Ask yourself these questions...
* Should there be a separate section in Civ 3 for choosing an economic system?
* If so, how would such a system work?
* How will economic systems affect production and happiness?
* How can we set up a system that won't be "Americanized" in that Communism sucks and Capitalism rules?
* How can government and economy work together?
* Should certain government's work well/poorly with certain economies?
* Are economies learned through tech or are they always available?
* Should different economic systems affect trade? If so...how?
* Should a Democratic/Capitalist AI look poorly upon you if you are Communist/Communist?
* Is it possible to allow a Communist government with a Capitalist economy, or a Democratic government with a Communistic economy?

My idea is that there should be a slider that determines government (1-9), and one for economy.
Then all available forms of economy and government are available in the beginning...(regardless of tech)

Example...
Government
1 = Anarchy
2 = Communism
3 = Stalinism
4 = Despotism
5 = Monarchy
6 = Constitutional Monarchy
7 = Republic
8 = Democratic Republic
9 = Direct democracy
*really this is a loop, as Direct Democracy is essentially Anarchy...so consider it a circle

Economy
1 = Marxist Communism (no free enterprise or gov control)
2 = Laize-Faire Capitalism (absolutely no government control on economy)
3 = Capitalism (very little government control)
4 = Moderate Capitalism (moderate government control)
5 = Moderate Socialism
6 = Socialism
7 = Strict Socialism
8 = Statism (there is a better name for this...but I forget it. Most evident in 3rd world countries)
9 = Stalinism (Complete government control to institute communism)
*this is also a loop as Stalinism is supposed to lead into Communism

Now certain combinations are bound to cause revolt = e.g. what people of a democracy will allow Stalinism?
and what Communist system can allow Capitalism?
However, certain systems (e.g. Communism and Communism, Democracy and Capitalism) will result in enormous corruption. This needs to be reflected somehow...

I'm tired of typing...more to come later.

Thoughts?

What you described is a Stalinistic government. The ideal communist government has no man of power...and everyone works for the good of the society (commune). I believe Marx allows for a figurehead...but that person has no real power.

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-17-2000 01:56 PM what Communist system can allow Capitalism?

Actually, Sovjet under Lenin HAD a kind of capitalism! After the revolution, Lenin tried to make real communism, but it failed, and in desperation to keep the power, Lenin accepted a capitalistic system!

However , when Stalin got the power, he reintroduced the communistic version.

But even if that were the case, one of my questions is "should a Communistic government be allowed without a Communistic economy?" (Lenin's "Communism" was really a kind of Stalinism...or even Despotism with a socialistic economy)

Should we go textbook definition of Communism, or relate it to what countries make of it? And if the former, should we allow any other economic system but Communism to go along with it? (Because true Communism is an economic and governmental system)

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 12-17-2000 02:05 PM Communism isn't a govermnent type. 'Communist' governments are actually (generally) dictatorships with communist economies (China was actually a 'monarch'-communist gov, chairman Mao Tse-Tung was looked at as the emperor of communist china. After that, I don't know, we didn't get that far in my eastern civ class) ....

And a good thing they didn't teach you more nonsense like that, too!

Here are some standard definitions of governments.

Dictatorship: the country is by a single person (by force) with absolute power.

Monarchy: the country is ruled by a single (wealthy) family (with more families administrating counties) bound by law.

Republic: the country is ruled by chosen representatives of the (economic) elite, for the elite

Communism: the country is ruled by a single party (of commoners) with absolute power. (Often there are elections to decide the representatives of counties.)

Democracy: the country is ruled by chosen representatives of the (common) people, for the people

Fundamentalism: the country is ruled by the (religious) elite with absolute power

Of course in the real world there can be mixtures, extremes and even exotic types of government, and new types are bound to show up in the future (referendum, delphi, artificial intelligence).

1. Monarchy

2. Fundementalism

3. Communism (this is not a government!)

4. Republic

5. Democracy

6. Despotism

7. Modern Socialism (Nazism, it was not the soldiers that were nazis, it was an actual political party, led by Hitler)

8. Fascism (like Socialism)

9. modern Communism (China)

Anyway, any more ideas on the topic at hand? Think about the bullet points made in my first post. Do you have any thoughts on these?

I agree, Facism should probably be a government type (left out of my original ) because it has been used. Perhaps a boost to military (ie free support for certain units)

I don't see Fundamentalism as a true government type. Really it's a monarchy of sorts, or even a despotism. One man rules. And if Fundy is a choice, everyone will choose that over Despotism. Fundamentalism, if apparent in Civ 3, should only be available to certain types of Civs IMO. This will be much easier if religion is apparent in the game, as Civs can have fundamentalist systems when the religious content of the Civ is above a certain percent.

By Modern Communism, do you mean "Stalinism"?

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-17-2000 07:07 PM Fundamentalism: the country is ruled by the (religious) elite with absolute power

Nope, what your talking about is a 'Hagiarchy' or rule by religious saints or priests. Fundamentalism is more of a religious condition than polithical.

I think the only things you should be able to change: is the type of leadership (tyranny, monarchy, republic, democratic, fundamentalist/facist/hagiarchy) and the degree of government intervention in the economy or the degree of socialism. Degree of socialism would simply mean how active the government takes part in education, health care, etc. I group facist and hagiarchy together because the relevant idea of the two is that they both have fierce notional loyalty among the people.

Communism is where the government owns and governs EVERYTHING.

Socialism is the same thing, only instead of government ownership of everything, it is the people's ownership of everything. In a socialistic society, all profits are pooled and distributed evenly among everyone.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 12-18-2000 03:52 PM Nope, what your talking about is a 'Hagiarchy' or rule by religious saints or priests. Fundamentalism is more of a religious condition than polithical.

Strictly speaking, you are right that my description is of Hagiocracy, but most people aren't familiar with that term. Fundamentalism is the ideology that goes with it.

quote: Communism is where the government owns and governs EVERYTHING.

Taken from a site on Marxism and Communism -
Communism in theory stands for total public ownership and rejects private property and personal profit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In practice, however, the state determines how strictly the doctrine is applied in any particular country.
^
The above is where Stalinism kicks in...this system is meant to lead to true Communism, where society works for the good of the commune...but this has not happened yet. Stalinism remains, or degenerates to a dictatorship because of the easy corruption and lack of trust among people.

and all cities shouldn't become as good as the tech level you are at....
like parts of china (Beijing) are very advanced, with cell phones, computers and TV's, and then parts of it are vast farmlands, with nomads still roaming the lands and living in tents.

The tech level of each city should be dependant on what improvements are in it, and the natural geographical influences nearby

and having cities produce specialty goods, and trading them to other civilixations would be great. Such as exporting cars, or importing high tech electronics from Japan....

or open up oppurtunities for foreign investment...

in the CivII version, trading silver, silk, dye or whatever only really provides a quick source of income, but doesn't really benefit everyone that well

Actually you have some good ideas. I like the idea of having a breadbasket for your nation...but I assume they will set this up more in the city layout then in economy.

I'm also hoping certain cities prosper while others fail...especially when dealing with trade.

You combined two government types. I don't think it's possible to have a democratic stalinistic government. I'm thinking people elect a dictator who rules for life and has full control over everything?

If you meant Communism/Stalinism as an economy choice...how can Stalinism be an economy?

Could you clarify?

Communism (government/economy) = rule by none. Everyone works for the good of the commune and everyone is given equal amounts of the total yield. There is no reward for working hard, there is no penalty for working poorly. There is no upperclass, there is no lowerclass...there is just one straight middle class.

Socialism (economy) = The state has full power to redistribute wealth to the people. The goal is similar to that of Communism - no social classes.

Two different ways of going about the same thing.

Stalinism (Government) - One man in a one party system is given complete power of the people. This form of government is in essence a beneveloent dictatorship...but it is meant to bring forth true Communism (Government/Economy)

So what I was saying in my first post is that Communist governments should only be allowed with a communist economy (because technically one cannot exist without the other)

Examples of government/economy pairings...
Government________________Economy________________Example
Democratic Republic______/Moderate Capitalism = United States
Stalinism______________/Socialism___________= Former USSR
Despotism______________/Strict Socialism____= Nazi Germany
Republic_______________/Strict Socialism____= India
Republic_______________/Modified Socialism__= Modern China
Stalinism______________/Socialism___________= Mao's China
Democratic Republic____/Socialism___________= Modern Russia
Constitutional Monarchy/Modified Capitalism = England

(I think those are all fairly accurate...please point out any errors that I'm sure I've made )

quote: Originally posted by timfry on 12-24-2000 06:56 PM I believe that the government structure of true Communism is close to that of a Republic. While the government is not supposed to be obtrusive it does make decisions. Those decisions are from a body that is elected by the people through a series of elections.

In a search on www.britannica.com , I found this:

quote: classless society in Marxist thought, the ultimate condition of social organization, expected to occur when true communism is achieved. According to Karl Marx, the state represents the dominant class in society, with the primary function of repressing other classes. After the class struggle has resulted in the victory of the proletariat and the establishing of a socialist society, however, there will be no further need for such a repressive institution; theoretically the state then is expected to "wither away."

quote: Originally posted by eNo on 12-27-2000 03:55 PM I agree with orange and Nikolai. Communism doesn't have a ruling class/government so switching the leadership to communism would basically end the game.

A new end game??
Hmmm... Well, but then it should be a x% chance that it goes wrong and you get a system like Sovjet or China. And this chance should be high, since, as we know, Marx' ideas haven't been realized.
It could be a kind of Utopia. Thoughts on this??

See we get some who argue that Marxism can be implemented, and that it should be an allowable government/economy and others say that it "won't work" so we shouldn't allow it as a government.

Also consider this...

quote: * Is it possible to allow a Communist government with a Capitalist economy, or a Democratic government with a Communistic economy?

