I believe that the biggest problem in the government part of the game is Communism. In Civ II it was represented in its true form. This has never been the case in the real world.

What do we ask Firaxis to do? Leave it alone or make it into the corrupt form of government of the real world?

Also if Firaxis leaves Communism alone then why do we say that it should be easier to go to Republic or Democracy from Communism. Communism is making everyone happy so why would they want a rich-poor gap to suddenly open up? Freedom doesn't always mean comfort.

anyway there is corruption in ALL goverments!

YES ALL ! unless you think that accepting money during a prestident candidacy is OK .

All of Civ's governments are a certain idea that is based roughly on the theories of these governments that exist. Therefore, I see no reason to introduce corrupted communism. After all we do introduce corrupted monarchy or perhaps corrupted republic.

A useful idea, however, is to have the government affect a civ over a period of time, for example, in a democracy, another trade arrow is added every 50 turns that there is a democracy. This could apply in some way to all the governments.

Tell me what you think of that idea.

quote: Originally posted by Woodmen Chief on 07-18-2000 03:02 PM In real life corruption is completely unknown in every democratic state. Communism must be made a rotten and completely corrupt form of government in the game so no one wants to use it. Democracy is as realistic as it can get.

Ok I started this post and then my browser crashed. I had a very detailed response to this. Now I will have to try it from memory.


First Communism isn't a rotten form of government. And furthermore it isn't a government type at all rather an economic model. Democracy is a government type and captailism is usually it's economic model. What I'm trying to say is that you can have a Democratic, Communist government. The people would elect a government that took control of the economy of the country.

Now I must say that I am a Communist. I feel it is the best type of economy. Now if your thinking of Communism as Soviet style communism your not seeing Communism for what it really is. Athough Russia was called a Communist nation it was really a dictatorship which was headed by a sick, paranoid ruler (Stalin).

Now I know what your going to say now, "Russians didn't have the basic nessesities or basic freedoms." And I say the reason they didn't have these is because every Democratic, Captialist nation was preforming acts against the Soviet Union, like spying and sabatoge, which forced the Soviets to take a defensive position to the world. Almost every nation was trying to kill Communism therefore the Communists had to build up arms against the world to avoid not being crushed. This in turn caused most of their production to be military based taking away from the consumer goods production. What I'm saying is that the Russians had little freedoms because they were in constant threat of being invaded and destroyed. And eventually were. But the cause of the corruption and hardships in the Russian Empire were caused by outside Captialist nations.

Anyway back to Civ 3. Communism as a Government model shouldn't be changed or it should be made better so that it is the ultimate government type. Which I feel Civ 2 portraits Democracy as the ultimate government type.

Now if Civ 3 were to include economic models such as Captailism, Communism, Barter System, etc... I would mind. But then the government would have to be called Socialism, and you could have more like Constitutional Monarchy, Facisim, etc...

Anyway I'm probably stepped on some patriotic American toes now.

Obviously a country that is in a prime spot for commercialism and trade won't become communist. A state that has had a weak republic that hurt the economy, lost many units in a war, lost the war, won't want a democracy. Common listen to the people a little!!!

------------------
King Par4!!

------------------
King Par4!!

______________________
|* * * * * *|__________|
| * * * * * |__________|
|* * * * * *|__________|
|_*_*_*_*_*_|__________|
|______________________|
|______________________|
|______________________|

Heck, next thing you'll know, people will argue that Fascism is a good system, if only Hitler wouldn't have given it such a bad press...

quote: Originally posted by Hasdrubal on 07-20-2000 05:09 PM To all the commies: First give us back those one hundred million people that you've murdered! Then we'll start a serious discussion about the moral virtues of communism.

This is selective condemnation. All nations and types of governments commit atrocities dictated by the situation. Genocide has ben perpetrated by Americans, Aussies, Europeans all in the name of labels like freedom and democracy. Western capitalist countries support Third World dictatorships in suppressing and murdering dissidents and the oppressed for their own greedy economic interests.

3 million jews or 100 million peasant farmers? That's equal??

