They are however strong institutions outside the government, and such fit better in egalitarian than authoritarian governments. (At least under Stellaris definitions.)
Why is the Corporate Dominion civic bound to egalitarian?
- Thread starter Cat_Fuzz
- 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 don't think your interpretation of "Stellaris definitions" is accurate. Egalitarianism is not synonymous with libertarianism. Getting away from that confusion was a big part of redefining individualism to egalitarianism. (According to Wiz).
.png){kind=avatar}
Libertarian would have been a better pick than Egalitarian by a mile. Even then, large corporations tend to exist in most societies once they are advanced enough. The few where they don't usually have an "egalitarian" approach i.e everyone owns everything on paper.
Except, they don't. They are very much bound by the laws and customs of the country and the government tends to have a certain degree of control over them aswell as being able to curtail what they can do. Which is why it depends more on the country itself than the government whether they flourish or how far reaching their influence is.
Once again, Western countries tend to be more "Liberal" than for example China. Yet many corporations prefer China's approach, how quick things can be done because the government simply gets to decree such things without input from wider society etc.
And they in turn have a profound influence on government.
I agree that corporations are very much entangled in the state.
Plutocratic Oligarchy/Mega Corporation could run with the non-fanatic version of either, so the requirements are pretty odd if it means that.
But I think it's different - rather it's that your society has a lot of prosperous corporations in it, which would make it more of an Egalitarian thing. The Civic description might help clear things up there!
And there are other civics out there that can make the Oligarchy/Corporation work a lot better, on that Authoritarian side, where everything is run by some corporate monopoly, after all!
But I think it's different - rather it's that your society has a lot of prosperous corporations in it, which would make it more of an Egalitarian thing. The Civic description might help clear things up there!
And there are other civics out there that can make the Oligarchy/Corporation work a lot better, on that Authoritarian side, where everything is run by some corporate monopoly, after all!
I'm not sure how anyone could claim a corporation or capitalism in general could exist in an egalitarian and definitely not fanatically egalitarian society.
A society that is built on equal rights and opportunities can't have richer and poorer people,
rich - more rights and opportunities (better schools/universities/health care/housing/location)
poor - less rights and opportunities (worse schools/universities/health care/housing/location)
Unless someone can tell me an example of somewhere that a rich man has no more sway in society than a hobo or a hobos kids?
Corporations and capitalism in general is the pursuit of wealth and with it more power in society.
Unless again someone can tell me an example of a corporation having no more power in society than the average man?
So with that all said... It isn't compatible in a fundamental way.
Also a society such as Sweden with a social net to help the poor does not make them egalitarian as they still do not have equal rights or opportunities.
A society that is built on equal rights and opportunities can't have richer and poorer people,
rich - more rights and opportunities (better schools/universities/health care/housing/location)
poor - less rights and opportunities (worse schools/universities/health care/housing/location)
Unless someone can tell me an example of somewhere that a rich man has no more sway in society than a hobo or a hobos kids?
Corporations and capitalism in general is the pursuit of wealth and with it more power in society.
Unless again someone can tell me an example of a corporation having no more power in society than the average man?
So with that all said... It isn't compatible in a fundamental way.
Also a society such as Sweden with a social net to help the poor does not make them egalitarian as they still do not have equal rights or opportunities.
I suppose egalitarianism is a goal and principle (and rights has a higher emphasis than opportunities) not an implementation. So they aim for it, and it's a valid argument in political discourse and culturally, but the reality is money how modern societies work and so there will always be richer people and poorer people.
Sweden is more liberal/socialist if anything. People for some reason love to use the word Egalitarian, it is if anything the completely wrong one being used here. Libertarian should have been used instead.
Ethos limits the choice of government only, but doesn't actually make any declarative statements about government. Ethos, in Stellaris, speaks to cultures, societies and the philosophy of the individuals in that society. It's why our populations become "Authoritarian" but your government becomes an "Autocracy."
