Social Model v3.0

[LDiCesare]

Inevitably, it all comes down to economics (e.g.: Scotland would become poorer if it was separated from the UK) provinces will not cecede if it not in their economic interests to do so.

Yes, but we must consider that the province overall may become poorer if the majority of people who riot may become richer. Thus discrimination alone can lead to riots, unless staying under colonial control brings more wealth than breaking away?

If you want a one-worder, "Bureaucracy"

Bureaucracy rings very different meanings from Local Government in my opinion. The word bears feelings that are not positive at all, and means power being held, rather than being applied. LocalGovernment would be a good word to me, it's just 15 characters.

[yellowdaddy]

Please can you explain PWF and PCI?

PWF is to do with Civil/Human Rights, yes?

I think all things, even Ethnic Discrimination can have their rebellious feelings quelled by sustained good economic growth (rather than "a better economy"), and an economic cost/benefit equation - how revolt/cecession might affect trade and industry in their province.

Ethnic Discrimination surely existed within ancient civilisations, does it automatically lead to revolt?

---

and surely, "education" can also mean "propaganda"?

---

NRF SDF - It's seperatism; what you're talking about is "intensity of seperatism" like a multiplier of a variable?

call it SF for Seperatism Feeling and
SD for Seperation Desire
SI for Seperatism Intensity.

You have SD 1 2 3
and then SI x1 x2 x3
a scale of 1-9: 1-3 = protest; 3-6 = insurgency; 6-9 = civil war
so you could have a strong SD with a low SI = desire for autonomy
SD 3 SI 1 = SF 3, so you'd have public marches for autonomy.
SD 2 SI 3 = SF 6, a guerrilla war for independence.

something like this?

---

Local Government - in the UK we also use the term Local Council, or The Council.
You might have to wade through the phrontisery.info or a latin dictionary - it's clearly the "government" part that's the obstacle in this name.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well considering what you call "natioalism" is just a broader term of what would be called "regionalism" "tribalism" etc in that it ecompasses a lerger enitity, i don't see why it shouldn't be in at all times.

As said, its the feeling of belonging to one group of peoples and when faced with an obstacle who those people bind with in an attempt to overcome it.

[yellowdaddy]

?

Nationalism is a religion tied to ethnicity and geography, with hero myths. (though you can have a religion tied only to ethnicity: Zoroastrianism; or maybe only to land: pagan religions?), so yes it is tribalism on a macroscale.

A nation has its origin in the family:
family -> tribe -> ethnicity -> nationality

When you start to erode the ethnic basis of a state through immigration, I think public allegience to the state is eroded among the educated wealthy classes (who may develop allegiance to multinational organisations; and who may benefit from immigrant labour rather than being affected by the negative aspects of it: job competition; intercultural friction; ghettoisation), and is intensified among the less educated and economically disenfranchised (who are less likely to experience the benefits of immigration, and more likely to be subject to the aforementioned negative aspects).
In order to have a seperatist or "nationalist/regionalist/tribalist" movement, you need some of the educated wealthy classes to feel threatened (could be by an internal threat from outside, or an external threat), to use the sympathetic less educated less wealthy classes to form a movement.

So it's a combination of (in a simple scenario) economic growth suddenly failing creating discontent among the plebians, and an external (political) threat to the position of the patricians.
In a more complex scenario, you'd have immigrants creating an intial split in attitudes along class lines, requiring a more sophisticated threat to the political power of the bourgeoisie (economic/political domination by an extranational neighbour, or intranational centralisation), who then use the proletariat to protect their powerbase.

If social classes are a game feature, Seperatism Feelings should show class features.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
Nationalism is a religion tied to ethnicity and geography, with hero myths. (though you can have a religion tied only to ethnicity: Zoroastrianism; or maybe only to land: pagan religions?), so yes it is tribalism on a macroscale.

I agree about myths, but not religion. Pre-Comunist china did not have anything like a universal enthnicity or religion, but the myth and legend about the Mandate of Heaven was shared by almost everyone and would support whoever had it against invaders or usurpers reguardless of whther they were from the Xie, or Wu.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
When you start to erode the ethnic basis of a state through immigration, I think public allegience to the state is eroded among the educated wealthy classes (who may develop allegiance to multinational organisations; and who may benefit from immigrant labour rather than being affected by the negative aspects of it: job competition; intercultural friction; ghettoisation), and is intensified among the less educated and economically disenfranchised (who are less likely to experience the benefits of immigration, and more likely to be subject to the aforementioned negative aspects).
In order to have a seperatist or "nationalist/regionalist/tribalist" movement, you need some of the educated wealthy classes to feel threatened (could be by an internal threat from outside, or an external threat), to use the sympathetic less educated less wealthy classes to form a movement.

