About ''communist'' and ''dictatorship'' governments

[Ryan]

So, I don't want to talk about the ideological aspect or give my position, only saying something logical.
Every communist (or declared communist if you prefer so) government in history was a dictatorship, but in elite, there are communist systems with more than one party, ruling factions that appear as ''democracts'' (not talking about the name of the faction, but the description) or else.
That doesn't apply only to communist systems (the one party thing), consider a ''dictatorship'' system, every dictatorship (Nazism and Fascism for example) in history had one party state, in ''dictatorship'' systems there are more than one party, and those parties that are not in power exist officially, not only that but they are integrated on the system of stations, making possible to rebel agains't the ruling faction. You guys can argue that there can still be stations/bases/planets that belongs of other factions, but the major part of the system is claimed by the dictatorship faction, yeah that can happen, but even so, in the systems where all the the stations/bases/planets are claimed by only the dictatorship faction, there are still other political parties acting officially.
I don't know what devs can do to make it more realistic but that's not enough immersive to me (yeah, i'm ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥).

[MasterManiac]

I would not give much credence to this game in this particular regard. The devs are ridiculous enough to infer that the only place where personal firearms are legal are dictatorships and communist enclaves, which is so hilariously backwards that it's actually a little sad.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by MasterManiac:

I would not give much credence to this game in this particular regard. The devs are ridiculous enough to infer that the only place where personal firearms are legal are dictatorships and communist enclaves, which is so hilariously backwards that it's actually a little sad.

Seriously? I didn't notice that lmao. Yeah, I mean, those aspects are very wrong both logically and historically, but I think that probably the devs have better stuff to work on haha.

[MasterManiac]

Yeah, it doesn't really matter. I mean, it's stupid almost to the point of being offensive, but it's all very secondary compared to the big picture. I don't care what the devs' (obviously very confused) politics are, so long as we get atmo planets and walkable ship interiors at some point.

[John Titor]

Going by definitions, communism is not exclusively bound to dictatorships. While a dictatorship is run by one person or entity, it does not preclude the existence of other parties in the system, only their governing power.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by John Titor:

Going by definitions, communism is not exclusively bound to dictatorships. While a dictatorship is run by one person or entity, it does not preclude the existence of other parties in the system, only their governing power.

You're right, but the thing is not about definitions, as communism works in a different way in practice.

Also, most, if not all dictatorships were ruled by only one party, you're right, it does not preclude the existence of other parties, however, the existence of other parties is inviable for a dictatorship, it decentralizes the power and makes things harder to control. The parties could be of the same ideology in a dictatorship (althought it's very unlikely and dumb), but in-game, there are parties of opposite ideologies, existing even if the dictatorship faction has full control of the system.

Edit: So, even if you consider a scenario where there are more than one party in a dictatorship, the ideologies and objectives of those are different compared to the ruling faction.

[Agony_Aunt]

The game does conflate the terms a little between economic types and government types.

However, you appear to be misunderstanding what is going on in the systems. You think because there are other factions in a system that it somehow invalidates the communist parties because they are usually dictatorships.

In ED, all factions can be pushed out by other factions, either by election or war. In the case of a different faction type coming in, its usually a war. An election will only occur if its a similar faction type coming in, usually communist. So in that case its like the people saying "The existing communist party is rubbish, let's get another communist party in" - aka, the people have spoken.

If you look at the mechanics as well, we don't see an actual vote. What we actually see is a battle for influence.

Imagine it being an election not being fought via ballot boxes but by the media, by behind the scenes shennanigans, by protest marches caused by hardships due to the economic warfare going on.

There are so many types of government FD needed some catchall term to describe what was happening when two like governments compete for control of a system. The word they chose was election.

Another area where you are wrong is that you can absoloute have a democratic communist party. It exists in Russia. There is a communist party that (in thoery, if not likely in practice) could win the election and becoming the ruling power. After 4 years they would have elections to see if they get voted in again.