------------------
King Par4!!

anywaY I agree with cornmaster :

And I say the reason they didn't have these is because every Democratic, Captialist nation was preforming acts against the Soviet Union, like spying and sabatoge, which forced the Soviets to take a defensive position to the world. Almost every nation was trying to kill Communism therefore the Communists had to build up arms against the world to avoid not being crushed. This in turn caused most of their production to be military based taking away from the consumer goods production. What I'm saying is that the Russians had little freedoms because they were in constant threat of being invaded and destroyed. And eventually were

Dalgetti

quote: And I say the reason they didn't have these is because every Democratic, Captialist nation was preforming acts against the Soviet Union, like spying and sabatoge, which forced the Soviets to take a defensive position to the world. Almost every nation was trying to kill Communism therefore the Communists had to build up arms against the world to avoid not being crushed. This in turn caused most of their production to be military based taking away from the consumer goods production. What I'm saying is that the Russians had little freedoms because they were in constant threat of being invaded and destroyed. And eventually were

It will probably be a waste of time, but when people are writing down such disconcerting distortions of historical truth, such utter nonsense, I feel obliged to react. My advice is to read at least one good study before ventilating some opinion, whatever the subject!

'Since Russia lay on its periphery, half in Asia, and was overwhelmingly agrarian, Europe never considered her internal developments relevant to its own concerns. The turmoil of 1917 was generally interpreted to mark Russia's belated entry into the modern age rather than a threat to the established order.

This indifference was enhanced by the fact that the Russian Revolution, having occurred in the midst of the greatest, most destructive war in history, struck contemporaries as an episode in that war rather than as an event in its own right. Such excitement as the Russian Revolution generated in the West had to do almost exclusively with its potential effect on military operations. The Allies and the Central Powers both welcomed the February Revolution, although for different reasons: the former hoped that the removal of an unpopular tsar would make it possible to reinvigorate Russia's war effort, while the latter hoped it would take Russia out of the war. The October coup was, of course, jubilantly welcomed in Germany. Among the Allies it had a mixed reception, but it certainly caused no alarm. Lenin and his party were unknown quantities whose utopian plans and declarations no one took seriously. The tendency, especially after Brest-Litovsk, was to view Bolshevism as a creation of Germany which would vanish from the scene with the termination of hostilities. All European cabinets without exception vastly underestimated both the viability of the Bolshevik regime and the threat it posed to the European order.

For these reasons, neither in the closing years of World War I nor following the Armistice, were attempts made to rid Russia of the Bolsheviks. Until November 1918 the great powers were too busy fighting each other to worry about developments in remote Russia. Here and there, voices were raised that Bolshevism represented a mortal threat to Western civilization: these were especially loud in the German army, which had the most direct experience with Bolshevik propaganda and agitation. But even the Germans in the end subordinated concern with the possible long-term threat to considerations of immediate interest. Lenin was absolutely convinced that after making peace the belligerents would join forces and launch an international crusade against his regime. His fears proved groundless. Only the British intervened actively on the side of the anti-Bolshevik forces, and they did so in a halfhearted manner, largely at the initiative of one man, Winston Churchill. The effort was never seriously pursued, because the forces of accommodation in the West were stronger than those calling for intervention, and by the early 1920s the European powers made their peace with Communist Russia.

But even if the West was not much interested in Bolshevism, the Bolsheviks had a vital interest in the West. The Russian Revolution would not remain confined to the country of origin: from the instant the Bolsheviks seized power, it acquired an international dimension. Its geopolitical position alone ensured that Russia could not isolate herself from the World War. Much of Russia was under German occupation. Soon the British, French, Japanese, and Americans landed token contingents on Russian soil in a vain attempt to reactivate the Eastern Front. More important still was the conviction of the Bolsheviks that their revolution should not and could not be confined to Russia, that unless it spread to the industrial countries of the West it was doomed. On the very first day of their rule in Petrograd, the Bolsheviks issued their Peace Decree, which exhorted workers abroad to rise and help the Soviet Government "bring to a successful resolution... the task of liberating the laboring and exploited masses from all slavery and all exploitation."

The Bolshevik Government could not promote revolution and civil war outside its borders in disregard of international law and appeal to the same international law to keep foreign powers from intervening in its own affairs. In fact, however, for reasons stated, the great powers did not avail themselves of this right: no Western government, either during World War I or after it, appealed to the people of Russia to overthrow its Communist regime. Such limited intervention as occurred in the first year of Bolshevism was motivated exclusively by the desire to have Russia serve their particular military interests.'
(source: R.Pipes:'The Russian Revolution',1990)

'The open hostility of Russia's Communist regime to "capitalism", and especially its denial of the right of private property, should have turned the Western business community into an uncompromising foe of Lenin's government. In fact, many of the pot-bellied, top-hatted capitalists of Soviet propaganda posters turned out to be remarkably friendly and cooperative. Western capitalists lost no sleep over the fate of their Russian brethren: they were quite prepared to make deals with the Soviet regime, leasing of buying at bargain prices the sequestered properties of Russian owners. No group promoted collaboration with Soviet Russia more assiduously and more effectively than the European and American business communities. The Bolsheviks exploited their eagerness to do business by having them pressure Western governments for diplomatic recognition and economic assistance. When the first Soviet commercial missions arrived in Europe in the summer of 1920 in quest of credits and technology, they were shunned by organized labor, but welcomed by big business. Hugo Stinnes, the head of the Union of German Industrialists and an early backer of Hitler, while hosting the Soviet delegation, declared that he was "favorably disposed toward Russia and her experiments." In France, the delegation was advised by a right-wing deputy not to rely on Communists and left-socialists: "Tell Lenin that the best way to win France over to doing business with Russia is through the businessmen of France. They are our only realists."

Businessmen eager to exploit Russia's natural resources and sell to her manufactured goods justified trading with a regime that had volated, at home and abroad, all accepted norms of civilized behavior, with the following arguments: First, any country was entitled to the government of its choice. Hence, it would be not only be unrealistic but undemocratic to ostracize Soviet Russia. As Bernard Baruch said in 1920: " The Russian people have a right, it seems to me, to set up any form of government they wish." The unspoken premise behind this argument was that the Russian people had chosen the Communist government. Second, trade civilizes, because it teaches common sense and discredits abstract doctrines. This argument was frequently resorted to by Lloyd George, who in February 1920 called for the reopening of commercial relations with Soviet Russia: "We have failed to restore Russia to sanity by force. I believe we can do it and save her by trade. Commerce has a sobering effect in its operations. The simple sums in addition and subtraction which it inculcates soon dispose of wild theories." Henry Ford, who managed to reconcile rabid anti-Communism and anti-Semitism with highly profitable commercial arrangements with the Soviet Union, also believed in the moral force of reality: "facts will control" ideas, he asserted, unwittingly paraphrasing Marx's dictum that being determines consciousness. The more Communists industrialized, he argued, the more decently they would behave because "rightness in mechanics [and]rightness in morals are basically the same thing."

As it turned out, commercial arrangements paved the way for diplomatic recognition, which Western governments were reluctant to grant Soviet Russia because of her renunciation of debts and her subversive activities. Moscow had all along assumed, correctly as it turned out, that the way to diplomatic recognition lay through trade agreements, a premise Lloyd George confirmed when he told the House of Commons in March 1921 that the recent Anglo-Soviet trade accords were tantamount to de facto recognition of the Soviet state.

The attitude of American labor could not have been more different. Samuel Gompers, the President of the American Federation of Labor(AFL), called the Bolsheviks "pirates". His successor, William Green, adopted a similar stance. American trade unions time and again turned down with large majorities pro-Communist resolutions sponsored by a small radical wing. The only organized labor groups to adopt a conciliatory attitude toward Soviet Russia were the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, both organized by immigrants from Russia who harbored romantic illusions about the Communist experiment.'
(source: R.Pipes:'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime',1994)

As you should know Russia went through a catastrophic famine in 1921, a result of drought and three years agricultural mismanagement. Since it helped the regime to suppress a dangerous peasant revolt using guerilla tactics, the disaster came at a rather convenient moment.

'It is instructive to compare the attitude of the Bolshevik regime to the famine with that of the tarist government when confronted with a similar tragedy thirty years earlier, when some 12.5 million peasants were afflicted with hunger. Contrary to propaganda spread at the time records show that the tarist authorities moved quickly and effectively.

The Kremlin watched the spread of the famine as if struck with paralysis. Although reports from the countryside had alerted it to impending disaster, and after it had occurred, to its dimensions, it did nothing because it could not ackowledge a national calamity that it could not attribute to "kulaks", "White Guardists", or "imperialists". Secondly, it had no obvious remedies: "The Soviet Government was confronted with a problem which, for the first time, it was unable to solve with resort to force." In May and June 1921, Lenin ordered purchases of food abroad, but that was to feed the cities, his principal concern, not the peasantry. The famine troubled him only insofar as it threatened potentially adverse political consequences: in June 1921, for instance, he spoke of a "dangerous situation" developing as a result of hunger. And he used it as a pretext for launching an offensive against the Orthodox Church. In July 1921 Dzerzhinskii warned the Cheka of the threat of counterrevolution in areas affected by the famine and ordered harsh preventive measures. The press was forbidden to make any allusions to the crop failure, and even in early July continued to report that all was well in the countryside. In none of Lenin's writings or speeches of that period can one find one word of sympathy for the millions of his subjects who were perishing from hunger.