So it's a combination of (in a simple scenario) economic growth suddenly failing creating discontent among the plebians, and an external (political) threat to the position of the patricians.
In a more complex scenario, you'd have immigrants creating an intial split in attitudes along class lines, requiring a more sophisticated threat to the political power of the bourgeoisie (economic/political domination by an extranational neighbour, or intranational centralisation), who then use the proletariat to protect their powerbase.

If social classes are a game feature, Seperatism Feelings should show class features.

I don't think you need to have a more wealthy indivisuals. Its possible if they get a critical mass and a particular charismatic and intiellgent person of the underclass is found he could rally enough support around him without wealthy indivisual and could get resources through gurellia tactics and mass looting of more the more well-to-do.

[yellowdaddy]

I agree about myths, but not religion. Pre-Comunist china did not have anything like a universal enthnicity or religion, but the myth and legend about the Mandate of Heaven was shared by almost everyone and would support whoever had it against invaders or usurpers reguardless of whther they were from the Xie, or Wu.

Either I don't understand what you mean, or you don't understand what I mean.

I don't see how your comments about Pre-Communist China disprove that Nationalism is a form of religion.

I stated that Communism (in China) is a religion. I'm talking about structure mainly, but belief as well.
Religion is simply a form of politics which tries to derive legitimacy by trying to conflate it's political structure and agenda with superstition and spirituality.

I'm not arguing that allegiance to the Chinese Imperial Cult requires ethnic homogeneity.
However, Imperialism is a different form of Nationalism (ergo a different form of religion), one based upon a dominant ethnic group imposing it's culture on subservient neighbours or others, and either overtly or covertly denigrating them to being second-class citizens who must strive to become like the dominant ethnic group by adopting its culture and language, beliefs and values.
You can see this in the Roman Empire, the British Empire (and UK), USSR (and Russia), Burma, Yugoslavia.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't think you need to have a more wealthy indivisuals. Its possible if they get a critical mass and a particular charismatic and intiellgent person of the underclass is found he could rally enough support around him without wealthy indivisual and could get resources through gurellia tactics and mass looting of more the more well-to-do.

You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you; and a charismatic/intelligent person is likely to arise in a more educated society - because you need a leader who cannot be bribed (or scared) into submission (either directly or indirectly); it's therefore likely that such an individual must have an awareness of issues (such as economics, politics, philosophy) to some degree beyond his class, i.e. at least equal to that of the elite/patrician/bourgeoise/wealthy/ruling (delete as apt.) class.

These geezers have more than just brains and charisma, they have some education - either formal or informal:

Revolutionaries ashamed of their privilege
Mao - wealthy rural family, studied history at university
Castro - wealthy rural family, studied law at university
Guevara - wealthy family, studied medicine at university
Trotsky - wealthy rural family, studied maths
Washington - wealthy rural family, studied land surveying

Revolutionaries rejected by the system
Ho Chi Minh - a good student as a child, early death of father, well read polyglot and pastry chef while in the UK and France as a youth
Hitler - a good student as a child, early death of father, well-read in youth?, denied admission to art academy, left country
Lenin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied law at university, expelled
Stalin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion at seminary, expelled
Khomeini - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion, expelled from country

[LDiCesare]

Please can you explain PWF and PCI?

PWF: Poor Welfare Feeling. This is, in the model terms, poor welfare and poor economy. PCI is PEr Capita Income, or revenue. So PWF doesn't have to do with civil or human rights but welfare.

I think all things, even Ethnic Discrimination can have their rebellious feelings quelled by sustained good economic growth (rather than "a better economy"), and an economic cost/benefit equation - how revolt/cecession might affect trade and industry in their province.

A wealthy jew under Hitler's regime might disagree. Now, he wouldn't have stayed rich (and alive) very long. So Ethnic Discrimination actually models the fact that the benefits of a good economy are not shared by everyone, and the effects of .a good economy won't prevent discontent from ethnic or religious discrimination because the discriminated people won't share the benefits.

Ethnic Discrimination surely existed within ancient civilisations, does it automatically lead to revolt?

No, but it doesn't have to be null to lead to revolt. 100% would lead to revolt. The interest of that stat is to cause a conflict between discriminated people who have a bad feeling and discriminating who want more discrimination through Bad Policies Feeling.

and surely, "education" can also mean "propaganda"?

Propaganda should also be in. I must read the model again to see how Rodrigo had proposed to handle it.

5QUOTE]
NRF SDF - It's seperatism; what you're talking about is "intensity of seperatism" like a multiplier of a variable?
(...)
a scale of 1-9: 1-3 = protest; 3-6 = insurgency; 6-9 = civil war[/QUOTE]
I agree with th word separatism. But I don't want a scale of protest/insurgency/civil war. That's what people do, not what they want. There is a difference in what they want: Autonomy (stay in the same civ in order to keep the benefits) or Independance (create or join another civ).
So the intensity here is towards autonomy or separatism, not towards protesting or riotting.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Either I don't understand what you mean, or you don't understand what I mean.

I don't see how your comments about Pre-Communist China disprove that Nationalism is a form of religion.

I stated that Communism (in China) is a religion. I'm talking about structure mainly, but belief as well.
Religion is simply a form of politics which tries to derive legitimacy by trying to conflate it's political structure and agenda with superstition and spirituality.

I'm not arguing that allegiance to the Chinese Imperial Cult requires ethnic homogeneity.
However, Imperialism is a different form of Nationalism (ergo a different form of religion), one based upon a dominant ethnic group imposing it's culture on subservient neighbours or others, and either overtly or covertly denigrating them to being second-class citizens who must strive to become like the dominant ethnic group by adopting its culture and language, beliefs and values.
You can see this in the Roman Empire, the British Empire (and UK), USSR (and Russia), Burma, Yugoslavia.

Ok. But still someplace like china did not for most of the time i'm talking about have a dominant ethinic group imposing its will on lesser ones. A culture, yes, but not an EG.

True the ruling dynasty was of a particular EG, but the culture often imposed more onto the ruling dynasty if it wanted to stay than in power, thus china was capable of assimilating multiple egs into its population.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you; and a charismatic/intelligent person is likely to arise in a more educated society - because you need a leader who cannot be bribed (or scared) into submission (either directly or indirectly); it's therefore likely that such an individual must have an awareness of issues (such as economics, politics, philosophy) to some degree beyond his class, i.e. at least equal to that of the elite/patrician/bourgeoise/wealthy/ruling (delete as apt.) class.

Or a particularly fanatical (and probably somewhat off-balance personality). He then doesn't need education. His military expertise could come from battle hardened war vertans of the lower class, political power comes from his charisma and message (as well as his might) and money comes from looting, ambushing, etc.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy These geezers have more than just brains and charisma, they have some education - either formal or informal:

Revolutionaries ashamed of their privilege
Mao - wealthy rural family, studied history at university
Castro - wealthy rural family, studied law at university
Guevara - wealthy family, studied medicine at university
Trotsky - wealthy rural family, studied maths
Washington - wealthy rural family, studied land surveying

Revolutionaries rejected by the system
Ho Chi Minh - a good student as a child, early death of father, well read polyglot and pastry chef while in the UK and France as a youth
Hitler - a good student as a child, early death of father, well-read in youth?, denied admission to art academy, left country
Lenin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied law at university, expelled
Stalin - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion at seminary, expelled
Khomeini - a good student as a child, early death of father, studied religion, expelled from country

All these are modern ones. Even washington is fairly modern considering the scope of even this game's history.

[Lord God Jinnai]

]A wealthy jew under Hitler's regime might disagree. Now, he wouldn't have stayed rich (and alive) very long. So Ethnic Discrimination actually models the fact that the benefits of a good economy are not shared by everyone, and the effects of .a good economy won't prevent discontent from ethnic or religious discrimination because the discriminated people won't share the benefits.

That's another matter because a wealthy jew, as you mentioned, wouldn't stay rich (and eventually alive) for long.

However, if you had an elitist society where while a jew might be disciminated against moreso, but if he becomes rich, he's not to any major degree, and this can happen to anyone, then thngs might be different.

Again the key thing in your example is that those jews could not keep their wealth, power or even lives, thus kinda arguing past the whole argument because its a situation that is the complete opposite of what was mentioned.


No, but it doesn't have to be null to lead to revolt. 100% would lead to revolt. The interest of that stat is to cause a conflict between discriminated people who have a bad feeling and discriminating who want more discrimination through Bad Policies Feeling.

I agree with th word separatism. But I don't want a scale of protest/insurgency/civil war. That's what people do, not what they want. There is a difference in what they want: Autonomy (stay in the same civ in order to keep the benefits) or Independance (create or join another civ).
So the intensity here is towards autonomy or separatism, not towards protesting or riotting.

you forgot #3, the group wants to take control over and rule over the entire civ

[LDiCesare]

you forgot #3, the group wants to take control over and rule over the entire civ

It would not be a separatist feeling then. but a revolutionary one. We equate nationality with the name of the civ one wants to part of, so only people of the same nationality (maybe different religion from the dominant one, or certain social classes) would want to take control of the whole civ.