A democratically elected government administrating over a communistic/planned econmy sounds feasible (sounds like the strata council in my building! ). The other combination is much more interesting. Imagine how a communistic (aka ruled by a party of commoners) government would mesh with a freemarket capitalist economy. I can't think of a realworld example, but that shouldn't mean that it shouldn't be an option.

Ironically, if the definition of a communist GOVT (not economy) is rule by a party of the common people, then Communist GOVT + Communist ECON = what we commonly regard as "communism". HOWEVER, with a communist GOVT and freemarket ECON, won't it be the will of the people to run their market economy into the biggest powerhouse possible, without the restrictions and political seesaw of the republic or democratic gov'ts?

I'm going to run with this, almost as much for my own entertainment as for any real benifit to my arguement, so feel free to level critisisms. What do you think about this;

When people talk about a future where coorporations rule instead of governments, I see that as a sort of Communist GOVT/freemarket ECON setup. Just like shareholders, the people of this 'civ' are a part of the company and all work toward the good of the company, while the union is administered by the CEO/COO/CFO etc. Yet a freemarket economy exists in that you, as a common person, can still market your idea/invention into a profitable venture and improve your status of living, however your 'government' exists only to help administrate this economy and help nuture the freemarket system. In turn, the civ enjoys material profitability without the overhead that comes with a government concerned with micromanaging social programs. It would not decide law or policy through a house of commons or senate, nor would it have the dynamic of a two- or multi-partied system of elections.

As far as applying gameplay advantages and disadvantages, you would assume that this combination would require advanced tech to make it available in the late-game, and you would assume that they get economic benifits and maybe research benifits from the freemarket economy, but don't enjoy happiness or the sae human right benifits & free speech that you get from a democracy. The non-elected party government might have high efficiency (due to a coorporate-like chain of command, and lower beaurocracy) but would be more succeptable to espionage or revolt. (it becomes easy to go to the poor and the 'have-nots' who *aren't* at the top of the foodchain, and bribe them to sell secrets or promise them a better life under a more humanitarian gov't.)

...Just a random thought of course. As is probably obvious, I'm a big fan of the possibilities of an advanced form of the SMAC Social Engineering table.

Communism as a practical phenomenom is a POLITICAL system - it means rule by a centralized proletarian political party following Marxist principles.

While one would expect such a regime to implement a socialist economic system, it is capable of implementing an alternative one for pragmatic reasons, as the USSR did under the NEP. Whether a party that implements a capitalist economy for the long term (IE current China) can still be called a Marxist party is questionable.

Of course a socialist economy can be implemented without a communist regime - it can be implemented by a military despotism, and in theory at least, by a democracy (though there are real conflicts between the state power availble under an extreme form of socialism and the limits on state power requried for a democracy to function)

Stalinism involves the emergence of a single despot over and above the proletarian party.

"Eurocommunism" posited the emergence to power of a communist (centralized proletarian) party to power via democratic means, and maintianing democratic forms. Whether this program could ever have been accomplished (or was even sincere) is open to question. It should not be confused with the older democratic socialist movement.

Damn fine points my friend!

common people can (and has) included petty bourgeois(shopkeeper class), yeoman farmers and wealthy peasants, as well as proletarians. A better term for such a party would be "jacobin" or populist. Historically such parties have (at least in Europe) been reluctant to part with democracy - though peasant parties have been more willing, as have fascist parties (though such parties have been open to the upper classes - and have disavowed the populist agenda) A better example of such a party might be the Peronists in Argentina,the PRI in Mexico, or other 3rd world parties.

An explicity Communist party, historically, has meant a party that at least nominally advocates the interests of the proletariat (and occasionally, the poorer peasants)(the Maoist version made the poor peasants the centerpiece - which is why Maoism is/was unorthodox)

My argument really is more to do with how to implement these ideas about what communism 'is' into a social table such as was used in Alpha Centauri. And as I said, it's highly possible that they will adopt an 'absolute' government type, in which place my idea is moot.

If they DO implement a table of social/gov't choices, then again, I suggest that a 'Communist'/one-party GOVT combined with a free market ECON should be possible in the game. As you say, contemporary China sounds like a realworld example of this (although maybe too bland for a computer game - too similar to 'communist govt/SOCIALIST econ'). For a little more 'spice' we could exaggerate these traits and make the Communist party/freemarket gov't an intriging way to play the game.

Nazism would be for example police state + capitalism + military values + charismatic rule, or Iran-style Theocracy would be police state + traditional rule.

------------------
"Am Anfang war das Wort" - J.W. Goethe, "Faust"

What you talk about seems like virtual democracy and pure capitalism, which in a way resembles communism (as I mentioned earlier) that's why, in a way, the model I proposed is a loop

Lord - "Welfare State" could be used as well to refer to a non-Socialistic economy similar to Brazil.

quote: As interesting as this thread is, it could be completely irrelevant.

Markus - of course there are other things that define your Civ, such as what you strive for, how rulers are chosen, etc. But I put that in a separate category than economy and government...

...In fact, what you talk about could touch on a whole new concept. I'm not sure if it's the same, but look for a new thread started by me...