And Authoritarian speaks to a culture that believes in hierachial rule, and orderly, stratified societies. An authoritarian society would have corporations, sure, but upward advancement in such a corporation would be limited by other factors. Whether it be birth caste, land ownership, or the grade you got on some bizarre YA novel's aptitude test written to tap into the insecurities of 15 year olds just now realizing they actually can't be anything they want when they grow up. And if your entire country's government were a form of corporation, so long as you're Authoritarian, it's a corporation managed and worked in primarily by people who believe in a heirachial rule and orderly stratified societies.
Which I'm fine taking to mean autocratic corporations lose that killer instinct and business efficiency that would otherwise reward them a 10% bonus to energy production. Play a Corporate Autocracy, you'll be better at exploiting your production level workers, you'll get to pay them less and work them 20% harder. You'll even be able to pressure them into getting neural implants that force them to work even harder and complain less. You'll have to pay your executives more, which kinda sucks, and your marketers will have a harder time turning those minerals into a profit. But I'm sure you'll be fine.
However, the entire concept of "upward advancement" is an authoritarian principle. It sets some people above others in a hierarchical structure.
I agree with this but to BE an egalitarian society would require it to be implemented (at least by a significant degree). By this I mean so other races can go "Oh yeah they're egalitarian" not "Oh yeah they're on the path to being more equal". In the same sense you would expect militarists to BE militarist not becoming it or xenophobes to be xenophobes.
I would say the entire concept of upward "position" was intrinsic to authoritarian and places people in that hierarchical structure. Upward "advancement" is taking that hierarchical structure and jumping your rung to break into the tier above you. That is not authoritarian in principle.
In fact, I would go on to argue that "upward advancement" is what separates the Authoritarian from the Egalitarian. Corporations of both philosophy would still have presidents, ceo's, coo's, and cfo's. An Egalitarian society would believe it was every man's right to climb as high as possible in that corporate hierarchy, and to jump to a different hierarchy if necessary. An Authoritarian society wouldn't.
I'm gonna disagree with that. While a system such as you describe might be less authoritarian than one where the hierarchy is fixed in place, it still is a hierarchical structure - just one where your place is based on "how good you are at climbing the ladder" instead of "who your father was".
A egalitarian "corporation" would be something akin to a workers syndicate.
Egalitarianism is relative, it's like the left and the right in America, to us Brits they all look like they're right wing (or possibly center), but from an American perspective Democrats are left and Republicans are right. The same in stellaris, governments are simply more or less egalitarian in their rhetoric, culture and laws (a bunch of which isn't represented in game mechanics and is mostly flavor to us) than others.
Also, remember that a government can hold and espouse ideals without fully implementing them. America is the land of the free, beacon of democracy, etc, etc, even if a bunch of Americans I know are worried about government surveillance impugning on their freedoms. Implementation and rhetoric (or being "famous" for) are two different things.
Except no in the game they're not relative. Xenophobes have a static number against aliens on the same planet as them and a static number making it harder to do diplomacy... They're not kind of xenophobic, they're not just a little bit more xenophobic. There is no relativism in stellaris except from being fanatic or general towards an ethos if there was then the Human race would be 'neutral' and every other races ethos would be their difference relatively to the humans... It's not.
A Fanatic Egalitarian society would still have a hierarchy.
If you play a Fanatic Egalitarian empire, you still have a ruler and scientists and generals/admirals.
Instead of being appointed or inheriting their position, political officials are voted into their positions.
Leadership has to exist, period. There will always be some sort of command structure. The difference is in the rights afforded to each man/reptile/cephalopod etc.
Whether Citizens of a society are treated the same under the law or not.
If you play a Fanatic Egalitarian empire, you still have a ruler and scientists and generals/admirals.
Instead of being appointed or inheriting their position, political officials are voted into their positions.
Leadership has to exist, period. There will always be some sort of command structure. The difference is in the rights afforded to each man/reptile/cephalopod etc.
Whether Citizens of a society are treated the same under the law or not.