[yellowdaddy]

1.

PWF: Poor Welfare Feeling... So PWF doesn't have to do with civil or human rights but welfare.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "welfare".

--------------------------------------------------------
2.

A wealthy jew under Hitler's regime might disagree. Now, he wouldn't have stayed rich (and alive) very long. So Ethnic Discrimination actually models the fact that the benefits of a good economy are not shared by everyone, and the effects of .a good economy won't prevent discontent from ethnic or religious discrimination because the discriminated people won't share the benefits.

As far as I am aware many Jews stayed put until they experienced both extreme loss of legal/civil rights and property rights (wealth).

I think the key issue in a revolution is that it's not linked simply to wealth and/or welfare, but expectation being matched by growth - this is exactly why you don't have revolutions in so many places (that I shouldn't need to list) we all know about in the world.

I think what you might get in a protracted state of Ethn.Disc. (say if the Nazis had maintained an apartheid-style status quo without progressing to the "final solution", is a slow exodus of refugees as has happened in Zimbabwe, Sudan and Burma.
This could be summed up as "Defection" which acts like a pressure release and helps maintain the status quo.

---------------------------------------------------
4.

No, but it doesn't have to be null to lead to revolt. 100% would lead to revolt. The interest of that stat is to cause a conflict between discriminated people who have a bad feeling and discriminating who want more discrimination through Bad Policies Feeling.

OK.

When I say revolt, I don't mean a "revolution event", I mean any level of insurgency from low level street postering and peaceful gatherings to out and out bloody revolution.

In ancient civilisations, I suppose because they exist in very stratified structured worlds where "individual freedom" is not enough to incite a revolt, factors like religion and access to resources are going to factor highest.

I suppose in an ancient setting most such events are going to be traditional religious struggles. I don't know of any examples of direct racial discrimination in the ancient world - maybe indirect by assigning all non-Roman citizens (thus including non-white) to being slaves, subjects of vassal states, barbarians or enemies.

----------------------------------------------------
5.

I agree with th word separatism. But I don't want a scale of protest/insurgency/civil war. That's what people do, not what they want. There is a difference in what they want: Autonomy (stay in the same civ in order to keep the benefits) or Independance (create or join another civ).

"Seperatism Intensity"?

So the difference between autonomy and independence is that independence is a dichotomous choice, and autonomy is a bit more variable isn't it?

Independence means you've created a new nationalism/national identity.

Autonomy is more complex.
I suppose in Scotland's case you've got language, history and culture to an extent, but I think it's political disconnection and negative economic experiences (i.e. expectations not being met) that foster desires for autonomy - it's ultimately a response to economic difficulties, but I think having an ethnic identity {language, values (expressed in a distinct legal system), and history of separateness} that define the differnence between the Scottish response and the response in say Yorkshire to similar problems at similar times.

If we look at the Confederate states, again I think you have economic threat which precipitates their declaration of independence, and a different set of values expressed through a legal system (and you might say the slightly different "Deep South" accent to the Union, is a language differentiator).

---------------------------------------------
6.

Ok. But still someplace like china did not for most of the time i'm talking about have a dominant ethinic group imposing its will on lesser ones. A culture, yes, but not an EG.

True the ruling dynasty was of a particular EG, but the culture often imposed more onto the ruling dynasty if it wanted to stay than in power, thus china was capable of assimilating multiple egs into its population.

China had a dominant EG, the Han, the non Chinese dynasties: the Mongolian Yuan, the Manchurian Qing were Sinicised and intermarried (a policy which was already centuries old), and became culturally and eventually ethnically Han. The Han did impose its culture on "lesser ones" and absorbed them into it's EG (which is why Chinese from the northeast look so different from those of the southeast).

You can't say the last Emporer was actually a real ethnic Manchurian - by his generation he'd probably had almost all the Manchurian bred out of him. The Manchurians themselves were almost completely absorbed into the Han during the dynasty anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------
7.

Or a particularly fanatical (and probably somewhat off-balance personality). He then doesn't need education. His military expertise could come from battle hardened war vertans of the lower class, political power comes from his charisma and message (as well as his might) and money comes from looting, ambushing, etc.

I know of no evidence that supports what you seem to be saying.
You seem to be describing a (Temujin) Chingis Khan-type figure; I would argue that Chingis Khan was informally educated, certainly intellectual: aware of and influenced by Chinese ways; in keeping with the formula for a revolutionary he was also:
Son of a tribal chief, experienced the early death of his father, and was rejected by the system,

If you have any examples, please show them.

