Liking the rest but really? Communism being good at raising living standards of all things? Well or excessively funded welfare programs in highly capitalist nations are one thing but how does straight up communism improve lives in anything but the short term before the money and assets seized by the new regime dry up?
Once again Communism continues to work in civ games far better than any real life example.
Liking the rest but really? Communism being good at raising living standards of all things? Well or excessively funded welfare programs in highly capitalist nations are one thing but how does straight up communism improve lives in anything but the short term before the money and assets seized by the new regime dry up?
Once again Communism continues to work in civ games far better than any real life example.
American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)
ajph.aphapublications.org
There exists statistical and observational support for the idea that when equalized for starting conditions, socialist states over the course of the 20th century saw greater improvement in a great number of metrics for standard of living compared to capitalist states, lagging behind instead in improvements to metrics such as gross GDP.
Much of the problem is instead that capitalists states tended to be either the beneficiaries of colonialism or that countries that had communist revolutions began in much worse conditions. When comparing countries in similar geographic locations and histories, socialist states were slow in improving the absolute best conditions available but median and mean QOL improved much more. Comparing say, the USA and USSR is less useful as a comparison because the USSR in 1917 was in a far worse state compared to the USA in 1917, being that the USA in 1917 was a major industrial power while the Russian Empire in 1917 was a barely functional feudal power with near nonexistent industry and a largely peasant population.
Liking the rest but really? Communism being good at raising living standards of all things? Well or excessively funded welfare programs in highly capitalist nations are one thing but how does straight up communism improve lives in anything but the short term before the money and assets seized by the new regime dry up?
Once again Communism continues to work in civ games far better than any real life example.
There is a difference between the political goals of communism and the manner in which said political goals are pursued.
Command economies of various stripes have never performed particularly well on the large scale, but that does not mean that things like 'the minimum wage is a living wage', 'you can be certain of a roof over your head', 'you will not starve to death' and 'if you require medical attention you will have it' cannot be done well and sustainably without blowing up an economy.
There is a difference between the political goals of communism and the manner in which said political goals are pursued.
Command economies of various stripes have never performed particularly well on the large scale, but that does not mean that things like 'the minimum wage is a living wage', 'you can be certain of a roof over your head', 'you will not starve to death' and 'if you require medical attention you will have it' cannot be done well and sustainably without blowing up an economy.
Command economies are like highly centralized systems of government they're only successful in the short term before the long term issues and effects of corruption really kick in.
That said Civ games or games with Civ elements kinda rely on both to function. I have no idea what a game in that genre that doesn't give the player both would even look like.
@Drasizard "Communism is really good at raising the standard of living of the poor" is literally the one thing that IRL communist countries can unequivocally boast about. We can maybe argue about political freedoms, killing landlords, economic efficiency and long-term sustainability. But the actual numbers do show that "tear everything down to house the homeless and clothe the destitute" does in fact let you house the homeless and clothe the destitute. IRL countries which called themselves communist have in fact manage to provide basic standard of living increases to huge masses of extremely poor third world populations (some, like Cuba, even manage it while under embargo). Sure, maybe you won't have all the brands and variety that the USA has, and maybe the middle class and upper class will be poorer than they would otherwise have been, but you will in fact manage to achieve those basic standard of living goals for the poor. And if you implement this in a country with a ton of poor people (like every IRL communist takeover) then congratulations, you have significantly improved the living standards of most of the country.
I will admit that many capitalists say "if they had stayed capitalists they would have been even richer!". Whatever. The problem isn't that capitalism is unable to produce enough resources to achieve basic standard of living guarantee, it's that capitalism doesn't actually want to freely distribute these resources to those in need. It's not that capitalism can't provide such a guarantee, it's that it doesn't decide to provide it. And it can't make that decision, because "private property" and "economic rights" and blablabla. It's an ideological difference between capitalism and communism, not a difference in productive capability or whatever.
Even when a communist country is poorer and less productive than a capitalist one, it can still provide a basic standard of living for all that capitalists don't, because of the ideological and structural differences between communist and capitalist countries.
