We don't need semantic discussions about the true name of the communism, the ideology matrix is fine just how it is now ok?.
Kretoxian said:a small change which i'm thinking about:
PA (actual dictatorship)--> Presidentialistic System
FA (actual fundamentalist)--> Dictatorship
NS (actual extremist)--> Extremist (untouched)
What do you think?
THe fundamentalist countries would be extremist of course.
kami888 said:Would it trouble you if post-revolutionary Iran was described as National-Socialist? I think this description fits rather well the ideology of that state. Sure, it's more religious-socialist than national, but the difference is not that great - both nations and religions are artificial gangs, branded with various symbols and texts and songs etc.
It doesn't.kami888 said:Would it trouble you if post-revolutionary Iran was described as National-Socialist? I think this description fits rather well the ideology of that state.
Your humble opinion is wrong from my humble perspective.It doesn't.
If you are equating national socialism with Hitler's NSDAP then yes, religious extremism of Iran is certainly less radical. I see NS as a general way to describe an extremist third-way movement. In that case it works rather well. And it doesn't have much to do with voting.In a way, the Religious extremism is more or less like a milder form of National Socialism, since the countries actually had voting, at least on the lowest levels
Separating nationalism from the main two axis altogether might look like a good idea in general, except that unlike the main two axis, all others do not affect relations between nations AFAIK. Eg, relations between Democratic Kampuchea and USSR. Plus I find it to be just more confusing. If "nationalism" replaces "central planning", then how in hell would you describe USSR, which had a centrally planned economy but was neither "nationalist" nor "free-trade"?I quite like the MDS ideology matrix, with free market as "free trade" and the other extreme as nationalism.
Agreed with that. I'd put Talibs as NS, Shah's Iran as PA.Talibani tribalism allows for a larger class of bigoted zealots. I, myself, wouldn't put the Shah and Osama Bin Laden in the same category.
Yeah, but what concrete propositions would you make?I hope your all know that it is possible to edit the ideology_matrix.csv file
kami888 said:Yeah, but what concrete propositions would you make?
kami888 said:Separating nationalism from the main two axis altogether might look like a good idea in general, except that unlike the main two axis, all others do not affect relations between nations AFAIK. Eg, relations between Democratic Kampuchea and USSR. Plus I find it to be just more confusing. If "nationalism" replaces "central planning", then how in hell would you describe USSR, which had a centrally planned economy but was neither "nationalist" nor "free-trade"?
kami888 said:If you are equating national socialism with Hitler's NSDAP then yes, religious extremism of Iran is certainly less radical. I see NS as a general way to describe an extremist third-way movement. In that case it works rather well. And it doesn't have much to do with voting.
I also think that you are confusing something.I think you confuse the economic nationalism and the political nationalism
I meant to say that the ideological alignment is not explicidly tied with voting. Nationalist and religious radicals tend to be anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic, but I don't think this is always the case. Just because Iran has some sort of elections doesn't make it less radical. In fact even if the present Iranian government was truly democratically elected, it still wouldn't make Iran less radical from ideological point of view.It does have to do with voting to an extent, in that, there is a resemblance of a parliament and a democracy, in which one can be elected, to a local position.
kami888 said:If the slider had the same meaning as what you described, then it would be no different from standard HOI2 free-market vs central planning. In that case we would have to assume that no changes have been made at all?
kami888 said:I meant to say that the ideological alignment is not explicidly tied with voting. Nationalist and religious radicals tend to be anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic, but I don't think this is always the case. Just because Iran has some sort of elections doesn't make it less radical. In fact even if the present Iranian government was truly democratically elected, it still wouldn't make Iran less radical from ideological point of view.
However, the game uses the democratic-authoritarian slider to set ideology, so I guess the game makers agree with you.
Well you said the following: "I quite like the MDS ideology matrix, with free market as "free trade" and the other extreme as nationalism. It freed up the National Socialist tag for Religious Extremism."Isn't that what I had said?
Of course it does, unless the "democracy-authoritarianism" slider is renamed to something else, but I'm not sure if going that far is a good idea. After all, my original statement was that the HOI2 standard naming for authoritarian far right was the best one.Therefore, it matters within the context of the matrix.
So, FA then? Fine with me, let Iran be FA. However, if Iran is not radical enough to be NS, then I'm not too sure if there will be any NS countries in the game at all. Taliban doesn't come about until 1995 I think, and that is way beyond the time frame we are currently looking at. Are there any countries besides Taliban's Afghanis, which, according to you are radical enough to qualify as Extremists/NS?Therefore, Iran would be Fundamentalist, which makes sense to me.
kami888 said:So, FA then? Fine with me, let Iran be FA. However, if Iran is not radical enough to be NS, then I'm not too sure if there will be any NS countries in the game at all. Taliban doesn't come about until 1995 I think, and that is way beyond the time frame we are currently looking at. Are there any countries besides Taliban's Afghanis, which, according to you are radical enough to qualify as Extremists/NS?
I just want to make sure we don't end up wasting an ideology tag.
Iran is many things but it is not National-Socialist or otherwise fascist. This is not a matter of degree of "radicalism" or "nationalism" but the simple fact that Nazi Germany and Islamic Iran share very few of the same core ideals or policies. If you think that this is not the case then please provide points where you see a convincing overlap between the two ideologies.kami888 said:Your humble opinion is wrong from my humble perspective.
That's a funny nameindependentism
If you read above you will see that I'm not equating NS to NSDAP. In fact, many if not most present day NS supporters accuse Hitler and his gang of deviating and betraying original NS ideas. You know, kind of like Trotskyists accuse Stalin of not being a true communist.This is not a matter of degree of "radicalism" or "nationalism" but the simple fact that Nazi Germany and Islamic Iran share very few of the same core ideals or policies.
Perhaps. But "Extremist" just doesn't do it for me - extremists are all different. There's got to be a better name than that.I my (humble) opinion, the concept o National Socialism is too much historical related too one party and its clones that grow in Germany (and Europe) in the 30’s and beginnings of the 40’s, of the last century, and should not be used to denominate any other regimes that can be nationalist or even socialist. So, in this perspective, it would be at least peculiar to call the Iranian regime… National Socialist.