Brote Heckler said:Hmm... fanatic then?
Foot Cavalry said:The label of Communist fits well for the Soviet Union and its satellites but maybe International Communist would fit better, since it refers to this particular time period and is distinct from the nation/personality-centric Stalinism (or Maoism, as we would have it now). This would also make sense for Vietnam as it was less extreme than its neighbors and it took a more Soviet model after the Vietnam War, in opposition to the Maoists. Also International Communist perfectly fits the regime style of the Warsaw Pact as well as Latin American regimes, should they decide to become more belligerent.
Foot Cavalry said:My opinion for the extreme on the Right would be Ideological Counterrevolutionary (or perhaps Totalitarian Traditionalist) for countries with a completely closed society and National Syndicalist for those which are all the way on the Right but maintain state capitalism and perhaps a less closed society. This last one would more accurately describe South American Rightists than the diluted and rhetorical term of Fascist, even though the words are supposed to mean the same thing.
If there was a modifier for Ecclesiastical influence then we could have Falangists and Islamic Republics, but that obviously comes at the expense of a more important one, so a more generic "totalitarian" (or ideological) label probably covers more ground with less of the semantics.
Foot Cavalry said:One thing that should change is Paternal Autocrat. It covers too much ground and, in vanilla, applies to nations that may not actually have such a system. This is always what happens when I play as France and try to turn it into a rightist state, even though that wouldn't imply a modern succession. I think nations like Taiwan and South Korea would be better represented by a more abstract term, like Nationalist Autocracy or simply Counterrevolutionary, as those can allow more leeway in a country's economic model while still being decidedly non-communist.
That's basically it: Fascist would become NS and retain or even gain meaning in that. It is a state controlled economy to a large extent but not fully socialist, and also Rightist. It is a big movement in modern Latin America among rightists and probably describes Pinochet accurately.So, let me see if i understand your proposal:
FA --> National Syndicalist
NS --> Ideological Totalitarian (or just "totalitarian")
Seems good to me except for the National Syndicalist one, which, looks too much like Kaiserreich.
Other thing that you must remember is that the ideology matrix should not be conceived in the communism vs capitalism terms, that's why i discarded the "counterrevolutionary" name.
Foot Cavalry said:On that same note, I think it would be a good move to change Market Liberal to simply Capitalist or maybe Market Republic or something similar. My reasoning is that, by this point, economic practice within a nation supersedes the classic definition of liberalism, and sounds more neutral/objective, despite the historical/conservative connotations that ideologues give to the term "Capitalist." Instead of Social Democrat, which is decidedly early-20th century, why not Constitutional Republic? That fits France, West Germany, etc. very well.
Pinochet was actually a free-market crusader.It is a big movement in modern Latin America among rightists and probably describes Pinochet accurately.
Every ideology strives towards totalitarianism. (remember how in HOI you always strive to keep your dissent level at 0% ?) There are no exceptions to this rule, so it sounds like a bad label.Totalitarian (with an appropriate descriptor if needed) seems good.
Capitalism is not an ideology but an economic system. Just like with "totalitarian", too many nations qualify for this label. Hell, many people and historians today even refer to Nazi Germany as capitalist and Soviet Union as "state capitalist" or something to that extent. Basically, every state that exists or existed on this planet since the industrial revolution has been referred to as "capitalist".I think it would be a good move to change Market Liberal to simply Capitalist.
How about the fact that "Constitutional Republic" is a system of government, not an ideology? How about the fact that you would end up having both West Germany and Soviet Union under same label, because, you know, both of them are Republics with Constitutions? The Cold War would then essentially be between Constitutional Republics (US, USSR, France, etc) and Constitutional Monarchies (UK, Japan, Spain, etc). That's not exactly the historic version of Cold War, is it?Instead of Social Democrat, which is decidedly early-20th century, why not Constitutional Republic
In name they may both be contained by a Constitution but should not be seriously applied to most of these nations. The Soviet Union never called itself "Stalinist" under Stalin's rule but that is accurate. The same should apply with Nations that are governed by some type of Constitution over an arbitrary system.How about the fact that "Constitutional Republic" is a system of government, not an ideology? How about the fact that you would end up having both West Germany and Soviet Union under same label, because, you know, both of them are Republics with Constitutions? The Cold War would then essentially be between Constitutional Republics (US, USSR, France, etc) and Constitutional Monarchies (UK, Japan, Spain, etc). That's not exactly the historic version of Cold War, is it?
The other guy already made this point and provided evidence as well.And I wonder what is it that makes you think Social Democracy is "decidedly early-20th century", even though a crapload of political parties today are still using this label to the fullest, including some of the biggest political parties.
Why not? Even if you have evidence that USSR violated its own constitution, (which I doubt you do) still, same could be claimed about various other countries. Just look at the number of people in US yelling "this is unconstitutional!" every time they happen to disagree with anything present or past. Oh, and by the way, I am not even sure if Britain can be called a constitutional monarchy, since it has never bothered to have a constitution.In name they may both be contained by a Constitution but should not be seriously applied to most of these nations.
I reinforced the point this "other guy" was makingThe other guy already made this point and provided evidence as well.
kami888 said:Why not? Even if you have evidence that USSR violated its own constitution, (which I doubt you do) still, same could be claimed about various other countries. Just look at the number of people in US yelling "this is unconstitutional!" every time they happen to disagree with anything present or past. Oh, and by the way, I am not even sure if Britain can be called a constitutional monarchy, since it has never bothered to have a constitution.
Kami888 said:by the way, I'm sorry for lack of activity and testing the new version, I can't do much right now because i have finals and stuff, you know college shit.
PanzerWilly said:The ideology matrix is intended to show political leanings not the form of government.
There are plenty of monarchies that are 'democratic' in that the people control the government or that the government follows the will of the people. Also, there are plenty of monarchies that are despotic and cruel.
You can have right-wing dictatorships and left-wing dictatorships. The ideological matrix probably only needed tweaking. A more general term for fascism and National Socialism need to be found that are unrelated to the type of government. I could see Fundamentalist used as this describes various political movements. Also, Nationalist is probably a weaker strain of Fundamentalist.
The proposed terms for new commie strains sound good.
CATEGORY_NATIONAL_SOCIALIST;Religious Dictatorship;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_FASCIST;Nationalist Dictatorship;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_PATERNAL_AUTOCRAT;Paternal Autocrat;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_SOCIAL_CONSERVATIVE;Social Conservative;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_MARKET_LIBERAL;Market Liberal;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_SOCIAL_LIBERAL;Social Liberal;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_SOCIAL_DEMOCRAT;Social Democrat;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_LEFT_WING_RADICAL;Left Wing Radical;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_LENINIST;Communist;;;;;;;;;;;;X
CATEGORY_STALINIST;Maoist;;;;;;;;;;;;X
The Great Duck said:Well,a far right dictatorship doesn't need to be religious...and it only fits Iran,IMHO.
#; Left <-> Right (1-10)
#; Democratic
SD;SL;SL;SL;SL;ML;ML;ML;ML;SC;x
SD;SD;SL;SL;SL;ML;ML;ML;SC;SC;x
SD;SD;SD;SL;SL;ML;ML;SC;SC;SC;x
LWR;SD;SD;SD;SL;ML;SC;SC;SC;PA;x
LWR;LWR;SD;SD;SD;SC;SC;SC;PA;PA;x
LE;LWR;LWR;SD;SD;SC;SC;PA;PA;FA;x
LE;LE;LWR;LWR;SD;SC;PA;PA;FA;FA;x
ST;LE;LE;LWR;LWR;PA;PA;FA;FA;FA;x
ST;ST;LE;LE;LWR;PA;FA;FA;FA;FA;x
FA;FA;FA;FA;NS;NS;NS;NS;NS;NS;x
#; Anti-Democratic
EOF;;;;;;;X
The Great Duck said:Well,that is the reason why I was against NS to be Religious dictatorship.A country can be a theocracy and fit in PA,as well as NS.
BTW,I think it would be good to change Nationalist Dictatorship to just Nationalist.It is a bit silly for the ministers ideology to be "Nationalist Dictatorship".