Capitalists will say "feeding the poor isn't worth living under a communist political system", and that's a political choice - but it doesn't negate the fact that communist dictatorships do in fact manage to improve living conditions for the needy.
This does lead to some funny mask-off moments when anti-communists accidentally say that universal literacy is a communist plot, or that communists are too obsessed with stupid things like ending hunger, etc.
As you may have guessed, I wrote all this while trying to be charitable and accept capitalist argumentation.
@Drasizard "Communism is really good at raising the standard of living of the poor" is literally the one thing that IRL communist countries can unequivocally boast about. We can maybe argue about political freedoms, killing landlords, economic efficiency and long-term sustainability. But the actual numbers do show that "tear everything down to house the homeless and clothe the destitute" does in fact let you house the homeless and clothe the destitute. IRL countries which called themselves communist have in fact manage to provide basic standard of living increases to huge masses of extremely poor third world populations (some, like Cuba, even manage it while under embargo). Sure, maybe you won't have all the brands and variety that the USA has, and maybe the middle class and upper class will be poorer than they would otherwise have been, but you will in fact manage to achieve those basic standard of living goals for the poor. And if you implement this in a country with a ton of poor people (like every IRL communist takeover) then congratulations, you have significantly improved the living standards of most of the country.
I will admit that many capitalists say "if they had stayed capitalists they would have been even richer!". Whatever. The problem isn't that capitalism is unable to produce enough resources to achieve basic standard of living guarantee, it's that capitalism doesn't actually want to freely distribute these resources to those in need. It's not that capitalism can't provide such a guarantee, it's that it doesn't decide to provide it. And it can't make that decision, because "private property" and "economic rights" and blablabla. It's an ideological difference between capitalism and communism, not a difference in productive capability or whatever.
Even when a communist country is poorer and less productive than a capitalist one, it can still provide a basic standard of living for all that capitalists don't, because of the ideological and structural differences between communist and capitalist countries.
Capitalists will say "feeding the poor isn't worth living under a communist political system", and that's a political choice - but it doesn't negate the fact that communist dictatorships do in fact manage to improve living conditions for the needy.
This does lead to some funny mask-off moments when anti-communists accidentally say that universal literacy is a communist plot, or that communists are too obsessed with stupid things like ending hunger, etc.
As you may have guessed, I wrote all this while trying to be charitable and accept capitalist argumentation.
I have a simple issue with Communism. Pretty much everybody who supports it in the US isn't actually from a Communist country. I have never met a Cuban American who immigrated here from there who supported it.
That tells me all I need to know.
Sure, you can argue that it wasn't real Communism, but I don't think real Communusm is compatible with anything larger than a city-state. It works fine on the hippie commune level, but the inherent meddlesome tendencies of government will screw it up more as you expand.
Basically, it'll work okay if you implement it in just Hawaii, for instance, but crash and burn if you try it for the whole US.
Also, the fact that every time it's tried it devolves into the Soviet Union or China doesn't speak well of the system.
Let me put it this way. You have a machine that has a 1% of making you eternally young and immortal with an off-switch only you can access, and a 99% chance of killing you horribly. Do you use it?
I have a simple issue with Communism. Pretty much everybody who supports it in the US isn't actually from a Communist country. I have never met a Cuban American who immigrated here from there who supported it.
That tells me all I need to know.
Sure, you can argue that it wasn't real Communism, but I don't think real Communusm is compatible with anything larger than a city-state. It works fine on the hippie commune level, but the inherent meddlesome tendencies of government will screw it up more as you expand.
Basically, it'll work okay if you implement it in just Hawaii, for instance, but crash and burn if you try it for the whole US.
Also, the fact that every time it's tried it devolves into the Soviet Union or China doesn't speak well of the system.
Let me put it this way. You have a machine that has a 1% of making you eternally young and immortal with an off-switch only you can access, and a 99% chance of killing you horribly. Do you use it?
Does this have anything to do with the assertion that "communism raises living standards"?
If it does, please clarify your point. If not, please don't try to drag me into a capitalism vs communism argument. We already have another thread for that.