Yes, they could try passing laws and reworking the constitution to remove elections and make it a non-democratic system (doesn't have to be a dictatorship though, they could do a different system, eg a monarchy for example) but that would have to go through the courts. The same could be said for any party then. In the UK the Conservatives could try and do the same.... they wouldn't likely get away with it unless things went really strange, but its technically possible.

[John Titor]

Originally posted by Ryค็็็็็n:

Originally posted by John Titor:

Going by definitions, communism is not exclusively bound to dictatorships. While a dictatorship is run by one person or entity, it does not preclude the existence of other parties in the system, only their governing power.

You're right, but the thing is not about definitions, as communism works in a different way in practice.

Also, most, if not all dictatorships were ruled by only one party, you're right, it does not preclude the existence of other parties, however, the existence of other parties is inviable for a dictatorship, it decentralizes the power and makes things harder to control. The parties could be of the same ideology in a dictatorship (althought it's very unlikely and dumb), but in-game, there are parties of opposite ideologies, existing even if the dictatorship faction has full control of the system.

Edit: So, even if you consider a scenario where there are more than one party in a dictatorship, the ideologies and objectives of those are different compared to the ruling faction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

"Single-party dictatorships are regimes in which one party dominates politics. In single-party dictatorships, a single party has access to political posts and control over policy. Other parties may legally exist, compete in elections, and even hold legislative seats, yet true political power lies with the dominant party. "

Edit: I can already predict the response to this, to which I would reply: you're talking about a game where faster-than-light travel is possible. This is more about definitions than historical precedence. If your "immersions" aren't being ruined by the manifestion of an unproven (and probably unlikely) hypothetical concept, then the idea of a communist and a capitalist and a Nazi all living and operating under the same roof shouldn't either. It's inconsistent...with Weyl tensor dynamics.

[Hobo Misanthropus]

I hate to defend Communism, because it's vile and should have at least as much hate thrown at it as Fascism and other Totalitarian regimes BUT....


I think we're going off the Star Trek Utopia rule. The thing is, Socialism/Communism is inevitable unless humans go extinct, Capitalism will eventually create so much wealth, scarcity will end (Automation and AI are two critical technologies on this path, along with effective renewable energy which still eludes us). Elite has basically reached this point, like the Star Trek universe.

Having said that, Communism has failed every time it was tried, has resulted in the deaths of more humans than any other ideology, and if "Good" Socialists/Communists really wanted to usher in the Utopia, they'd be better off getting a PhD and work on perfecting the technologies needed to end scarcity, not trying to redistribute the wealth of those who have built and earned it.

[Agony_Aunt]

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

I hate to defend Communism, because it's vile

Wait. What? Why is communism vile? In principle it sounds very good. The problem is the implementation fails, and not because of dictatorship, you can get a dictatorship from a varirty of politcal idealogies.

The problem with communism is that it can't work for humans. It can work for ants or other hive species. Humans are too self-centered.

Look at the definition.

a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Especially the last party. "According to their ability and needs." and of course, humans being humans evaluate their abilities higher than they really are and their needs as well. And those who are higher up the political chain are in a position to grab more and more for themselves (as in any system) but they can then use the system itself to claim their abilities and needs are greater.

Then there are other mistakes that are made as well. Because when everyone gets their reward based on ability and needs rather than actual work output, then there is little motivation to contribute. My wife told me stories from soviet times of people who would go to work and do very little, because they got paid (or not) regardless of how much they worked.

The Soviet 5 year plan (which isn't actually necessary for communism) was also a problematic. Tricky to evaluate things so far in the future, and it was compounded by bad management (ie: Stalin) where nobody wanted to give him bad news. So everyone from the highest levels to the lowest were all reporting things being better than they were to avoid his wrath.

Not a problem with communism per se, a problem with the implementation.

I see no reason to consider communism vile. Its a nice idealistic theory. It just doesn't work.

[Hobo Misanthropus]

Originally posted by Agony_Aunt:

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

I hate to defend Communism, because it's vile

Wait. What? Why is communism vile? In principle it sounds very good. The problem is the implementation fails, and not because of dictatorship, you can get a dictatorship from a varirty of politcal idealogies.

Because in the definition of Communism in Marxist terms, it requires Socialism, which is a long road of bodies and bloodshed, without exception, as you have to sieze private property, and the only way to sieze private property is with violence or threat of violence.

The Philosophical underpinnings of Communism aren't inherently vile, but the utopia inspires no shortage of lunatics who think they're the one that can push it. If/when Communism does happen, it will be in SPITE of the communists/socialists, and it will happen, somewhat ironically, because Capitalism reached an apex of productivity that scarcity no longer exists. Whether this is a net gain for society is even questionable though, as most "Normies" have little life beyond the endless pursuit of resources, with their one purpose stripped, what will 98% of the population do?

[Agony_Aunt]

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

Originally posted by Agony_Aunt:

Wait. What? Why is communism vile? In principle it sounds very good. The problem is the implementation fails, and not because of dictatorship, you can get a dictatorship from a varirty of politcal idealogies.

Because in the definition of Communism in Marxist terms, it requires Socialism, which is a long road of bodies and bloodshed, without exception, as you have to sieze private property, and the only way to sieze private property is with violence or threat of violence.

The Philosophical underpinnings of Communism aren't inherently vile, but the utopia inspires no shortage of lunatics who think they're the one that can push it. If/when Communism does happen, it will be in SPITE of the communists/socialists, and it will happen, somewhat ironically, because Capitalism reached an apex of productivity that scarcity no longer exists. Whether this is a net gain for society is even questionable though, as most "Normies" have little life beyond the endless pursuit of resources, with their one purpose stripped, what will 98% of the population do?

Soclialism requires bodies and blooshed?

What is this? Blood and sould for Arioch?

Socialism does not require that. It may be how its achieved, but if you look at history there are times when other economic or political change has required bloodshed.

The americal civil war, the english civil war, the french revolution, and so on. You could say by the same token that democracy requires bloodyshed.

And this brings us nicely back to ED, when there is a chance of change of government between two different government types, the result is often war (aka bloodshed), whereas between the same or similar idealogies its an election (no bloodshed).

Cool, glad we were able to circle back to ED in some way :D

[the smoking mค็็็็็n]

most of our democracies are really socialism, communism is just a form of socialism also, it is only the americans who still try to kid themselves, or destroy themselves..whatever
the chinese are taking democracy and wroughting something rather sinster with thier brand of socialism atm, it is the capatolism in our democracies that everybody luvs to wrought with, very profitable they are all realising

as for ED, well it is all set up very differently in an imagined game world scenario, so that is why things are as they are, they need to be in order for the game to work

[fnberger]

To reduce confusion here, please note that ED is a game and thus needs to simplify the complicated reality by a lot. In meatspace, think of factions not as political partys, but influence (or interest or lobby) groups, wrestling for power by both violent and non-violent means. And note that all those groups like to appear different from what they really are. Examples: the sovjet union claimed to be communist (brought down by a somewhat democratic change), but really was a brutal dictatorship, while the USA claims to be democratic while being under corporate rule. There's really few nation states on meatspace earth running a real democracy, by the way. Mostly in scandinavia/northern europe, and temporarily in some remote places, before some superpower or regional power would step in and destroy the rule of the people. The political system in ED BGS (minor factions) is quite accurate for a game. More accurate than Fox News, the Daily Mirror or Bild, by the way, but that's another story.

[Paranoia]

anything that isnt a democracy needs to be purged.

Space Murrica
Spreading freedom whether you want it or not.

[ExtremelyMift69]

The game is over a thousand years in the future, maybe these various ideologies have learned by then that the only way to be effectual is within the democratic process. Fly safe Cmdr & long live democracy. o7