Once the Americans and other foreign organizations assumed the principal responsibility for feeding starving Soviet citizens, Moscow diverted its resources to other purposes. On August 25 -three days after signing an agreement with Hoover- Litvinov informed Moscow that he had sold to an English party jewels worth 20 million gold rubles and that the buyer was prepared to purchase additional jewels for the value of 20 million pounds (100 million dollars) - a sum exceeding the combined U.S. and European donations to starving Russians. In early October 1921, Trotsky instructed the Soviet agent in Germany, Victor Kopp, in strictest secrecy, to place orders for rifles and machine guns worth 10 million gold rubles (5 million dollars). These facts were not known at the time. What became known and caused great consternation in American relief circles was evidence that at the very time the Soviet government was relying on Western charity to feed its people, is was offering foodstuffs for sale abroad. In the fall of 1922 Moscow made it known that it had millions of tons of cereals available for export- this at a time when its own estimates indicated that during the coming winter 8 million Soviet citizens would stil require food assistance, only half of which could be met with native resources. When questioned, the Soviet authorities explained that they needed money to purchase industrial and agricultural equipment. The action outraged American relief officials: the Soviet government was "endeavoring to sell part of its food supply in foreign markets, while asking the world to contribute food to replace what had been exported." Hoover protested against "the inhumanity of a government policy of exporting food from starving people in order that through such exports it may secure machinery and raw materials for the economic improvement of the survivors." But with the worst of the famine over, Moscow could defy foreign opinion. Reports of its grain exports made it impossible to raise additional funds for Russian relief and in June 1923 ARA suspended operations in Soviet Russia.

quote: Originally posted by CornMaster on 07-20-2000 09:33 PM Hitler turned around a ruined country that was defeated in 1920 and opressed by the Treaty of Versailles, to a military power house in 1935.

Again distortion of truth!
Germany had lost the war and about 2.4 million soldiers. It was forced to sign a humiliating peace (though nothing compared with the harshness of Brest-Litowsk) and to pay reparations, which in the end it did never pay. The Germans had played the same trick on the French in 1871; the French did pay! And they lost some valuable territory: the Alsace and part of Silesia and Prussia. In 1922/23 the German economy passed through a crisis and unbelievable inflation.

But during World War I there was not one major battle on German soil. All its cities and its economic heartland in Saxony and the Ruhr came undamaged out of the war. There was no famine, only massive unemployment. In 1914 Germany was already the second economy of Europe. In comparison with Russia both before and after the Revolution Germany was almost the Garden of Eden. Its most unpleasant characteristic was its undemocratic, militaristic state of mind.

quote: Originally posted by CornMaster on 07-22-2000 02:12 AM Rich men with the power to keep 80% of the worlds population poor. That's the human nature that has doom Communism. Greedy people thinking only of themselves and caring nothing about the others around them.

Give me a good reason anyone but a government with machievellian streak would want to keep people poor.
Rich people get their money from business
Businesses gain increased overall profits from an increased market.
An increased market is achieved by letting people have more money.
Therefor the very rich have an interest in letting people become rich.

"Among the Allies it had a mixed reception, but it certainly caused no alarm. Lenin and his party were unknown quantities whose utopian plans and declarations no one took seriously. The tendency, especially after Brest-Litovsk, was to view Bolshevism as a creation of Germany which would vanish from the scene with the termination of hostilities. All European cabinets without exception vastly underestimated both the viability of the Bolshevik regime and the threat it posed to the European order."

Quite possibly because the seat of power had been kicked around for months prior to the October coup. The allies certainly had no reason to believe that the bolsheviks would hold it for any length of time, as the author indicates.

"For these reasons, neither in the closing years of World War I nor following the Armistice, were attempts made to rid Russia of the Bolsheviks. Until November 1918 the great powers were too busy fighting each other to worry about developments in remote Russia."

Fighting a known enemy vs. an uncertain campaign against an enemy that probably won't exist in a year? Pipes does like to point out the obvious, although I think a greater cause should go to the continuing war.

"Lenin was absolutely convinced that after making peace the belligerents would join forces and launch an international crusade against his regime. His fears proved groundless...Soon the British, French, Japanese, and Americans landed token contingents on Russian soil in a vain attempt to reactivate the Eastern Front."