Well you're wrong. I only mean in the context of this game of course. Obviously I make no judgement about what political beliefs you may hold. But in the context of this game, you're so unbelievably wrong that I'm honestly surprised this is actually being debated on the forums for this game. The most egalitarian you can make your government is to have it be one of a flavor of democracy where a hierarchical structure is still observed, that is the concession made to the most ardent of egalitarians. Or to put it plainly, fanatic egalitarians still have leaders. And this isn't just a compromise to make them playable, effort was put into the formation of these governments so that how their leaders were selected was a component of their being. Maybe if you wait long enough anarcho-capitalism, or some sort of super individualism will become a thing in Stellaris, it will serve as a counter-point to Hive Minds and we'll get a government type that trades the leader mechanic for some sort of flat, or even randomized bonus.
Now, you seem to be operating under the impression that by showing something to have a form of authority, you can prove it's authoritarian and thus the opposite of egalitarian. But if you are to place to the idea on a continuum of egalitarian to authoritarian, we have to place the dividing point between Egalitarian and Authoritarian on the continuum that the game universe actually uses. And for that I refer you to your own post. Within the range of experiences that this game offers, a meritocratic hierarchy is as egalitarian as it gets.
But from what I can tell your premise is bad. Egalitarian and Authoritarianism, as presented in the game, aren't opposites, they're simply incompatible. It's an understandable bad premise, an axis line will do that to anybody, and it may even be defensible within the structure of the game, but it's not true to the definitions provided by the developers.
So, with that I requote the game's definition of Egalitarian again.
Nothing about individual rights or a level playing field is actually contradictory of the idea of a hierarchical structure. Particularly when we make it a merit based hierarchy where progression is earned, and not granted. A level playing field doesn't promise equal results, and individual rights don't promise that you'll never have a boss. The first just promises that you'll have an equal opportunity to achieve those results, the second that you'll be able to tell that boss where to shove it and walk out. The closest the game's Egalitarians come to your definition of egalitarian is a dislike of slavery and elitism, but within the game's own framework that really just means that the Egalitarians would like slavery banned and for everyone to be allowed to vote on who leads them in their respective hierarchical structures.
And continuing on this topic of Paradox's definitions, it's not hierarchy that determines Authoriarianism.
It's hierarchical rule, that is the creation of a hierarchy within government, specifically we see in their preference for autocracies, a hierarchy that separates political power and responsibility from the masses. And that's just the first part, they also prefer an orderly, stratified society. That's a society not mixed up by things like social advancement or blurred lines between social classes.
Last edited:
Except they are. An egalitarian government is more egalitarian than a neutral (on that axis) one.
That's it.
Also, why would the human race be neutral? I didn't say "Relative to humanity" I said that it's relative. An egalitarian government isn't the egalitarian ideal, neither is a fanatic egalitarian, it's just more egalitarian than a neutral one and less than a fanatic egalitarian one. That's what I mean by relative.
At risk of causing controversy, a sort of veneer of egalitarian ethos is a necessary element of maintainting the sort of corporate capitalist authority that "Corporate Dominion" implies.
As the Z man puts it, up to about the 4:40 mark, where he kind of trails off into a different topic as is his style.
Last edited:
Ave Maria, the amount of Communist heresy in this thread is making me sick
I'm going to have to go back to CK2 and kill some Saracens... hold on I'll be right back
Deus Vult
Okay I'm back, the holy anger in me has been sated for now
What I think the problem is is that people are associating Egalitarianism with Modern Liberalism.
Which is very easy to do when you look at the description for it.
When one thinks of such an ethic one may think of the Liberal, 'Well We'll MAKE you equal'
Which I'm certain this doesn't imply.
I'm going to have to go back to CK2 and kill some Saracens... hold on I'll be right back
Deus Vult
Okay I'm back, the holy anger in me has been sated for now
What I think the problem is is that people are associating Egalitarianism with Modern Liberalism.
Which is very easy to do when you look at the description for it.
When one thinks of such an ethic one may think of the Liberal, 'Well We'll MAKE you equal'
Which I'm certain this doesn't imply.
Last edited: