Collectivist vs. Individualist actually Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian

[Elderotter]

ok, I have been reading this forum and am somewhat confused. I was planning on trying a Religious Crusading type of ethos. I thought Spiritualist(Fanatic) with Collectivism would be the proper way. Fanatic on the Religion and collectivist so that everyone is pulling for the same goal, kind of like a cult(won't use an example for fear of offending). Do you all think this would be the right ethos selection for a Culture that is intent on spreading their religion to the Stars, where all within the empire would be good members of that religion? And what would be a good Government - thinking an Oligarchy. Asking for input here. Thanks.

 

[Ramidel]

I would think that a Fanatically Individualist Plutocratic Oligarchy makes a fair amount of sense, personally. But that gets into the question of whether Individualism requires positive rights or just negative rights - Mikhail Bakunin and Ayn Rand can both be seen as advocating for Fanatical Individualism, but their definitions of individual rights are as different as night and day.

Given this, Hierarchical versus Egalitarian may be a much better name. Power flowing from the top down, or from the bottom up.

 

[Yenzen]

I would think that a Fanatically Individualist Plutocratic Oligarchy makes a fair amount of sense, personally. But that gets into the question of whether Individualism requires positive rights or just negative rights - Mikhail Bakunin and Ayn Rand can both be seen as advocating for Fanatical Individualism, but their definitions of individual rights are as different as night and day.

I think the sense the devs used is that individualism means that the people, in general, demand for individual agency. An oligarchy would not function, if the idea of a small group controlling society was completely alien (hehe) to the people. For the same reason, fanatical collectivists, representing authoritarianism (as an in game term) would mean that an oligarchy wouldn't be centralized enough.

 

[Yenzen]

ok, I have been reading this forum and am somewhat confused. I was planning on trying a Religious Crusading type of ethos. I thought Spiritualist(Fanatic) with Collectivism would be the proper way. Fanatic on the Religion and collectivist so that everyone is pulling for the same goal, kind of like a cult(won't use an example for fear of offending). Do you all think this would be the right ethos selection for a Culture that is intent on spreading their religion to the Stars, where all within the empire would be good members of that religion? And what would be a good Government - thinking an Oligarchy. Asking for input here. Thanks.

Xenophilia may work better then collectivism, if you primarily want the religion to spread and don't mind xeno leaders. A theocratic oligarchy probably works well, because it has modifiers against the population changing their ethos as they spread out.

 

[Ramidel]

ok, I have been reading this forum and am somewhat confused. I was planning on trying a Religious Crusading type of ethos. I thought Spiritualist(Fanatic) with Collectivism would be the proper way. Fanatic on the Religion and collectivist so that everyone is pulling for the same goal, kind of like a cult(won't use an example for fear of offending). Do you all think this would be the right ethos selection for a Culture that is intent on spreading their religion to the Stars, where all within the empire would be good members of that religion? And what would be a good Government - thinking an Oligarchy. Asking for input here. Thanks.

The way I'm planning to do it is Collectivist/Spiritualist/Militarist with Divine Mandate. Spreading the True Faith across the stars by crusade, and controlling ethics divergence with an occasional purge.

(War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Faith is science.)

 

[Elderotter]

The way I'm planning to do it is Collectivist/Spiritualist/Militarist with Divine Mandate. Spreading the True Faith across the stars by crusade, and controlling ethics divergence with an occasional purge.

(War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Faith is science.)

yes, I can see how that works. I guess spreading it out is better than just 2 choices. Thanks and very interesting. As far as the other comment - I am not sure about xenophiles - they don't necessarily have to love aliens to want them as part of the Grand Religion they are spreading. Interesting ideas though. Give me things to consider while I wait impatiently for this game to launch.

 

[TheDungen]

I think the sense the devs used is that individualism means that the people, in general, demand for individual agency. An oligarchy would not function, if the idea of a small group controlling society was completely alien (hehe) to the people. For the same reason, fanatical collectivists, representing authoritarianism (as an in game term) would mean that an oligarchy wouldn't be centralized enough.

Except if you just removed all laws the outcome would very quickly be an oligarchy. You don't even need to remove all laws, just be liberal enough, just look at the US before the anti trust laws were passed.

 

[Yenzen]

Except if you just removed all laws the outcome would very quickly be an oligarchy. You don't even need to remove all laws, just be liberal enough, just look at the US before the anti trust laws were passed.