Seems to me Lenin was right, don't you think? Oh, and that "token" American force numbered 50,000. Not to mention the numerous other nations that attacked: Germany, Poland, The Cossacks (Khazhak now), others I don't recall...around 10 nations attacked at once. Fortunately for the Russians most of the forces were demoralized Germans.

"The Bolshevik Government could not promote revolution and civil war outside its borders in disregard of international law and appeal to the same international law to keep foreign powers from intervening in its own affairs."

Of course it could. "All fair in love and war", remember? They were trying their damnest to survive. The Americans who were captured during our revolution weren't supposed to go fight again, but they did, in violation of "international custom" (if not law). Countries fighting for survival aren't limited by treaties.
And as for the call for international revolution, not only was it part of the communist ideology but considered necessary for survival, as no communist nation would be able to stand alone in a capitalist world.

"no Western government, either during World War I or after it, appealed to the people of Russia to overthrow its Communist regime."

Um, who do you think the Whites were in the civil war!?

"Western capitalists lost no sleep over the fate of their Russian brethren: they were quite prepared to make deals with the Soviet regime,"

This is common for capitalists. It was also a trait the Soviets were counting on. They knew that then, as now, capitalists will do business with anyone if they smell a buck to be made.

"The Bolsheviks exploited their eagerness to do business by having them pressure Western governments for diplomatic recognition and economic assistance."

Which seems pretty smart to me. Get what you can from the enemy while you can, and use it to rebuild yourself.

"Businessmen eager to exploit Russia's natural resources and sell to her manufactured goods justified trading with a regime that had volated, at home and abroad, all accepted norms of civilized behavior"[bold mine]

I include this to point out possible bias of the author. So far no incident has been presented that points to a "violated norm", except to do business with capitalists (admittedly the author might have made it before this section). But it doesn't make me think the guy's totally objective. Unless he means a nation that supported revolution elsewhere: not unlike the French in the American revolution and the U.S. in most of the 20th century?

"What became known and caused great consternation in American relief circles was evidence that at the very time the Soviet government was relying on Western charity to feed its people, is was offering foodstuffs for sale abroad. In the fall of 1922 Moscow made it known that it had millions of tons of cereals available for export- this at a time when its own estimates indicated that during the coming winter 8 million Soviet citizens would stil require food assistance, only half of which could be met with native resources. When questioned, the Soviet authorities explained that they needed money to purchase industrial and agricultural equipment."

This is probably true- you can find similar behavior in impoverished nations in the world today. Usually the funds goes to a dictator instead of the people; I find it interesting that Pipes makes no mention of this in the Soviet example.
The facts are that there was a famine in the 1920's and it's likely that the Soviets used it to crush unrest brewing in the countryside. While not condoning such actions I find myself wondering why is is commonly considered intregral to communism to behave as such while similar examples thruout monarchist and capitalist regimes are glossed over. So what level of violence against a people is acceptable in order to preserve the state?

Finally I should mention that over time I've heard quite a lot of anti-communist, anti-Soviet propaganda that has later proven unsubstantiated. So I tend to look at these things with a careful lens.

Cornmaster,

"It's cowardice to take up the popular point just to be right...It just annoys me to hear people that defend these types."

While I don't disagree with the basic premise of your post, I find it annoying that you dismiss his agrument w/o trying to refute it. We don't need blind followers on the left. Maybe you should take his advice and read a book or two.

Evil Cappie,

"Give me a good reason anyone but a government with machievellian streak would want to keep people poor.
Rich people get their money from business
Businesses gain increased overall profits from an increased market.
An increased market is achieved by letting people have more money.
Therefor the very rich have an interest in letting people become rich."

quote: Originally posted by Theben on 07-22-2000 12:09 PM While I don't disagree with the basic premise of your post, I find it annoying that you dismiss his agrument w/o trying to refute it. We don't need blind followers on the left. Maybe you should take his advice and read a book or two.

In addition, my opinions don't come from a book. I came to these by reading books and taking world history courses. I can't credit S. Kroeze with much because the least he could have done is paraphrased the arguements. If he believed them then he shouldn't have just copied them straight. Unless he quoted them and then wrote his opinions under it.

I agree that this topic should be moved to off-topic or locked.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed by your decision to move the Communism thread to the Off-Topic Forum. You will probably know best, but in my view the central question was whether Communism should be represented in CivIII as its advocates claim it was ideally meant to be or as it turned out in real-life. I'll cite the topic starter:

quote: "I believe that the biggest problem in the government part of the game is Communism. In Civ II it was represented in its true form. This has never been the case in the real world. What do we ask Firaxis to do? Leave it alone or make it into the corrupt form of government of the real world? Also if Firaxis leaves Communism alone then why do we say that it should be easier to go to Republic or Democracy from Communism. Communism is making everyone happy so why would they want a rich-poor gap to suddenly open up? Freedom doesn't always mean comfort."

