I wouldn't call Confucianism collectivistic. More along the lines of legalistic, as in hierarchy and laws defines one's place in society, but perhaps such distinctions are lost at the scale the game is played at.
- 1
Ethos Bonus - Selection
- Thread starter shadowrook
- 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.
I wouldn't call Confucianism collectivistic. More along the lines of legalistic, as in hierarchy and laws defines one's place in society, but perhaps such distinctions are lost at the scale the game is played at.
Well there is your problem. You're adding adjectives that aren't inherently part of the ethos.
- 3
- 1
I don't see how a collectivistic society shouldn't be also egalitarian. If the needs of the group are placed above that of the individual, is surely more efficient directing all the wealth into the advancement of industry, science and army, leaving little room for the differences in personal income that makes for inequality. Also, a hierarchy in a collectivistic society is just about anyone doing what he does best, so it's not artificially unequal. Slavery can't be collectivistic because amounts to placing people outside of the group and having them doing something just because they are owned by someone else, not because they are better at being slaves than the next guy.
- 3
Not necessarily. A fascist society is an example of an stratified collectivist society, one that emphasizes the goals of The Nation(TM) over any individual's goals. Egalitarian communism is just the most common "flavor" of collectivism, but not the only one.
- 3
In your point of view.
In another slaves are convicts who are repaying they're debt to society, or social deviants who would benefit from a lesson in humility and need help learning their place in society. Nothing says someone born a slave needs to die a slave. It could also be a form of indentured service, where someone earns a higher status for their children. Caste based systems would also qualify as collectivism, as each individual accepts their place in society and works in a predetermined field, for the betterment of the whole.
- 3
Legalism was directly opposed to Confucianism in Chinese history, though.
In other words, that would mean everyone is slaves. Seems very Russian.
You're conflating collectivism with meritocracy, which isn't really an accurate thing to do. A perfectly efficient collectivist society would distribute everyone to the role for which they were most suited. Likewise, a perfectly efficient individualistic society would distribute everyone to the role in which they are most satisfied. However, no society is perfectly efficient, and if everyone is just in a structureless chaos, they in fact become very inefficient, thus social structure is needed.
I'd also like to remind you that slaves in Stellaris don't necessarily have owners, other than the state.
- 1
Just think about it: a slave is not someone who works really hard for no pay. People could do that out of fear, patriotism or even pleasure. A slave is defined by the fact that he is owned by someone, and because of being property he is forced by the law to do his owner's bidding. If in a collectivistic society people are motivated by the good of the whole race, there is simply no need to force them into slavery, they'll find in useful work their very reward. A case could be made for non-collectivistic pops in a collectivistic society, being "re-educated", but it doesn't really seems as strong as to define the entire ethos.
- 2
You're right, but their main point of opposition was, IIRC, human nature and the balance of power and virtue, not hierarchy and laws in themselves. So Confucianism can be considered legalistic in the western sense of the word (as in, opposed to libertarian or anarchic). Legalism isn't the most accurate translation.
As far as saying that every ant is a slave of the colony, even the queen. But if everyone is a slave there are no owners, so no real slavery.
Yep, I was saying just that, "the role for which they were most suited".
What, then, would you call a real-world collectivist society, if it can't be found in China?
This is true, by your definition of slavery only. Your definition doesn't seem to match the game's, though.
I know what you said. Do you know what I said? Because the two do not, in fact, align.
Difficult to say, as I don't think humans (and mammalians, apart from naked mole rats) have the potential to form collectivistic societies. They would need more efficient forms of communication, as a start, less of a sex drive and so on...
Yep, I just don't think the game's one is very convincing. It's worth nothing that the Merriam Webster defines slavery as "the state of being owned by another person".
I don't see a difference between "the role for which they were most suited" and "doing what he does best", TBH.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
Say Bogdanov and Mikoyan will each work 50% harder if you give them a 50% pay increase.
Bogdanov is a skilled mechanic, and works in the tractor factory, doing what he does best.
Mikoyan is a skilled shipwright, and works in the shipyard, doing what he does best.
The State Planning Directorate determines that, in order to fill the directives of the Five Year Plan, Mother Russia needs new tractors. Its current fleet of boats are adequate for the demands to be placed on them.
Since you need more tractors and you don't need more boats, it is right and proper that Bogdanov be paid 50% more than Mikoyan, for the greater good.
And there you have it. Ez-pz collectivist inegalitarian inequality.
Just to be clear, a collectivist ethos means that the culture has collectivist values, not that they're a perfect hivemind. Perhaps this misunderstanding is the rood of your other mistakes.
Paradox uses a lot of words slightly wrong. Such is the cost of having a game not made by native English-speakers. That said, the term "slave" can also be used more loosely to refer to anyone whose will is subjugated.
Also, you still haven't really made any solid argument that hierarchy is opposed to collectivism, only that it's opposed to egalitarianism which is both obvious and irrelevant.
Are you intentionally missing the point, or did you decide to not read past the second sentence?
