Fundamental change from capitalism to communism

[unmerged(117416)]

I've always thought this area of Victoria has been murky; socialism is a stage prior to communism, both of which are varying degrees of state capitalism.

Besides the fact the notion that socialism is a transition to communism is a bit esoteric, there isn't actual worker control offered, just slightly different shades of the same thing. Obviously, this would be difficult to implement but not out of the realms of possibility.

I don't really want to get into a semantics dispute, but would it be possible to fundamentally redesign the options of socialism and communism with more precise state capitalism and direct democracy positions, and offer something actually revolutionary in the game?

 

[Mrdie]

I'm pretty sure Socialism is meant to represent something akin to Social-Democracy, and Communism meant to represent something akin to Leninism with its vanguard party and class dictatorship of the proletariat. I don't really see how you can change things.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

... would it be possible to fundamentally redesign the options of socialism and communism with more precise state capitalism and direct democracy positions, and offer something actually revolutionary in the game?

What do you mean? They have state capitalism, etc... as their options for their parties. Furthermore, socialism is supposed to represent social-democracy, and if you get a communist party in power you become a Proletarian Dictatorship.

I'm not really sure what else you are asking for? I have a feeling whatever it is could only get changed by editting the executable file, which VIP doesn't want to do - VIP is aimed to work on unedited executables.

 

[unmerged(34416)]

Socialism is not a prelude to communism.

State capitalism gives an enormous range of control to the player while liberals or conservatives typically have market economy with some or no control over what's built, expanded etc.

The first socialist parties available are far different to the market based economies that are available through "normal" parties, but they change to market based socialism within a decade or two, generally.

 

[unmerged(117416)]

Mrdie is on the money; the socialism and communism options give you either a social democracy or a Bolshevik state capitalist rule. There is no actual communist option in the game. But if VIP isn't planning on changing the mechanics of the game through the executable, this is probably the wrong place to ask.

Halk, my point is, whether it is a free market or a planned economy, it is still capitalism. There is no system selectable that lets you abolish capital.

 

[Mrdie]

I suppose it'd be similar to having Anarchism in the game. Then it'd be like "Communism has won! The government is no more! The proletariat has cast off its chains! Yaaaaay!" *Game ends*

 

[Searry]

I've always found it stupid, that many Monarchist(Reactionary parties) have State Capitalism. The game lacks the moderate economic policy between interventionism and State Capitalism. This would be much more better for Socialist and Monarchist parties. If the guys who have the source code, could mod this, the game would be near perfect.

 

[unmerged(48056)]

I like it as it is... There was a Civil War in the first ''Communist'' country in the world. Likewise in game, I saw a massive civil war in France which practically depopulated the entire country (what a fate to be reduced to a minor ) and sent most of the French packing for Canada and the United States.


Hard to imagine that a peaceful Communist revolution could be attained... Especially seeing as it is a militant takeover and everyone who owns more than a single acre of farmland (or has finished elementary :rofl is an enemy of the state.

 

[Raph]

I've always thought this area of Victoria has been murky; socialism is a stage prior to communism, both of which are varying degrees of state capitalism.

Besides the fact the notion that socialism is a transition to communism is a bit esoteric, there isn't actual worker control offered, just slightly different shades of the same thing. Obviously, this would be difficult to implement but not out of the realms of possibility.

I don't really want to get into a semantics dispute, but would it be possible to fundamentally redesign the options of socialism and communism with more precise state capitalism and direct democracy positions, and offer something actually revolutionary in the game?

I see what you're aiming for, sort of what Revolutions did for capitalism, you'd want to be done for a democratic economy; like having craftsmen/labourers/clerks building factories instead of capitalists. Would be cool, but that'll need a hardcoded change.

 

[unmerged(117416)]

Mrdie is again spot on; except it would be anarchism. He's wrong however that the game would have to end, society wouldn't cease to exist if communism occurred.

What it would mean is the game would have to allow massive change into how things are run and incorporate horizontal decentralisation. As I said before, this is obviously difficult but not impossible. But it would require altering the code.

MTJ, aside from a country being different from a state, there's never been a communist state; that'd be an oxymoron. Communism is both moneyless and stateless, neither of which can occur with a government.

I don't know where you got the peaceful revolution from, worker revolutions have always been violent and the game allows for that: ironically, the rebels always march under the anarchist red and black flag, regardless of what ideology they eventually install. You're wrong in thinking landowners are enemies of the state, communism is about abolishing the state, remember? You're also wrong that communists would have umbrage with it; farmers in Spain during the Civil War were allowed their land aslong as they didn't exploit other workers. Elementary school was obviously enlightening for you.

Raph, workers under direct democracy wouldn't just build the factories but they'd run them also. It doesn't surprise a Bolshevik wouldn't know that.

 

[Mrdie]

I can at least see one justification for having this in the game: the Paris Commune, but this would require huge changes to the .exe that only Paradox programmers or someone with a very thorough knowledge of the source code could produce. Maybe if VIP ever gets permission to edit the source code and then learns how to add something like this, then sure. Don't expect that for a long time though, like... three years or something.

 

[unmerged(42621)]

Come on, what kind of marxist nonsense you expect to be in game? Why not theocracies?

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Why not theocracies?

This would be quite a nice inclusion, particularly for mods. I also think some sort of tribal "constitution" would be good too. This would help reflect better some of the native states.