Do you know any better, recent study on the subject of the Russian Revolution?
I am not a Russia specialist, nor is contemporary history my subject. But Pipes is among historians truly respected and accepted as the most reliable general study. When Commmunists don't want to hear the truth I think that is their problem. Pipes estimates the total of victims of the Revolution at about 23 million people between 1917 and 1924. I can imagine why a Communist doesn't like to acknowledge such a number.

By the way, my main point was not that Communism is evil -though I indeed think it is- but that the Western countries never seriously tried to bring the regime down. I will check Pipes on details but I think most foreign troops arrived before Compiègne(Nov 1918), while Russia was a political satellite of Germany! So the argument that the oppression of the population was a result of attacks of the capitalists on Communism falls short. Businessmen traded with them, while labour union leaders, who were more in touch with Socialist-Revolutionaries in Russia, distrusted them. And instead of allying with the peasants the Americans helped the poor victims of the famine, actually collaborating with this criminal government. From its first day in power the regime was a brutal dictatorship. And I distrust anyone who believes Hitler was a genius!

I also would like to point out that I posted some time ago part of the Communist manifesto in another thread on Communism. I intended to prove the Bolsheviks followed it very closely in 1919/20. This contributed heavily to the subsequent famine. So this antithesis between 'ideal' and 'real' Communism only exists in the heads of Communist sleepwalkers. Marxisms' ideal is the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by the intelligentsia. It doesn't respect the rights of the individual!

Sincere regards,

When CornMaster would have followed my course on history I would at least have learned him that giving chapter and verse is the trademark of a historian. I will give a verbatim citation of the text and add the footnotes too, so they can check the sources. Unfortunately they don't mention the font of their knowledge, so I cannot check their sources. I suppose those hundreds of books in CornMasters' library do have titles?

'Soviet historiography, especially under Stalin, went to great lengths to depict the Civil War as foreign intervention in which the anti-Bolshevik Russians played the part of mercenaries. While it is incontestable that there were foreign troops on Russian soil, the Civil War was throughout a fratricidal conflict. In late 1918 there was talk in Allied circles of a "crusade" against Bolshevism,(5) but such plans never came anywhere near realization. The casualty figures of the three-year war indicate that, except for a few thousand Czech volunteers (on the anti-Communist side), and several times that number of Latvians (on the Communist side), as well as up to 400 Britons, the combat fatalities were overwhelmingly Russian and Cossack. The French and their allies fought one skirmish with a pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian partisan detachment in April 1919, following which they withdrew. The Americans and the Japanese never engaged the Red Army. The Allied (essentially British) contribution) consisted mainly of supplying the Whites with war matériel.'

(5) N.Kakurin, Kak srazhalas' revoliutsiia, II (Moscow,1925), 135;
The Trotsky Papers, 1917-1922, Jan M. Meijer, ed., (The Hague, 1964-71), I, 241

'American policy, as formulated by President Wilson, was that after the Armistice the Allies had no business keeping troops in Russia; they were to be withdrawn, leaving the Russians to settle their quarrel among themselves.(83) Wilson felt it was "always dangerous to meddle in foreign revolutions": "to try to stop a revolutionary movement by a line of armies is to employ a broom to stop a great flood.... The only way to act against Bolshevism is to make its causes disappear." Unfortunately, he confessed, "we do not even know exactly what its causes are."(84) In addition to noninterference, Wilson favored the nonrecognition of the Soviet government and the preservation of Russia's territorial integrity.(85)

Japanese policy toward Russia was the most consistent and the most transparent. The Japanese landed their first troops in the Russian Far East in the spring of 1918 on the initiative of the Allied Supreme Command, which had planned to deploy them against the Germans in a reactivated Eastern front. Nothing came of this idea, not only because it was impractical but also because the Japanese had no intention of fighting the Germans. Their interests were strictly predatory: they wished to take advantage of the Russian turmoil to seize and annex the maritime provinces. The United States, aware of these designs, deployed military forces in eastern Sieria, but American troops, whether in the Far East or the northwest, at no time engaged the Red Army in combat.*'