-----------------------------------------------------
8.

All these are modern ones. Even washington is fairly modern considering the scope of even this game's history.

Maybe so, but find me some ancient ones who don't fit the pattern

----------------------------------------------------
9.

It would not be a separatist feeling then. but a revolutionary one. We equate nationality with the name of the civ one wants to part of, so only people of the same nationality (maybe different religion from the dominant one, or certain social classes) would want to take control of the whole civ.

I think seperatism is related to revolutionism, bearing in mind that there are parities between allegience to a national identity and allegience to an ideology or religion (which are the same thing anyway.)
Revolutionism is seperatism from the political system (like a rejection of religion, and ergo a rejection of nationalism/national identity; but this reborn in a new image - almost "healed" of a disease), replacing it with a new "better" system, simultaneously discarding and rehabilitating the national identity (religion). (Almost like a schism as happens in religions).

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
It would not be a separatist feeling then. but a revolutionary one. We equate nationality with the name of the civ one wants to part of, so only people of the same nationality (maybe different religion from the dominant one, or certain social classes) would want to take control of the whole civ.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I think seperatism is related to revolutionism, bearing in mind that there are parities between allegience to a national identity and allegience to an ideology or religion (which are the same thing anyway.)
Revolutionism is seperatism from the political system (like a rejection of religion, and ergo a rejection of nationalism/national identity; but this reborn in a new image - almost "healed" of a disease), replacing it with a new "better" system, simultaneously discarding and rehabilitating the national identity (religion). (Almost like a schism as happens in religions).

Also remember that seperatism can easily if the group feels it has enough power, convert to Imperialism. After all, said group that was feeling oppressed now has a good chance to opress the oppressers and such a thing is often hard to resist.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy
I know of no evidence that supports what you seem to be saying.
You seem to be describing a (Temujin) Chingis Khan-type figure; I would argue that Chingis Khan was informally educated, certainly intellectual: aware of and influenced by Chinese ways; in keeping with the formula for a revolutionary he was also:
Son of a tribal chief, experienced the early death of his father, and was rejected by the system,

If you have any examples, please show them.

All of that belies the most important part i was disputing in your statement:

You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you;...

Temujin had the backing of some nobility, but he had to force most of them to come under his yoke and replaced all of those who opposed him.

Oda Nobunaga, is also an example. He, of course, had the backing of Tokagowa, but was a small clan. Except for him, not many would have heard of the Oda clan. Tokagowa wasn't exactly that major either. Hojo and Mori were definatly more powerful and well known at the time before the unification was pretty much assured.

Lenon, although he fit the other criteria you've set, did not rely on the nobility or businesses for his power. In fact his is the first successful example of what has been termed as "Popular Monarchism" atleast in the begginning. In fact the Czars, other nobility and powerful businesses were directly in conflict with him.

Finally, while ultimately unsuccessful, the Yellow Turban Rebellion would best describe an example of what i meant. Zhang Jue was not born in nobility nor in any family of major prestige or wealth. He was intelligent, and had access to the books he needed, but ultimately had no backing from any of the govenors, generals or royal family. He did have some support from other taoists, but obviously his main support was from the peasantry.

True, the Yellow Turban Rebllion was ultimately a failure, but that was due more to corruption and betrayal, something possible in any type of revolt, uprising or coup. Zhang Jue won many victories in the battlefield even against superior forces, he was able to gain support of the peasantry and once his rebellion. As said, it was just a bad time that caused him to so quickly rather than the ineptness of not having any major rich supporters.

[yellowdaddy]

Temujin had the backing of some nobility, but he had to force most of them to come under his yoke and replaced all of those who opposed him.

I want to examine the use of the word "force".
You seem to want to imply that Temujin and Oda's rise to power worked in a similar way, and I agree:
In Oda's case, nobles joined him because of survival instincts in the cultural context.
It works like a pack of wolves does, where even strong wolves will fall in behind a pack leader because of fear of being isolated, and thus vulnerable.
Circumstances force them to back the revolutionary leader, they have a carrot and a stick; I don't see the difference with this and events in any other revolution, I argue that the mechanics of mob rule, and of a bandwagon, and thus revolution work very much like this, though no fire will exist without fuel (economic discontentment), heat (political oppression) and oxygen (intellectual leaders).

Revolutionaries are intelligent, imaginitive, and charismastic people who can use the fears and desires of uneducated masses, and educated (middle) classes, by divide and conquer of factions within a revolutionary movement, and by centralising power within themselves.
Their power comes from being able to divide any group of any size into a majority and a minority, and then turn any majority against any minority, even if members of each overlap in different "division and conquest events."