@Drasizard "Communism is really good at raising the standard of living of the poor" is literally the one thing that IRL communist countries can unequivocally boast about
Venezuelan's so poor their best source of income is gold farming in MMO's for 5ish dollars a day.
Cuban's living in towns that look like they've been bombed out because all the maintenance goes to the shiny tourist district.
"Communism is really good raising the standard of living of the poor"... well, you know, as long as you take their propaganda at face value, never double check anything they say and ignore the massive death tolls of the poor.
At least the Arab Gulf states are largely trying to diversify and most of them have had some measure of success. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government was literally coasting on oil prices rising, they didn't even manage to be making more oil or even trying to diversify.
At least the Arab Gulf states are largely trying to diversify and most of them have had some measure of success. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government was literally coasting on oil prices rising, they didn't even manage to be making more oil or even trying to diversify.
I have a simple issue with Communism. Pretty much everybody who supports it in the US isn't actually from a Communist country. I have never met a Cuban American who immigrated here from there who supported it.
....that the people who like it don't leave? Like I don't have any particular skin in this tbh but I'm not sure what that says one way or another lol. "People who permanently leave country are not fond of country they left" is not a surprise in any circumstance, y'know? Nobody leaves somewhere cuz they loved living there too much
I think the fact that people needed to immediately conflate socialism with communism says something, not sure what, but the fact that people keep doing that bothers me.
Liking the rest but really? Communism being good at raising living standards of all things? Well or excessively funded welfare programs in highly capitalist nations are one thing but how does straight up communism improve lives in anything but the short term before the money and assets seized by the new regime dry up?
Once again Communism continues to work in civ games far better than any real life example.
Hey, I understand your concern, and if you or anyone else has possible tweaks to how the communist ai strategy should work I'm all ears. I'm probably one of if not the most free-market friendly member of the mod team, so if you have good ideas I'd be happy to advocate for them.
After all, these are country priorities before the Valkyries really take off and take over so there should be significant downsides.
However, I would like to point out a few things that might alleviate your complaint.
1) The mention of being isolated isn't a throwaway comment. If you recall from Tayta's previous post, the funding from countries is planned to be more dynamic and depend in part on having trade with other countries. That right there is an economic hit, albeit to the faction that controls the country instead of the country itself, if it's more isolated because it went communist. Hmm, perhaps we could find some way to divert funding from neutral control points into a country's spending priorities. In the base game that money just vanishes into thin air (I think), which is a touch unrealistic.
2) Terra Invicta has basically two levers to indicate standard of living. GDP per capita and inequality. GDP per capita is mechanically connected to total GDP and there are other AI strategies that focus on boosting GDP. Which means the communist AI strategy will likely focus on reducing inequality, which means a focus on the welfare priority and not a focus on the economy priority. That means those countries will have lower GDP and possibly lower GDP per capita, because that depends on total population and...
2.5) The formula for population growth in vanilla includes a parameter that increases population growth with higher GDP per capita. It's probably intended to model things like increasing lifespan and reduced infant mortality because of greater wealth, but that's not the only way it could be interpreted. I think a lack of self-induced famines would fit that parameter too. And that parameter means the communist country would have a lower buff on its population growth.
Very good sir, would you like your Valkyrie councilors to be Tsunderes or Yanderes? Or perhaps something else? We have some other classes you can choose from for a discerning customer such as yourself.
Very good sir, would you like your Valkyrie councilors to be Tsunderes or Yanderes? Or perhaps something else? We have some other classes you can choose from for a discerning customer such as yourself.
Very good sir, would you like your Valkyrie councilors to be Tsunderes or Yanderes? Or perhaps something else? We have some other classes you can choose from for a discerning customer such as yourself.
Hmm, I'll take one of each category, but lets take extra deredere there to keep things nice. I'll have my personal assistant/bodyguard to be a yandere, but low level. Nemona, not Yuno Gasai. And the tsundere must be easy to adorably embarrass, not violent.
Hmm, I'll take one of each category, but lets take extra deredere there to keep things nice. I'll have my personal assistant/bodyguard to be a yandere, but low level. Nemona, not Yuno Gasai. And the tsundere must be easy to adorably embarrass, not violent.