(83) J.M.Thompson, Russia, Bolshevism, and the Versailles Peace (Princeton,N.J.,1966), 46
(84) R.H.Ullman, Britain and the Russian Civil War (Princeton,1968), 165; Thompson, Russia, 204
(85) Thompson, Russia, 46
* "The United States sent troops only to two areas of Russia: to the European north, in the neighborhood of Archangelsk on the White Sea, and to eastern Siberia. Both of these areas were far from the main theatres of the Russian civil war then in progress. In neither case was the decision to dispatch these troops taken gladly.... In neither case was it motivated by an intention that these forces should be employed with a view to unseating the Soviet government. In neither case would the decision have been taken except in conjunction with the World War then in progress, and for purposes related primarily to the prosecution of that war." George Kennan in Foreign Affairs, LIV, No.4(July 1976),671. Cf. William S.Graves, America's Siberian Adventure(New York,1931),92
(source: R.Pipes:'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime',1994)

Finally I would like to point out that "the decision to create a security force -essentially, a revived tsarist Department of Police and Okhrana- was adopted by the Sovnarkom on December 7, 1917, on the basis of Dzerzhinskii's report on fighting "sabotage", by which was meant the strike of white-collar employees." The Red Army was formed in the fall of 1918, while the decisive stage of the Civil War only began in March 1919!

I'll give some figures on the economic performance of Germany (and Britain in brackets): index of industrial production (1913=100)
1900-07: 74 (80)
1908-13: 91 (89)
1914-20: 61 (88)
1921-29: 80 (86)
1930-37: 72 (99)
(source: up to 1929 the index compiled by Wagenfuhr,R., Die Industrie-wirtschaft; thereafter from the League of Nations, International Statistical Year Book

Doubtless Germany suffered more from the war than Britain, but I don't see evidence of a ruined country. I don't deny the hardships of the inflation of 1922/23.
Germany was in 1900 the strongest continental power of Europe, as it was again in 1940. Its allies in World War I, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, performed rather poorly, so Germany fought almost alone against the other Great Powers!

For shame. Did I "dismiss" anything before? If I had, I wouldn't have bothered replying. I merely stated that I tend to look at things thru a careful lens.

And I no longer have any authority to close a thread. Only Yin or an administrator can do that. So it may stay open.

Interesting note about the American force at Murmansk. I never heard about them engaging the Red army either. In fact the route they took down the peninsula barely cut into Russian territory. It is possible, however, that their presence secured Finland's independence as perhaps Trotsky did not wish to risk such an engagement.

I would also state that I do not deny any of the terrible results of how communism has been implemented. But I do not wish to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. The ideals are sound (most of them, anyway). Totalitarianism is not inherent to communism, despite what you may think.

*now attempts to go back to on-topic*

A loooong while back I suggested a wonder called the Great Polis. Essentially it removed the negative effects of SE on that city- possibly added a bonus to current benefits (the flipside was that if govt.s were used then it would receive the best categories of each govt. type). Later I casually suggested a 'Utopia' wonder which was pretty much the same but on a civ-wide scale. It was almost (but not quite) a game-ending wonder (building a utopia with loads of freight doesn't sound logical, but bear with me). The difference between the 2 was that with Utopia you could no longer change your SE (why would you if your empire was perfect?). But now instead of like SMAC where a "green" empire was always the best, you could have ANY type of perfect empire at game end. Is laisse-faire your style? You can build it. Communist? See it finally happen. Religious? The perfect fundamentalist civ. Feeling like a bastard? Build a fascist regime to last 1000 years. So I'd say that with this you could have govt. SE/types with actual real-world limitations, but a utopic version may lay in your future.

Yin! I am requesting that you lock this thread. It is the source of unwanted arguments about Communism vs. Democracy. If you don't lock it then please move it.

P.S. It shouldn't be a wonder.

I've just seen this TV article about north-corea . And that was weird . To the corrupt eye of the western viewer it would look twisted and weird . During the visit of Russian president putin to north corea ppl waved to him with flags as the colonade of govnt. cars passed by . The passion in the people's eyes was so real it scared me quite a lot . in this country a 2 generation old total isolationism caused something so weird so twisted ... so ... I don't have a word for it , actually .

People are taught from infancy that Kim Er Seng's way is the only way , and with no evidence or rumor whatsoever to prove it's wrong most people do believe its right .

people are well dressed . travel by foot or on bicycles .

in this country there is no Coke
in this country there is no pop-music
in this country there is no hate
in this country there is no crime
in this country there is no poverty
in this country there is no AIDS
in this country there is no instability
and
in this country there is no FOOD .

I don't know . is it the right way or is it the wrong way . plz tell me . this report really confused me .....