Since this game incorporates characters and dynasties, this dynamic seems rather critical in the functioning and behaviour of characters and dynasties (whether Charlie and his House of Stewart or Mao and his CCP).

------------------

This seems to agree with part of my argument that a revolutionary's success depends upon support from elite groups as well as (or riding on the coattails of) a peasent uprising.

My argument:

You do need the backing of a critical mass of the wealthy class to back you; and a charismatic/intelligent person is likely to arise in a more educated society - because you need a leader who cannot be bribed (or scared) into submission (either directly or indirectly); it's therefore likely that such an individual must have an awareness of issues (such as economics, politics, philosophy) to some degree beyond his class, i.e. at least equal to that of the elite/patrician/bourgeoise/wealthy/ruling (delete as apt.) class.

The Yellow Turbans Revolt (& Taipingdao: early form of socialism?!)

Finally, while ultimately unsuccessful, the Yellow Turban Rebellion would best describe an example of what i meant. Zhang Jue was not born in nobility nor in any family of major prestige or wealth. He was intelligent, and had access to the books he needed, but ultimately had no backing from any of the govenors, generals or royal family. He did have some support from other taoists, but obviously his main support was from the peasantry.

I argued that a revolutionary is a product of an educated society, not a thug or a bandit.
Zhang Jiao (= Zhang Jue) ’£Šp (and his brothers) complies with this criteria of being an educated/intellectual person.

I did not argue that a revolutionary must come from the elite (e.g: nobility), all the revolutionaries I cited are essentially middle-class. I argued that a revolutionary must have an intellectual/educated awareness equal to or greater than members of the elite class.

When I talk about support of the patricians/bourgeouise/wealthy class, I mean support from the middle classes, not the aristocracy or ruling class - otherwise we might want to classify that as a coup.

I would argue that Zhang Jiao as a Daoist scholar, aware of medicinal herbs (a bit like a European witch or druid) comes from a middle-class background because I believe education is synonymous with "middle-class"ness - I can't find any evidence that provides any credible information about his class background.

True, the Yellow Turban Rebllion was ultimately a failure, but that was due more to corruption and betrayal, something possible in any type of revolt, uprising or coup. Zhang Jue won many victories in the battlefield even against superior forces, he was able to gain support of the peasantry and once his rebellion. As said, it was just a bad time that caused him to so quickly rather than the ineptness of not having any major rich supporters.

As I argued, bribery will take the steam out of any revolution.
Ironic for a revolution which started as an economic revolt against corruption and decadence, a breakdown in the structures of the state - property rightsrevolt against corruption by landowners and eunuchs; but a topos (recurring event) in Chinese history.
Re "Critical mass of wealthy (i.e. middle) class" - there were mass student demonstrations in the national university against the eunuchs!

"a bad time"? The Yellow Turbans were crushed by superior forces of General Dong Zhuo precisely because they had no backing from any sections of the elite - like a military commander able to raise experienced well-equipped forces.
The peasantry on their own are not powerful and educated enough to succeed without powerful and educated leaders organising them.

----------------------------

Lenin

Lenon, although he fit the other criteria you've set, did not rely on the nobility or businesses for his power. In fact his is the first successful example of what has been termed as "Popular Monarchism" atleast in the begginning. In fact the Czars, other nobility and powerful businesses were directly in conflict with him.

Lenin, apart from having well-trained troops (Red Guard) and an efficient propaganda machine, was funded by German money approved by Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg (descendent of a wealthy banking family) and the German High Command, because it was seen as an effective way of removing Russia from the war, allowing the Germans to focus all their efforts on the Western Front.

Again, you've confused the idea of "wealthy classes" with "nobility" and "businesses" - there are too few of them, and their power is too dependent on a discredited structure), the key class (the "ignition" class!) is the middle-class, often students.
Russia is different because:
1. we have a class in-between the middle-class and the majority peasant class, which is the new working-class. I argue that this new working-class became educated and politicised by middle-class students and their peers. The main focus of their resentment was the effects of military defeat, and poor treatment of soldiers.
You have a mass influx of peasant labour into urban factories (overworked and underpaid for the war effort, + overcrowding), who's discontentment is harnessed by the (foreign) educated(middle)-class who've seen the advances in Western Europe.
[sounds like China today!]
2. Foreign intervention - Germans funding the revolutionaries to end the Russian involvement in the war, followed by foreign-backed troops stimulating nationalist solidarity and resistence.

In short, the revolution is a consequence of war (the heat part of the equation) meeting fuel (the oppressed inlux of peasant labour) and oxygen (the foreign-educated middle classes - like Lenin).

