Collectivism increases chance of 'Social Welfare Programs' edict tech?
- Thread starter Red Rook
- 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.
- Status
Considering it further, perhaps 'Elitism' would be the most accurate term for what is currently 'Collectivism'. Authoritarianism does not necessarily claim to put the interests of the state over the interests of the invididual even though that is generally the result.
Elitism could be used to represent the many ways in which 'Collectivism' in Stellaris refers to a small section of society putting their own needs ahead of the rest of it. 'Elitist' pops would accept slavery because they genuinely believe themselves to be inferior beings to their rulers.
The difficulty would then be that the opposite term to Elitism is Populism, which in real life refers to demagogues in a similar way to how Collectivism is implied to be used in Stellaris.
We could use Populism to mean something other than what it means in real life, but is that any more acceptable than how Collectivism is being used in the game at the moment?
Elitism could be used to represent the many ways in which 'Collectivism' in Stellaris refers to a small section of society putting their own needs ahead of the rest of it. 'Elitist' pops would accept slavery because they genuinely believe themselves to be inferior beings to their rulers.
The difficulty would then be that the opposite term to Elitism is Populism, which in real life refers to demagogues in a similar way to how Collectivism is implied to be used in Stellaris.
We could use Populism to mean something other than what it means in real life, but is that any more acceptable than how Collectivism is being used in the game at the moment?
- 4
- 2
The moral objection to slavery is more about the xenophobic xenophile ethos's than
PS, On second thoughts I think what others have said is good advise, we are looking at it in order to, too closely mirror human conditions. The ant example was a good one. They don't care that they don't have individual power, they just for what is good for the colony itself and would be more open to things that "we" might consider immoral (aka slavery) or that someone or something would consider opposite of individual rights.
Elitism wouldn't apply to collectivism as it is described. It would explain a tolerance to slavery but that's about it. Collectivism as is described is less open to elitism than individualism. Collectivism as described is about how we are all part of the greater good. Now if that applies to slaves, is another question. Are you a spiritualist or a materialist? Are you a xenophobe or a xenophile? If your a materialistic, xenophobic collectivist than I would think it would lend itself well to the acceptance of slaves, if you weren't I think the effects would be counterbalanced.
PS, On second thoughts I think what others have said is good advise, we are looking at it in order to, too closely mirror human conditions. The ant example was a good one. They don't care that they don't have individual power, they just for what is good for the colony itself and would be more open to things that "we" might consider immoral (aka slavery) or that someone or something would consider opposite of individual rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3
People seem to have a pretty narrow view of what "Collectivism" means in this context. A hivemind of alien bugs would be Fanatically Collectivist by Stellaris reckoning. They would also treat individuals as disposable and replaceable cogs in the machine of the state. Somehow I have a hard time thinking that an entity that believes "Who cares if billions of worker drones exhaust themselves to death with menial healthcare, non-existent wages, and barely any food? Just breed more, FOR THE HIVE!" would "naturally favor" social welfare.
- 3
- 1
Because your not considering what is good for the hive. Good conditions are good for the hive. High sustainable population is good for the hive. There are many studies that in highly skilled jobs, happier people are more productive people. Now disregard this is a space faring civilization and just consider the hive. Is it beneficial for them to starve their populace? Most probably not in the vast majority of situations but there might be extreme examples and they'd probably accept something like a limit on reproduction far more readily than someone who claims it's an affront to every individual in the hive rather than look at the big picture.
- 7
well said too many people get left/right mixed up with their own personal morality and views on right and wrong
You can also just look at the existing extreme political ideologies in western civilization today.
Libertarian: Fanatic Individualist. Very opposed to social programs. The most common explanation for the opposition to social programs is that they interfere with individual merit. They almost never accept that collective effort is beneficial except on the smallest possible scale. They'll play a team sport but refuse to acknowledge that government can do anything competently for instance.
Social Justice/Identity Politics: Fanatic Collectivist. Support the most extreme forms of social programs. Racial and gender quotas for positions of power being the most common example. They are literally unable to attribute individual agency. To them everybody who fills certain gender and racial profiles automatically have certain traits and are collectively responsible for certain societal problems.
Note: If you found either of my descriptions of the above ideologies offensive; Turn off the ideological lens for a bit and realize that this is what you look like from the outside.
Libertarian: Fanatic Individualist. Very opposed to social programs. The most common explanation for the opposition to social programs is that they interfere with individual merit. They almost never accept that collective effort is beneficial except on the smallest possible scale. They'll play a team sport but refuse to acknowledge that government can do anything competently for instance.
Social Justice/Identity Politics: Fanatic Collectivist. Support the most extreme forms of social programs. Racial and gender quotas for positions of power being the most common example. They are literally unable to attribute individual agency. To them everybody who fills certain gender and racial profiles automatically have certain traits and are collectively responsible for certain societal problems.
Note: If you found either of my descriptions of the above ideologies offensive; Turn off the ideological lens for a bit and realize that this is what you look like from the outside.
- 10
- 3
- 1
Collectivism as it is described in game does not correlate with collectivism as it is described by Wiz. The former refers to the good of the collective while the latter refers to the good of the state. The state does not necessarily acts in the interest of the collective, even if it claims to. So we either have to take the definition described in-game, or the definition proposed by Wiz. I prefer the latter because it is more consistent with disallowing democracy. There is no reason why a hive style ideology should necessarily oppose democracy. In fact the closest we have to a hive mind in game is the advanced version of direct democracy, subconscious consensus. And yet it is locked to Collectivist ideologies.
