 |
| |
|
|
Lucilla
|
 |
The Netherlands
Apr 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by siredgar
Since I consider the Middle East part of the Occidental world, the game is heavily skewed towards the West:
English, French, Germans, Romans, Greeks, Russians, Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, Americans, Spanish, Vikings, Carthaginians, Turks, Arabs, and Gauls (16 civs)
That leaves only Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and Koreans in the East (4 civs) and Zulu, Aztecs, and Iroquois as the others (3 civs). It appears that if they add the Gauls, there is only room for one more civ.
|
I don't disagree...
quote:
It's quite surprising (and yet not so suprising) that they added five more Occidental civs and only one Eastern civ so far. I am hoping that the Gauls are not added in and they include the Incans and an African or Asian civ in. |
I didn't mean to be ignorant towards non-European civs, just wanted to provoke a little bit. Hope you don't feel personally offended 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
My opinion is that the incas are fairly over rated as a civ (just look at their age, punishing methods, and so on) but they still have two thing that count for them: 1) We need to fill up south america and 2) Their political system. Most people dont know about how this worked, but i will try to explain.
First, there were nothing like private property in the inca empire (offcourse you could own clothes and such, but no one owned the land). It was all owned by the empire. It was didided into three mayor pieces: One piece for the sun (all the religious rituals), one for the Inca (the emperor and his byrochratie, to national granaries so people could get food in bad times, and to the army) and the by far biggest piece which went to the peasents. Each year every family were given one new piece of land (so the bad lands were re-deployed every year) compared to the size of their families. Everybody worked togheter on all the land, but they only gained the food from that piece they had been given.
In hard times, the inca, as i said, gave out food from his granaries to the people.
I could say alot more about this, but i think this is so special that they deserve to be in. More then the gauls at least. And much more then the aztechs and the iroquese. I would remove the gauls and add the incas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Not excacly. Similar systems have been seen other places where there are more shortage of labour then of good farming land.
Many historicans have actually thinked of the similarity, and called it a "socialistic utopi". But today the knowledge of their punishing methods and other things proves that they dont have the respect of humans that the socialistic idea. Death for ordinay peoples were often nothing for the over-class. And theres another point, the over-class. In socialism there are not supposed to be any over class (offcourse it was in the so-called socialistic east europe, but they really dont deserve to be called socialistic).
The system of the incas have later been called a very good combination of centralization and de-centralization (i will not explain why now), and, indifference from the rest of the world, the incas had labour shortage and therefore had better conditions.
Remember how limited the european peasents were in terms of owning their own land (in Prussia, about mid 17th century, everybody who could not prove that they were free peasents were made servants and their land were conifiscated, and this were very common in all of europe).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Montezuma--> 99% of the countries in the world claim that they are democratic. But does that mean that they are?
So was east europe socialistic only because they claimed it? I would bet saddam husein claims that he is democratic, out of this logic, we would have to call him that.
In my opinion there have never been a true socialistic country in the world. The first rule of socialism is democracy and humanity, and that were not included in either east europe, china, vietnam or champuchea.
You may compare the incas to the system of east europe, but not to socialism. I would only cathegorize east europe as semi-capitalistic despotisms.
Last edited by KaiserIsak on 04-06-2002 at 03:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
It is not that easy punkbass2000. There are other economic systems as well (feudalism for exampel)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
It really does not matter what you call east europe. But they were not socialistic in the way marx wrote about it. Thats enough for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
I just saw a mistake in my spelling from last post. It should be:
99% of the world claims that it is democratic (it probably does not change anything for you, but thats what it was supposed to be)
It does not matter what they call it.
Nowbody i know support the soviet union, or any other socialistic nation that have ever excisted. But i do know many that supports marx theories. And he did not told stalin to kill of his population, did he? He actually said that democracy was about the most important thing. Its not his (OR HIS THEORY) fault that his name have been used to slaughter populations.
How can you say that a country who used about 90% of its money on the military was a peoples nation? Because that is what a socialistic nation is suppsed to be.
I dont say that socialism works, i say that as long as no countries is doing what "socialism tells them to do", i will not call them socialistis nations. And that include democracy. No country in the world deserve to be called socialistic, it may never be anyone either, but there have not been yet.
I think all the former and current "socialistic" nations are screwed, but i look upon the world, read my history, and i find that the world have always, and still is screwed. You have to be blind to not see that the world and its system is killing itself. Now.
Socialism may not be the solution, but capitalism is the sure death.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KaiserIsak
|
|
of Isakistan Empire
Oct 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Some countries call themselves democratic (like north korea), but they are not. I think we can all agree on that.
Some countries call themselves democratic, and they are at least more democratic (like norway). They may be called democratic. We probably can agree on that too.
Some countries call themselves socialistic (like cambodia) and slaughter their population, something that have nothing to do with socialism. If you know your theory, then you will agree.
By the defination of socialism, and the way socialists are lokking upon the defination, there have been NO socialistic nations.
Marx, or even Lenin NEVER told anyone to slaughter their populations or install despotic governements. They told them excacly the opposite. The countries still called it socialism, even if they did the opposite of what they were supposed to do. they could have called it anything, but they took a name that sounded good. And at the same time they made that names reputation terrible. While does who really wanted to do some socialism were accused for supporting the murders.
Its not a natural law that socialsm and killing is two thing of the same case. Its simply someone who have made killing in the name of the peoples.
Socialism is not what they had in eastu europe. Its something we still have not seen, and may never see.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-05-2002 22:15
|