The Marxist and eventual RSDP formation was an urban phenomenon driven by students, and thus by the middle classes and working classes, and was a movement against a corrupt and decadent aristocracy.
It's important to note that in Russia at this time, the working classes and peasantry (who make up an illiterate oppressed majority) are two different classes.
My idea of a critical mass of middle class is not a majority, but probably (at a guess) about 1/3, possibly a quarter of the class if you're lucky.
Will you argue Rasputin doesn't fit into my proposed criteria as well?
-----------------------------

Oda Nobunaga

Oda Nobunaga, is also an example. He, of course, had the backing of Tokagowa, but was a small clan. Except for him, not many would have heard of the Oda clan. Tokagowa wasn't exactly that major either. Hojo and Mori were definatly more powerful and well known at the time before the unification was pretty much assured.

This seems to support my argument. Backing from a critical mass of the educated/wealthy class, and a critical mass is not a majority, but a significant or large minority.
Oda's certainly educated and arguably middle-class. Father died before he reached adulthood (and then his father-figure Hirate).
The key to Oda's success was ambushing and killing Imagawa, and subsequently acquiring the allegience of Matsudaira out of respect (because Matsudaira's Mikawa province had already been taken over by Imagawa).
Oda won by using intellect - critically weakening stronger clans by targeting the most important point. (just like when you are confronted by a group, you always smack the biggest first, because if he falls, the rest run!).

So in summary, your examples support my argument.

Also remember that seperatism can easily if the group feels it has enough power, convert to Imperialism. After all, said group that was feeling oppressed now has a good chance to opress the oppressers and such a thing is often hard to resist.

Can you provide an example?
You mean like Israelis oppressing Palestinians because the Jews were oppressed in Europe?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Originally posted by yellowdaddy "a bad time"? The Yellow Turbans were crushed by superior forces of General Dong Zhuo precisely because they had no backing from any sections of the elite - like a military commander able to raise experienced well-equipped forces.
The peasantry on their own are not powerful and educated enough to succeed without powerful and educated leaders organising them.

Yes, a bad time. Before this the central goverment had a lot of control over its forces, after this event, it lost a lot of that control.

Had something similar sparked an event and Zhang Jiao (i'll use pin-yin) led an uprising after this or someone similar, they might have had a better chance, even without military backing.

But they chose to cause a revolution at a bad time when the central goverment still had a lot of control and no matter the number of victories Zhang Jiao could score he was outclassed in the skill of his troops and his replacements.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Russia is different because:
1. we have a class in-between the middle-class and the majority peasant class, which is the new working-class. I argue that this new working-class became educated and politicised by middle-class students and their peers. The main focus of their resentment was the effects of military defeat, and poor treatment of soldiers.
You have a mass influx of peasant labour into urban factories (overworked and underpaid for the war effort, + overcrowding), who's discontentment is harnessed by the (foreign) educated(middle)-class who've seen the advances in Western Europe.
[sounds like China today!]

Which i'm not sure if the game mechanics of Clash will represent this because its such a rare class that really only exists in rapidly developing economies for a short period of time.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy So in summary, your examples support my argument.

Well since it seemed you broaded what you meant from the entirety of your statement. True you did not say aristorcay or what amounted to "critical mass," but you implied it was a large number and in most older socieities wealthy=aritstocracy or a kind of psedo-aristorcacy of uber-powerful merchants/businessmen.

Originally posted by yellowdaddy Can you provide an example?
You mean like Israelis oppressing Palestinians because the Jews were oppressed in Europe?

You need look no further than your daily news, Iraq. The Shiite majority, which was repressed even before Sadam, would like very much to either break away, but since that's not likely, they want to repress the Sunni minority as much as possible now that they are a majority. True much is being done to mitigate this by constant pressure from the US, but without the US pressure, do you really think that would happen? The Kurdish population since if they can't form a sperate state for themselevs also seeks to surpress the Sunni population and keep as much automomy as possible as well.

Isreal is not quite the same because they would be seen as repressing another group other than those that that oppressed them.

Then we go back in history some to the formation of Iran, not modern day Iran, but its formation from overthrowing Qara Kyunlu. Not only did seek an indepedant Shiite state then expanded their nation and suprressed many of those who had suppressed them before and weren't Shiite.

Finally and best example is the Rajputs of Inida who have been throughout its history a repressed people. During the 14th-15th centurites they were able to create numerous priciaplities that were independant rule and once those were created they began to repress the Hindu population that repressed them earlier. Then once India was able to control its own internal policy after the Mughuls and British rule they began to once again repress them.