But even than, do you think that the defining characteristic of a collectivistic society is... slavery? This is a very narrow view of the idea (vertical collectivism), and pretty far from the common interpretation of the thing in philosophy and political science.
Well, I haven't made it because I don't think collectivism is opposed to hierarchy, far from it! I think it is opposed to any form of arbitrary hierarchy, like someone being a slave because he was purchased by someone else. Please note that i'm talking in anthropomorphic terms, as one could say that the workers in a insectoid society are factually very similar to slaves: but that would not be arbitrary, because they are born to fulfill that role and lack the capacity to be something else, while no human in really good at being a slave.
Sorry, perhaps I missed the point, then.
Why? If Bogdanov is motivated to work not by money, but by the good of the state, it doesn't make sense to pay him more as an incentive to work: he is expected to do that regardless. He would be better cared for, yes, but when boats become needed the care would shift to his buddy. You're talking about planned economy, but that is not necessarly collectivistic.
Last edited:
No. In that much, I agree with you. But it does seem reasonable that members of a collectivist society are more likely to accept being dealt a worse hand for the good of the nation, which is pretty clearly what that's meant to represent.
Being purchased may be arbitrary, but the conditions and reasons that a person is put up for sale generally are not. The only cases where it's purely capitalistic tend to be individualistic slavery cases (e.g. indentured servitude contracts) and are both historically unusual and not reflective of entire pops being enslaved, thus not relevant here. Also, keep in mind that the idea that all people are equal is not inherent to collectivism and in fact is a foundational necessity for its antithesis (individualism). An insect born for the slavery is not really distinct, conceptually, from the idea of a person born for slavery. Peasants and serfs have been considered fundamentally different from nobility in many systems of feudalism, and castes are an idea that arose among humans too. Not to mention concepts of inferior or superior race, as those are only really relevant in a xenophobic situation.
Your idea for how a collectivist society should work is only possible if we assume perfect efficiency. Real life (and video games which attempt to emulate it) do not have perfect efficiency. Therefore, social structure is necessary. I agreed with you on what the goal of that structure in a collectivist society would be. My point is that, regardless of what kind of structure is employed (communism has been a popular one in recent centuries) there will be inefficiencies and imperfections whereby the collectivist goal is not achieved. This does not mean that the ethos – the guiding philosophical principle – is not still collectivist.
This is all well and good, but Bogdanov in this situation is a slave. A slave of his own volition, perhaps, for he is a collectivist (and thus his slave acceptance is high; Paradox's mechanic fits the situation) but a slave nonetheless.
I think you guys may be overthinking this. From what we've seen so far, I think the Collectivist/Individualist axis is representing a "For the good of society"/"For the good of the individual" divide. This is why the collectivist pops accept their own slavery easier.
What you guys seem to be arguing about is more of a Egalitarian/Hierarchical divide, which would make a nice additional axis if they add one.
What you guys seem to be arguing about is more of a Egalitarian/Hierarchical divide, which would make a nice additional axis if they add one.
- 1
Not exactly; Atreides is arguing that the egalitarian/hierarchical divide is inherently implied by collectivist/individualist (with collectivist being the egalitarian side, for some reason) and I'm arguing that it's not.
The conspiracy theory that collectivist and individualist are actually hierarchical(ist?) and egalitarian that Paradox mislabeled for no conceivable reason is pretty amusing. Sometimes a cigar labeled cigar in a box of cigars being sold in a cigar store by the tobacconist who personally grew the questioned cigar is just a cigar.
- 2
indeed, think communism vs. hiveminds.
Insects live in castes, granted they might not be intelligent enough, but they usually have one single most important member in their whole society it is the only one not replacable. That's what I depict a collectivist society that enslaves it's own pops like. also some of those insects enslave other insects, so they could be collectivist xenophob militarist for example.
A communist society could be collectivist, materialist, xenophile. At least that is how I depict a communist society, putting the advancement of their society for the good of all it's members before the individual. It doesn't exactly depict the stereotype communist society of earth, but that isn't communism but rather socialism anyway, so that is that imo. My take on communism is more like the Federation in Star Trek.
If I actually wanted to play the federation I'd start with a xenophile, pacifist, materialist race of course, but I do think the federation has a communist society.
- 1
Oops, that's kind of what I'm saying.
Collectivist/Individualist doesn't need to imply anything about Egalitarian/Hierarchical. To use some real-world ideologies, Fascism is collectivist and hierarchical, and communism is collectivist and egalitarian. They are both all about the good of the society over the individual, but their position on the individual is massively different. At least in theory. I'm not intending to get into an argument about the failings of these ideologies, just trying to make clear the difference.
I think we are going in circles at this point, so I'll stop here.
Collectivist/Individualist doesn't need to imply anything about Egalitarian/Hierarchical. To use some real-world ideologies, Fascism is collectivist and hierarchical, and communism is collectivist and egalitarian. They are both all about the good of the society over the individual, but their position on the individual is massively different. At least in theory. I'm not intending to get into an argument about the failings of these ideologies, just trying to make clear the difference.
I think we are going in circles at this point, so I'll stop here.
- 2