P.S. about the topic : maybe there should be a goverment like the goverment above . it's name would be ... well Ideas ?

Utopia wonder ? I don't know ....... if its the perfect goverment there should be no corruption , excellent production and science , excellent military .... etc etc . i

I dont know . anyway this wonder is no good.

a goverment-wonder ?

dunno . and how can it be in real life ? is there the slightest chance that mining a lot will allow you to bring to a better form of goverment ? or sending trucks from here to there ?

common

Dalgetti

quote: Originally posted by Evil Capitalist on 07-20-2000 02:35 AM Since this thread is crawling with commies I'm going to insult Marx. His economic theories are based on the assumption that all manufatured goods are worth the cost of the raw materials and the cost of the labour and, since there is profit, the workers are being deprived of what is rightfully theirs. He ignores the neccessity of management and product development, which is the profit. *ducks to avoid tirade of red abuse*

Well, the capitalistic theories in economy assume that every consumer know how exactly how much labour, transports and raw materials that is needed for a product. The economic theory also assumes that there are no monopolies and that every consumer knows exactly all his options. Also, humans are considered not to have any moral or social behavior but only thinking about spending all thier money on products.

But surely the most interesting thing from the game point of view would be to build in a risk of decay to any system (I'm tempted to say especially to "democracy" because as a currently "successful" system it seems to get too much of a good press). If you look at what happens in any organization people learn the rules and begin to manipulate them (I'll bet the first people to think up electoral systems never conceived of pressure groups for example).

That is why change is important. And it will happen, painfully or worse at some time. The true value for example of considering changing from proportional representation to first past the post or the reverse lies in the time it will take powerful groups to learn how to manipulate the new system.

But let's return to Communism: I think communism was an excellent system for nations that are somewhat behind. In 1917 Russia was an agrarian state with almost no industry and poor education and after the revolution russia's industry grew enormously and don't forget: Russians were the first in space. Cuba has the best educational and medical system in latin america, I know some people from around the world who go there for medical treatment.
The problem of communism is that it generally soon ends in a cruel dictatorship and inefficiency rises quickly.

by the way: does anyone still think, in China there is communism other than in name? In fact China develops to a capitalistic despotism!!

A word to Par4: Do you really want to compare x-millions of dead jews on one side, x-million dead peasants on the other side? Both was inacceptable!!!!!!
Although, those millions of ucrainian peasants you probably think of died because of a (maybe evitable) famine not because some mad guy killed them in a technocratic way "just because they are peasants", jews were killed because they were jews, without a chance to escape.

: A word to the evil capitalist: Prussia gained Silesia in 1742 from Maria Theresia and lost it after WWI

Finally I want to return to the topic: I'd suggest that in communism it should be easier to to build up industry and mainenanceshould be cheaper. On the other hand corruption should rise turn by turn.
Luxury in communism should have less effect, making it more instable.
Communism should be desirable mainly in phases of transition.
Socialism could be a governmental form worth to think of in Civ3, as already mentioned by someone.
An other way would be to differ in Civ3 between government and economic system. In antiquity there were monarchies with centralised economy (Ptolemeans, Sumerians,...) and such with an economy based more on individuals (Athens, Phoenicians,...), we have modern democracies with a "social market economy" and so on.
Stalin's Communism would be i.e. Government: Dictatorship
Economic System: Socialism

PS: Americans shall stop to think, they know everything better than all the others (first take a look at your educational system!!!)

------------------
Wernazuma

So an increase in trade/tax/science or something per 50 years doesn't sound too bad..

------------------
Get paid for every second you spend online at http://referral.jotter.com/join/bulk
Refer people (like what I'm doing) to earn even more. $50 a month is not uncommon.

Also the original post seems to say that only communism is non-historical in Civ2. But if we compare it to fundamentalism, we'll find bigger problems. What's historical in a govt form under which no one is ever unhappy? And democracy is totally resistant to bribery & subvertings, not realistic at all.

Main thing about having so powerful govt types in Civ2 was scenario making. Fundie represents total-war nations when democracy is for peaceful superpowers. In Civ3 Firaxis will definitely use modified and improved Social Engineering system from SMAC. So there will be more socialistic and communistic SE choices like there'll be capitalistic ones. And because govts are then varied from despotics to democracies, it's possible (tho' not very easy) to have democratic socialism, democratic communism, and other even more interesting systems. In scenarios then some or all SE choices of certain civs could be locked. Six or seven Civ2/CTP type forms of government are simply not enough.