[yellowdaddy]

Well since it seemed you broaded what you meant from the entirety of your statement. True you did not say aristorcay or what amounted to "critical mass," but you implied it was a large number and in most older socieities wealthy=aritstocracy or a kind of psedo-aristorcacy of uber-powerful merchants/businessmen.

I haven't broadened it out. You turned "educated wealthy classes " into "nobility".
You didn't seem to have finished the second sentence, but I imagine you mean that the upper classes had fewer numbers of people in them in ancient times.
I argue that size does not matter, but what you do with it does ( ), and the leadership and support it has determines what you (can) do with it.

Returning to what I said:

When you start to erode the ethnic basis of a state through immigration, I think public allegience to the state is eroded among the educated wealthy classes (who may develop allegiance to multinational organisations; and who may benefit from immigrant labour rather than being affected by the negative aspects of it: job competition; intercultural friction; ghettoisation), and is intensified among the less educated and economically disenfranchised (who are less likely to experience the benefits of immigration, and more likely to be subject to the aforementioned negative aspects).

Note the term:

educated wealthy classes

This does not mean "wealthy classes" or equate to "nobility".
It means middle-classes, you appear to take as meaning upper-classes.

For clarity, I'm going to rename the classes. I believe the game should have three classes:

1. The Rentier Class = Aristocracy, Upper Class, Nobility,
These own land and assets, and essentially produce nothing.

2. The Professional Class = Middle Classes.
These paritally own land and assets, and are engaged in the professional service sector (Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, Teachers, Witch doctors, Priests, Alchemists, Astrologers, Jesters, Artists, Military Officers, Bureaucrats, Students)

3. The Operative Class = Working Class, Peasants, Plebs, Commoners, Peons, Serfs, Slaves, Indentured Labour etc...
These obviously comprise the majority, and either work on the land or in service of the Rentier Class, and sometimes work for the Professional Class to produce essential goods, and services (and so includes military operatives: soldiers and sailors etc..); or are skilled craftsmen who freely provide goods and services.

Of course there are ambiguities, when you have skilled craftsmen, or merchants/businessmen who become wealthy, but asking for 5 classes is perhaps a bit too much.

My argument is that seperatism of any kind (including a revolution) requires more than just a mass of discontented members of the Operative Class; the tipping point only comes with a sizeable chunk of the Professional Class utilising the discontented masses.
I also argue that a while a revolutionary figure can come from the Operative Class, they must be an intellectual who posesses the same (or greater) level of awareness (which comes from some form of education) as those who belong to the Professional Class.

So in response to Zhang Jiao, in the criteria set out above, the success of his uprising is a function of (relies upon) the critical mass (30%+?) [or more accurately degree and type] of support from members of the Professional Class.

The fact that he had some initial success (,I argue,) relates to the level of insurgency within the Professional Class, namely the 30,000 students who protested at the National University.

The fact that the revolt failed, then, evidences the argument that the diminishing and lack of a sustained growth in support [or even sustaining the critical mass of support] among the Professional Class relates to the failure of the revolt.

Before this the central goverment had a lot of control over its forces, after this event, it lost a lot of that control.

Had something similar sparked an event and Zhang Jiao ... led an uprising after this or someone similar, they might have had a better chance, even without military backing.

But they chose to cause a revolution at a bad time when the central goverment still had a lot of control and no matter the number of victories Zhang Jiao could score he was outclassed in the skill of his troops and his replacements.

This seems rather nonsensical to me.
Before what? Before he was crushed by Dong Zhuo? Before the revolt started? What do mean?
The revolt wouldn't start after this event, the revolt is a response to a set of circumstances that did not exist after it had happened!?! (paeadox?!)
"might have had a better chance" ?! "might" does not inspire much confidence in your belief in your own argument... anything might happen, the probability can be deduced by analysing the facts.
"chose"?!
He was beaten because an army (or rabble) of poor, uneducated peasant members of the Operative Class without the support of a critical mass of the Professional Class is a weak and useless army no matter how big - see Iraq.

You need look no further than your daily news, Iraq. The Shiite majority, which was repressed even before Sadam, would like very much to either break away, but since that's not likely, they want to repress the Sunni minority as much as possible now that they are a majority. True much is being done to mitigate this by constant pressure from the US, but without the US pressure, do you really think that would happen? The Kurdish population since if they can't form a sperate state for themselevs also seeks to surpress the Sunni population and keep as much automomy as possible as well.

I don't think there exists any evidence to support any of that.
"Repress" seems such a subjective term.

What does that have to do with seperatism evolving into imperialism anyway?