized production, very hard to make war etc..) (end of the XXth Century, prerequisites: Internet)

[K.J.H.]

AAAAAAAAARGH!

Too complex!!!!

All these Tiberian pornocracies, republican infantarchy and co-operative thermo-lesbonisms make my head hurt!!
Just keep it simple.
This is my Idea.

1. Tribal (The Flinstones)
2. Monarchy (civ II despotism AND monarchy) (After discovering Feudalism, you get produce more food and your economy is going the right way.)
3. Theocracy (like the Aztec empire or the Holy Roman Empire. fundamentalism of civ2 without the too strong fanatics. your crusaders are cheaper to maintain and you can build clerics like in CTP.)
4. 'Imperialism' (I know this is nonsense but I mean the monarchies of colonist, huge or wanna-be-huge empires. Persons like German kaizers, Spanish kings, Russian czars and off course Japanese emperors. With an almost excellent military, low happiness, but every thing that could lead to expansion has imperialism. imperialism requires nationalism and magnetism. nationalism should be somewhere in the 16th century (then european civs started to make borders). After discovering the advance 'the enlightment' imperialism get more scientific.
5. Republic (aristocracy with 75% of declaring war)
6. 'Democracy' (more male people can vote (so it isn't really democracy), there is 50% of declaring war and after the minor wonder 'Emancipation Act' (requires socialism) people get more happier, 35% of declaring war and we get the western society nowadays.)
7. Facism (requires Mass Media)
8. Communism (requires Socialism and Facism)