In a communist totalitarian state there should be no capitalists, after all they were striped off of their assets. They should degrade to clerks. On the other hand fascist states would keep their business elite.
Advantages to Totalitarianism?
- Thread starter Sid Meier
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In a communist totalitarian state there should be no capitalists, after all they were striped off of their assets. They should degrade to clerks. On the other hand fascist states would keep their business elite.
So, having "Capitalists" in Communist system makes sense, as they would represent various organisers etc.
Not really, the organizers would all be clerks or bureaucrats. Capitalist POPs should flee into exile as soon as your commies seize power
Next thing you'll argue that communists should keep the Aristocrats around, as Farming Collective Organizers???
This is what the commies do to capitalists, clergy and aristocrats:
'Course we then need some mechanism for spawning new capitalists when communism ends, or a newly 'liberalised' country will be crippled.
i think having aristocrats and capitalists flee from communist countries would be a great thing, to disperse across the western world, and give places like canada and new zealand a chance of having aristocrats and they would take their money with them to the colonies which would be good for those countries.
but look to the title, surely this thread is about Totalitarianism and how it would work in the game, not communism.
but look to the title, surely this thread is about Totalitarianism and how it would work in the game, not communism.
Sure, but that being slow leaves potential for a sketchy few years in the beginning. I realise a massive dislocation like the end of communism should be painful, but it's not like Russia found itself with 'no capitalists' in 1991.
russia went though the slow pop-promotion to capitalism is the years running up to the offical transition. so yes, auto-promotion would do it.
Just going to say that a good portion of the choices presented above--Kings Army VS a new army, for instance, in the Soviet Union it was actually decided to keep the old army and the old hierarchical army style. I think that, if this is implemented (probably by a mod) that it should go that if you choose to moderate in, say, 75% of cases, you become like the German SocialDemokrats. If you moderate and radicalize equally, well there you go you have the USSR. If you're extremely radical you'd become something like Mao's faction in the Chinese civil war.
I agree. In a communist state bureaucrats can carry out the role of capitalists.
Transition from communist state-controled economy to free market economy should be painful, as history shows. This could very well play out with bureaucrats substituting capitalists. Once you go red and have no capies and an overblown bureaucracy you will have a strong insentive to cling to the system.
Also, if bureaucrats have the same literacy multiplier as capitalists, it won't hurt research.
Last edited:
Not really, the organizers would all be clerks or bureaucrats. Capitalist POPs should flee into exile as soon as your commies seize power
Next thing you'll argue that communists should keep the Aristocrats around, as Farming Collective Organizers???
This is what the commies do to capitalists, clergy and aristocrats:
Being capitalist and aristocrat has nothing to do with who you are, but what you do. Johan even directly said it. You are aristocrat because you deal with a lot of land and not because you were born with blue blood (Thomas Jefferson).
In game aristocrats don't have any special "power" that can't be taken from them. They just boost RGO production. So keeping them as Kolkhoz or Sovkhoz managers IS good solution. Unless of course you want to re-work all the starting system and give that power to clerks or bureaucrats.
The same goes for cappies. Take away their ability to found new factories and you have high-level bureaucrats. Again, you can do change, but is the work necessary justified?
Not necessarily. It's outside this time frame, but Czechoslovakia in early 90's did very fast privatization of the vast majority of state-owned companies. It was essentially divided among all people based on their demand. Transition phase is not unavoidable.
I think they should add a expansion were capitalist and aristocrats change their names in communism , because I guess it would hurt the immersion for veryone who wants a communist country I.e
Let´s see what we´ve here in the USSR the capitalist do their capitalist jobs the aristocracy does their job. It could give a hard blow to people that plays a communist country
Let´s see what we´ve here in the USSR the capitalist do their capitalist jobs the aristocracy does their job. It could give a hard blow to people that plays a communist country
We could go all gay and utilitarian and call clergy 'educators', aristocracy 'landholders' and capis 'managers'.
I don´t have problems with the current names and yes I like them, but as I said it could break immersion
Anyway the capis to managers is something I really dislike Capitalist is a good name for industrials and businessman IMO
19th century without clergy, aristocracy and CAPITALISTS?? Great, what about calling this game "Generic British Queen 2" when we're at it?
After all she's been corronated in 1838, so there is no guarantee, that she would rule in a game starting 1836
Just tryin' to find a graceful workaround for the above-mentioned 'silk hatted capitalists and canting priests in Stalin's Russia' problem.
Sorry, but that is the most retarded proposal concerning communism in a game OF ALL TIME
A communist economy does not need capitalists, because 1. the state owns all the means of production and reaps all the profits, not some hereditary group pf people 2. game-wise it is the player who builds factories, not the capi pops. and 3. communist societies do not have hereditary factory-managers as a distinct social class. It makes zero sense to have them as a POP. What role are they supposed to play?? Factory managers who become more militant than other POPs? Why should they, they don't own any of the factories, they're just functionaries paid a salary by the state. :wacko:
And Kolhoz managers. Wow. You need to explain to me how having more managers makes a Kolhoz more productive... I thought farms needed primarily tractors and fertilizers, not managers
But wait, I'm so stupid... dealing with a lot of land... improving output... that's it, aristocrats are supposed to be tractors, too!!! :rofl:
Leviathan07: In communist system "Capitalists" wouldn't be hereditary class, unless you consider all other POP types hereditary as well. They don't build factories nor own them, but they do important role of decreasing inputs factories need, something clerks don't do.
This is also badly off topic, so this shall be my last message concerning this issue.
This is also badly off topic, so this shall be my last message concerning this issue.
Well alright but still, what would be the point of having them in?? It's not like factory managers and kolhoz directors made much of an impact on the history of communism. I can't think of a useful event or game effect that has factory managers or kolhoz directors as its scope. :wacko: