 |
|
ancient
|
 |
Life Goes On
May 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
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..
Last edited by ancient on 24-06-2001 at 03:20
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
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...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JamesJKirk
|
 |
Dixon, CA USA
Jan 1970 time: 21:14
|
|
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
|
|
|  |
 |
|
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
|
 |
Dixon, CA USA
Jan 1970 time: 21:14
|
|
quote: 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.
Last edited by JamesJKirk on 27-06-2001 at 12:18
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|