New Governments

[Nikolai]

Here in Norway we have a king, so we are a monarchy.

BUT we have a parliament and democratic elections, so we are a democracy.

BUT we are a welfare state, so we are socialistic.

I'm a bit confused.....

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Christantine The Great on 11-24-2000 01:33 AM Socialism and Communism are not governments but economy models. They are usually enforced by dictatorships I hope I'm not sounding too pushy.

Not pushy, but still wrong IMHO.

Communism is a government type, ruled by a single political party that makes all the decisions, economic or otherwise. Because of this it can hardly have anything else but a planned economy, if it wants to function at all. However, other government types can also have a more-or-less planned economy.

Socialism is not a government, nor is it an economy model. It is an ideology that calls upon the (any) government to take care of all citizens, in contrast to "laissez fair". This encompasses economic factors (key industries controlled or directed by the government, so at least partly planned is mandatory) as well as social (welfare, healthcare, housing).

Both Democratic and Communistic governments are well capable of carrying out "socialist" policies.

The Netherlands do not have a Monarchy type of government, but a (rather socialistic) Democracy. Iraq is a Monarchy, like Jordan. Lybia is a dictatorship (Despotism), Egypt a Democracy. As far as I know there are no Arab Theocracies; Iran (non-Arab!) was one but is now in transition again.

The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that is a Republic the few elect the few (like the Roman senate chose its own members), while in a Democracy (be it "pure" or representative) "everyone" has the right to vote and "anyone" can be elected.


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
[This message has been edited by Ribannah (edited November 24, 2000).]

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-24-2000 10:07 AM Not pushy, but still wrong IMHO. Communism is a government type, ruled by a single political party that makes all the decisions, economic or otherwise. Because of this it can hardly have anything else but a planned economy, if it wants to function at all. However, other government types can also have a more-or-less planned economy.

Ribannah, it sounds like you are describing the reality of Communism - especially Soviet, not the true theory of Communism. In "pure" Communism, there is no planning, there is no government since the "worker's paradise" would be achieved. Very unrealistic and hard to represent in CIV. We may have to be content with a Communism government type based on the Soviet example.

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-24-2000 10:07 AM The Netherlands do not have a Monarchy type of government, but a (rather socialistic) Democracy. Iraq is a Monarchy, like Jordan. Lybia is a dictatorship (Despotism), Egypt a Democracy. As far as I know there are no Arab Theocracies; Iran (non-Arab!) was one but is now in transition again.

You missed one, and it is a 'theocracy' to an extent, Isreal. And if you don't think that's theocratical enough, try ancient Isreal before king Saul (in the bible).

[Stalker0]

There is so such thing as a real democracy, even the US is simply a republic. However, a democracy could theoretically be created through the internet and other kinds of technology like that. But since Civ already considers a difference between Republic and a US Republic (Civ's democracy) I don't think they'll change it.

I also like the SMAC social engineering concept. Then you can create welfare states, socialist republics and so forth

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 11-22-2000 06:05 PM Market- *Most advanced form of Government Tax Collecting- 100% War- 60% Infastructure- 75% Happiness- 85%

I dont know how long Civ-3 is supposed to stretch into the future, but generally i DONT think "Market" should be the most advanced form of government.

Its just too controversial. Like having Marxism/historical materialism as a base to build the economical mechanics behind the game. The game-designers of Civ-3 must avoid having such traditional "red" or conventional profit-worshiping choices as so-called "most advanced" governments.

Market economy is about economical dog-eat-dog ideals, that limps along because, at present, there isnt any believeable alternatives. But, for the next 100, 200 or even 500 years into the future? Please, dont give up hope...

To cheer you guys up, i give the following simile about our civilisations history and future:

The mid-winter (dec) is the darkest part of the year, but often not yet the coldest. By comparison, the late-winter period (feb) is gradually more brighten, but at the same time often the coldest month of the year.

Similarly, we aften talk about our medieval/ancient history as a morally "darker times", but also a time where people was much less cynical and jaded about believe-systems and ideals (= dec: yet not so "cold" times).

By comparision, our modern world, symbolises februari: We live in somewhat "brighter times" in some limited ways: We have education, medical and geriatric care, red cross, social work and material/technical conveniences, that all contributes to make our lives somewhat easier to live.
At the same time the modern man have found himself in much "colder times". Many modern people dont beleive in anything anymore. Not in a God and overal purpose, and not in any other beleive- or value-systems either.

Well, im maybe incredible naive here - but what comes after late-winter? Our civilization has perhaps not reach its coldest turning-point yet: Maybe there are temporary social and economical collapses, and even major wars along the way - i dont know.

But, does late-winters last forever an ever? Nope!

Why not have a really wise, altruistic and humanly intelligent future-only government-form, that perhaps dont work today, but MAYBE in year 2100-2400?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, I'm getting a little tired of association of Communism with dictatorship. As I've said before, the reason why Communist countries usually are dictatorships is because they are usually countries that have LONG histories of absolute rulers and autocrats. And also these were violent revolutions which almost always lead to dictatorships.

But there is NOTHING that says a Communist country can not have free elections (a cornerstone to a Democracy). And there is no reason why a Communist country can not have a Parliament or Congress, and there is no reason they can't have a fair court system. And in Civilization, the game should be showing the fundamental intentions of a government not what the results have been.

I think that the best thing to do is have different economies and governments, and even different levels of democratization as was previously suggested.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3

[Tical_2000]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-24-2000 11:53 AM
Ribannah, it sounds like you are describing the reality of Communism - especially Soviet, not the true theory of Communism. In "pure" Communism, there is no planning, there is no government since the "worker's paradise" would be achieved. Very unrealistic and hard to represent in CIV. We may have to be content with a Communism government type based on the Soviet example.

-Don't be stupid! Of course there can be no 'pure' communism. So what the hell is your point? If you think you are amusing anyone with your political theory knowledge, you are mistaken. What we are discussing here is how to best implement gov'ts in Civ3 and whether they should be separate from economic systems. My personal opinion? No. They shouldn't be.

[Andz83]

err.... I go for SMAC like flexible government model, not that old classic frozen government forms model... !!!

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-26-2000 01:38 PM But there is NOTHING that says a Communist country can not have free elections (a cornerstone to a Democracy).

As was always the case in Yugoslavia. However, under Communism only members of one party can be elected, so it isn't the same as under Democracy.

Tical_2000, I think your definition of "pure" Communism is a bit strange, but if we want Civ to represent history there is no place for "pure" Communism or Democracy anyway if the real world never had something like that.

I'd much prefer to adjust the definitions so that they fit common reality, instead of the other way around


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-26-2000 03:52 PM Don't be stupid! Of course there can be no 'pure' communism.

Mat 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away".

"Heaven" means mankinds present value-systems and believes.
"earth" means mankinds present ways of doing things.
"my words" means the underlying moral in the Sermon on the Mount.

quote: If you think you are amusing anyone with your political theory knowledge, you are mistaken.

Well, im amused
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 26, 2000).]

[Antonios]

Market as a government?No.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-26-2000 03:52 PM -Don't be stupid! Of course there can be no 'pure' communism. So what the hell is your point? If you think you are amusing anyone with your political theory knowledge, you are mistaken.

Darn, you were in my target audience and I didn't amuse you... I was planning the Trotsky Stand Up Hour and even contemplated building the Adam Smith Comedy Hall Wonder. Would you perhaps snicker at the Lenin List of Jokes? I heard Marx bombed on the Issac Newton Show!

How can I go on....?

[DarkCloud]

There can be pure communism! Everyone is equal. The only problem would be when money grabbers get to the top of the ladder and apportition more to themselves or make it 'government funds'

Market can be real: look at Wall Street, now imagine an entire world governed by free enterprise and stocks, that is Market.

Market is the world. Market will come next. Market-World 2010. It is Market or the fall of civilization.

[Christantine The Great]

[q]under Communism only members of one party can be elected, so it isn't the same as under Democracy.
[q]

NO! Under a true democracy the people can vote for ANYONE they want to. They do not need to constantly vote for Democrats, as under a Republic you don't need to vote for Republicans.

Communism is an economic model. Dictatorships usually use a combination of a secret police and a communist economy to keep the people of a country in check.

[q]but if we want Civ to represent history there is no place for "pure" Communism or Democracy anyway if the real world never had something like that.
[q]

Remember, we are rewriting history. That means we can do what history says we can do but never really did it!

Market...Hmm...not too realistic, the world being governed by the rise and fall of stock prices. It sounds like the people will be a bit pissed, not too happy.

In Civ II the designers favored a Democratic government probably because they lived in a democratic republic (U.S.). They made democracy the "best" government with the communist government that history shows us in second place. Each government should have its strong points that other governments cannot have.

Maybe, along with the regular choices, there should be a panel of check boxes on the side of the screen that differ from each type of government. The check boxes would be small changes you could do to your government to further refine it.