 

[Raph]

Mrdie is again spot on; except it would be anarchism. He's wrong however that the game would have to end, society wouldn't cease to exist if communism occurred.

What it would mean is the game would have to allow massive change into how things are run and incorporate horizontal decentralisation. As I said before, this is obviously difficult but not impossible. But it would require altering the code.

MTJ, aside from a country being different from a state, there's never been a communist state; that'd be an oxymoron. Communism is both moneyless and stateless, neither of which can occur with a government.

I don't know where you got the peaceful revolution from, worker revolutions have always been violent and the game allows for that: ironically, the rebels always march under the anarchist red and black flag, regardless of what ideology they eventually install. You're wrong in thinking landowners are enemies of the state, communism is about abolishing the state, remember? You're also wrong that communists would have umbrage with it; farmers in Spain during the Civil War were allowed their land aslong as they didn't exploit other workers. Elementary school was obviously enlightening for you.

Raph, workers under direct democracy wouldn't just build the factories but they'd run them also. It doesn't surprise a Bolshevik wouldn't know that.

You're really good at making us lefties look like asses, aren't you? Keep it civil, all right? And yes, I am well aware that a communist society should have worker control in the workplaces, I'm just not really sure what that'd mean in game terms; the democratic planning of the economy would be far easier to model, simply by not allowing either the state or the capitalists to plan the economy (factories, infrastructure and such). Still though, it's hard to see a coded POP as a revolutionary subject with it's own will in the scope of how this game is designed.

 

[Mrdie]

This would be quite a nice inclusion,

I agree. Only clergy would have political power under a reactionary or theocratic party (or no party at all). Perhaps theocracy would be the more extreme version of reactionary and gets semi-phased out in industrialized nations by Fascism when the 20th century hits. It would also stunt cultural tech quite a bit.

Thing is, I can't think of any states in the time-frame except Deseret and the Papal States that could be classified as theocratic, and Deseret had a Republican system of government; only one completely dominated by the Church.

I also think some sort of tribal "constitution" would be good too. This would help reflect better some of the native states.

I don't think there would be much of a difference from absolute monarchies and such that already exist, except for stunted cultural research like my theocracy idea and maybe a higher chance of militancy in unstable times. What would be different politically?

 

[unmerged(117416)]

MTJ was allowed his cheap little digs, so I'm sure mine are grand.

What kind of Marxist nonsense do I expect? Actual Marxist theory. Not state capitalist bollocks under the label communism.

Mrdie, there was many libertarian uprisings during the game's period aside from the Paris Commune; the soviets declared across Munster in Ireland from the late 1910's to the early 1920's, German Revolution of 1918, the anarchist Makhnovists in Ukraine from 1917 to 1921 fighting the Bolsheviks, revolt in Brazil 1918, revolution in response to Bolshevik government across Russia such as Krondstadt, and a host of general strikes across the world, many being more than a request for higher wages. These can all be read about on www.libcom.org

Worker control in game terms would require a gift economy, with factories being built according to the populations' need. This doesn't seem to dissimilar from what the capitalists do in the game, only more focused. Productivity should get a massive surge (it is documented that production efficiency across collectivised Spain increased by a large amount), and the tech tree should grant dividends not available to capitalist states. The main difficulty would come from testing or triggering events like whether the army comes over to the workers' side, or whether revolutions occur in tandem.

 

[Mrdie]

Mrdie, there was many libertarian uprisings during the game's period aside from the Paris Commune; the soviets declared across Munster in Ireland from the late 1910's to the early 1920's, German Revolution of 1918, the anarchist Makhnovists in Ukraine from 1917 to 1921 fighting the Bolsheviks, revolt in Brazil 1918, revolution in response to Bolshevik government across Russia such as Krondstadt, and a host of general strikes across the world, many being more than a request for higher wages. These can all be read about on www.libcom.org

I didn't forget about those, it's just that by that time most players consider the game to be sorta over. (It's post-WWI, which isn't even in VIP yet)

 

[unmerged(131989)]

I don't think there would be much of a difference from absolute monarchies and such that already exist, except for stunted cultural research like my theocracy idea and maybe a higher chance of militancy in unstable times. What would be different politically?

I think research should also be hampered under this system - there was no co-ordination, comparatively.

 

[unmerged(117416)]

All of those are pre WW2, plus that wasn't a comprehensive list.

 

[unmerged(72435)]

I am surprised tehre exists such communists still in the weorld. Having workers build factories should be no, the state or government should build the factories like they alreadu have in Victoria.
But I see you describe more of a governmentless fantasy land, ok but what position would that put you as the player in? The workers will build factories but what would you do that is any different then waiting for capitalists in Laise-Faire?

Its funny that you claim that Collectivization should increase farm production greatly, you point to the increse in production of Spanish collecive farms but remember that they tried collectiving in Russia and production fell so greatly to levels unseen that mass famine ensued. This was in the 30's.
I have never played Russia yet and haven't experienced a comunist takeover in Victoria yet but I think Communism works well enough, even if it is not "true communism". They still had leaders. Liberatarianism is like rebels, they don't contribute to the state, they have their own Black province.

Theocracy would probably be in the Muslim countries but I am unclear also ow this would afffect gameplay, espeically if it hampers research. And research penalty would just ruin uncivs even more.