Yeah, but this in part due to apathy of the population. In a democracy, the responsibility of the failings of the democracy, going as far as to the dissolution of the democracy itself, falls upon the people inside it. In a sense, perhaps fanatical individualism of some states may fade to simple individualism or nothing at all, become more permissive to an oligarchy in a Stellaris sense.

 

[TheDungen]

Yeah, but this in part due to apathy of the population. In a democracy, the responsibility of the failings of the democracy, going as far as to the dissolution of the democracy itself, falls upon the people inside it. In a sense, perhaps fanatical individualism of some states may fade to simple individualism or nothing at all, become more permissive to an oligarchy in a Stellaris sense.

Well in an abosolutly liberal society there would be no democracy since there would be no government for the people to rule over.

 

[Yenzen]

Well in an abosolutly liberal society there would be no democracy since there would be no government for the people to rule over.

In an absolutely perfect society of any kind, government wouldn't be necessary.

 

[BrokenSky]

In an absolutely perfect society of any kind, government wouldn't be necessary.

What? No way what about a perfect dictatorship? (I.e. by an omniscient, benevolent, AI or god of some kind - depending on whether it's traditional fantasy or future fantasy)

 

[TheDungen]

In an absolutely perfect society of any kind, government wouldn't be necessary.

Perfect is a highly subjective term. If you use it as an absolute the way you did you will end up with a paradox (pun not intended).

 

[Ramidel]

Yeah, but this in part due to apathy of the population.

In an Ayn Rand state, it would be a necessary consequence of the ideology - the state is restricted to the public defense, and has no authority to intervene in the market or break up big businesses, allowing for easy capture of the state by the elite through capture of all other services (such as the media). You of course can say what you want or vote for whoever you want, but nobody has to give you a platform for your views (so if Comcast doesn't like Tumblr, they can block it from all Comcast users, and of course Comcast will be the only Internet company around) - and your landlord is certainly free to evict you and your boss to fire you for your political beliefs, so you'd better vote for the guy your boss wants you to vote for. That's freedom (and fanatical individualism)!

 

[Yenzen]

Perfect is a highly subjective term.

Indeed.

 

[TheDungen]

In an Ayn Rand state, it would be a necessary consequence of the ideology - the state is restricted to the public defense, and has no authority to intervene in the market or break up big businesses, allowing for easy capture of the state by the elite through capture of all other services (such as the media). You of course can say what you want or vote for whoever you want, but nobody has to give you a platform for your views (so if Comcast doesn't like Tumblr, they can block it from all Comcast users, and of course Comcast will be the only Internet company around) - and your landlord is certainly free to evict you and your boss to fire you for your political beliefs, so you'd better vote for the guy your boss wants you to vote for. That's freedom (and fanatical individualism)!

Not to mention that if you're thinking of unionizing remember your boss can just hire some guys to "talk it over with you".

 

[BrokenSky]

Perfect is a highly subjective term.

Nah it just means finished. So when everyone is dead...

 

[ringhloth]

But egalitarian doesn't necessarily mean that someone isn't willing to work for the common good. Collectivist is being able to accept that, though it might not be the best route for you, you should do that work anyway. It isn't necessarily a particular form of communism (working towards the common good as defined by the government) but could also include some forms of libertarians (working towards the common good as defined by economic and free market forces). Slavery is also not just chattel slavery, but also debt slavery, forced labor, and other forms of enforced dependency.

 

[vyshan]

The conflict of Collectivism vs. Individualism (as I see it) then goes something like this:

-Collectivist societies believe that individuals exist primarily to serve groups (community, family, country, religion, race), and that individuals are primarily defined by the groups that they belong in.

-Individualist societies believe that groups exist primarily to serve individuals (country defending citizens, family raising children), and that groups are ultimately collections of individuals that could theoretically be disolved (a country is made up of private citizens, a family can be split apart).

This is how I personally see the divide between Collectivism and Individualism.

 

[BrokenSky]

Out of interest, If I were to mod the game so that Collective/Individual got split into that plus Hierarchical/Egalitarian, how do you think the point system could work with 5 ethics bars instead of 4?

4 points but limit 1 fanaticism?

 

[Zavaleta]

Out of interest, If I were to mod the game so that Collective/Individual got split into that plus Hierarchical/Egalitarian, how do you think the point system could work with 5 ethics bars instead of 4?

4 points but limit 1 fanaticism?

Maybe make hierarchical versus egalitarian an "independent" slider (social structure or something), whose point can't be shared with the other matrix?

It is a good point that the current four rows/three points model is mathematically elegant.