- 2
- 1
"I'm totally correct and impartial here. You nerds need to see that both sides are equally stupid and come around to my line of thinking, which is to remind you, unbiased. Clearly everyone to the left or right of me is mistaken
PS: I hate nuance"
no
- 5
- 1
I'd argue no real-world government system is "Fanatic anything" by Stellaris standards. Since in game that seems to imply a civilization that is obsessed with a certain ethic to to the exclusion of almost anything else to an absurd degree. "Fanatic Collectivists" are not IRL socialists, they are the Borg where individuals do not exist and the collective is all there is, "Fanatic Militarists" are not groups like ISIL who are very violent but also have a host of other projects and motives but the old Mandalorians from the Star Wars EU who essentially worship war to the point they start galaxy spanning crusades for no cause that "We wanna fight Jedi", "Fanatic Xenophobes" are not the Nazis (though I'd rate them very far along the normal Xenophobe trait) But the Daleks or the Imperium of Man whose burning hatred for everything different leads them to burn entire worlds. That's how much gravitas I think "Fanatic X" ethos should hold
Almost everything in reality on 21st century Earth is far more nuanced, maybe hardcore Jains are Fanatic Pacifists but that's about it.
- 2
If you look at the edict itself, it's apparently not favoured by any particular ethos. So I think this might just be a case where including multiple rewards with one tech has a slightly odd outcome.
Agreed, but I think there are tendencies that the game isn't that far out for suggesting. That is a collective mentality or ethos would be more inclined towards some but (I agree) definitely not necessarily opposed to other certain government forms.
The Nazi Reich was a dictatorship that promoted intense nationalism, ethnic cleansing, a doctrine of racial superiority, and appealed to resentment over lost glory.
It is very solidly right-wing.
- 5
- 4
In your opinion, probably because you equate the Right with evil.
So anything you deem evil must be from the right.
- 6
- 1
Hate to say it because I claimed, that it appeared to me, as though collectivism vs individualism was comparable to left vs right in this context. The problem is so many people have different definitions of what left vs right means and almost no one who is arguing about it is attempting to define it. For example you seem to be saying that a revanchist racist nation is right wing whilst that is not my understanding of it. I won't try to define the way I use the words as I'm pretty sure I'll get in an argument I don't want to and I'm far from confident it is the prevailing definition. Too many people have too many different connotations with the term for it to have any meaning in this conversation. If I had to guess about why it has such diverging understandings it would be because too many people like to oversimplify and brand someone as left or right rather than make a solid argument as to why they are wrong. Whatever the case may be I think the people trying to say that left vs right isn't appropriate in the discussion were correct and I was wrong for suggesting otherwise.
- 2
No. Most right-wingers are very nice. Literally my entire family is right-wingers. My best friends are a fundamentalist christian and a Trump-supporting Sikh. Also, left-wingers are equally capable of doing evil things.
But if you support segregation, nationalism, racial superiority etc you are supporting social stratification, which is what the right-wing advocates for or allows. The Nazis were particularly extreme in this regard, as they actively attempted to exterminate undesirable minorities.
This does not translate to all right-wingers being evil.
- 4
- 2
- 1
I would could do a Liberalism vs Neo-Liberalism comparison on this games individualism vs collectivism.
Maybe replace it with egalitarianism vs elitism?
Maybe replace it with egalitarianism vs elitism?
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I am also in favor of renaming the two to something more appropriate such as Authoritarianism versus Libertarianism. Collectivism and Individualism seem so out of place because the forms of government they provide don't make sense. In fact, if you look at hive insects you see that there is no hierarchy whatsoever. There is no one calling the shots. But still every members knows their (non-hierarchical) place in their society and how much they are worth. If it benefits the whole, they will sacrifice themselves. That's why the queen doesn't come out to defend the hive but the older workers who were going to die soon anyway do (and soldier ants if the hive has those). On the other side you have individualism, which when taken to its extreme, means there is no society at all, just individuals. The fanatic individualism text even mentions this. This ethos should realistically give massive debuffs to the player, who is the government, because you have so little power.
On the other hand, an authoritarian government doesn't have to be evil, unless you think authoritarianism is evil in itself of course. What they do have, however, is the ability to ignore the direct wishes of the people below them. They could potentially be working for the good of the whole much more efficiently, or they could become decedent and abuse their power. Thus, a social welfare program is well within their capabilities and them having a monarchy or dictatorship is not so weird. In a libertarian society you'd see a democracy of sorts with a government of limited power because the freedom of each individual is praised. It'd be harder to get something like a social welfare program to happen because your people can actually protest against you efficiently, but overall they will be happier and less likely to revolt against you.
tl;dr Extreme collectivism/individualism means no government at all, rename it to something else
On the other hand, an authoritarian government doesn't have to be evil, unless you think authoritarianism is evil in itself of course. What they do have, however, is the ability to ignore the direct wishes of the people below them. They could potentially be working for the good of the whole much more efficiently, or they could become decedent and abuse their power. Thus, a social welfare program is well within their capabilities and them having a monarchy or dictatorship is not so weird. In a libertarian society you'd see a democracy of sorts with a government of limited power because the freedom of each individual is praised. It'd be harder to get something like a social welfare program to happen because your people can actually protest against you efficiently, but overall they will be happier and less likely to revolt against you.
tl;dr Extreme collectivism/individualism means no government at all, rename it to something else
- 1
- 1
- 1
I really think they should have called it authoritarianism vs liberalism/liberterianism/whatever because the way they use the terms is divorced enough from the common parlance as to just cause unnecessary confusion.
- 4
- 1
- Status