Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Dwarf Mode Discussion => Topic started by: noodle0117 on July 28, 2010, 10:02:02 am
-
In a communist society, everyone does their job and puts all of their hard work (food/furniture) together before sharing it equally with all members of the society regardless of whether anyone else works or not. It seems to work the same way in DF.
When Hitler was in power, he would execute not only Jews, but also any German he deemed weak and unfit (those in the hospital), as well as a lot of other authorities who would get in the way, all the time claiming that those executions were merely "Accidents". In Dwarf fortress, I've heard of lots of players who would willingly execute their nobles as well as any permanently bedridden dwarves via unfortunate accident.
So coincidence much?
edit: I never mentioned hitler was communist, and everything in the post is merely an interesting thought, not something to be serious over.
-
okay, but Hitler has nothing to do with communism, so....
-
I wrote a post for this earlier and if you delete this thread again I'll smack you.
Also, expect a shitstorm coming your way for comparing Hitler to anything socialist/communist. I also expect a shitstorm coming in my general drection for NOT comparing him to such...etc. etc.
But yes. According to my personal opinion, DF, as it lacks economy, is communist utopia, and somehow it took the insanity from IRL examples of communism (come on, just try and tell me the Soviet Union's leadership was perfectly sane, didn't abuse power, and such.) branded into one, huge, dwarven society. And the Baron and other nobles are bugged too! How nice.
-
Yeah, pretty much a coincidence, and not any kind of political statement.
Basically, this system is easier to program for the time being.
-
Also, expect a shitstorm coming your way for comparing Hitler to anything socialist/communist. I also expect a shitstorm coming in my general drection for NOT comparing him to such...etc. etc.
I would hope that the members of this forum are smart enough to know the difference between Hitler's regime and communism.
-
I'd have said a fortress is a commune, at least until the economy section starts up / is working.
Your statement about Hitler is actually true of a large number of historic world leaders, and considering the 'age' the game is set in it makes sense we do the same. I assume you chose this particular personal for the flame-bait response?
-
Also, expect a shitstorm coming your way for comparing Hitler to anything socialist/communist. I also expect a shitstorm coming in my general drection for NOT comparing him to such...etc. etc.
I would hope that the members of this forum are smart enough to know the difference between Hitler's regime and communism.
indeed, perhaps i spoke too soon and too causticly. The internet learns ya to expect the worst. Dealing with a million idiot dorfs doesn't help either.
-
I'd have said a fortress is a commune, at least until the economy section starts up / is working.
This sounds pretty accurate to me. There's only so many like minded people you can have before some start getting other ideas.
-
I'd have said a fortress is a commune, at least until the economy section starts up / is working.
This sounds pretty accurate to me. There's only so many like minded people you can have before some start getting other ideas.
Like demanding steel goods in a flux-less area, or shell helmets in a desert...
-
I'd have said a fortress is a commune, at least until the economy section starts up / is working.
This sounds pretty accurate to me. There's only so many like minded people you can have before some start getting other ideas.
Of course even once the economy is started it's far more socialist than most countries, free healthcare and education and even if dwarfs/dwarves can't afford a room or lunch they can still get free beds in the barracks and food on credit.
-
Dwarf Fortress is tribal. To some extent tribal societies resemble communist societies, but they are much less complex.
-
Nah, it's pretty much feudal. The dwarves work in exchange for protection and payment in the form of a portion of goods and services produced provided by their lords; when the economy kicks in, it's a little more capitalist but still more or less similar to 14th and 15th century feudal systems.
-
Huh? If anything I'd say it's communist until the nobles and economy come, and then it's feudal. At no point is it ever really capitalist. What competition do you see?
-
Huh? If anything I'd say it's communist until the nobles and economy come, and then it's feudal. At no point is it ever really capitalist. What competition do you see?
There really isn't any, at least not yet. This is mostly because there's no supply and demand in the game to affect production (among other things...in order to be capitalist dwarves would have to be in charge of production themselves, not ordered from above).
-
Did this thread Godwin itself in the OP? :o
-
Did this thread Godwin itself in the OP? :o
Yes, yes it did.
-
Nah, it's pretty much feudal. The dwarves work in exchange for protection and payment in the form of a portion of goods and services produced provided by their lords; when the economy kicks in, it's a little more capitalist but still more or less similar to 14th and 15th century feudal systems.
I disagree. If by "lords" you mean the nobles, the only thing dwarves get from the nobles is Not A Hammering if they follow production orders. You could argue that the player is the lord, since (s)he controls the military and the production orders, but I don't think that's the case at all. If you try to assign a role to the player, (s)he seems more like an ant queen than anything. Think about it: without the player, all dwarves would do is run away from hostile creatures and quickly starve to death, having no way to get more food.
If you consider the player, there really is no conventional government that applies to Dwarf Fortress. Considering the player, I think an ant colony really is the best way to describe it: one single being completely controls the actions of a number of others, who have little to no free will. Of course, that's incredibly simplified from both the concepts of an ant colony and a fort, but the basic principle still applies.
If you take the player directly out of the mix, I think an early fort is a commune and a larger fort is a tribe. The economy is never really capitalist, as stated, and the dwarves do continue to work together on every task.
Off-topic: Does anyone else find it interesting that dwarves are always completely honest about their crimes, to the point where dwarven society doesn't even require crime investigation? I realize that this is because Toady hasn't put in crime investigation and lying yet, but as a concept it's interesting to me.
-
Considering the player, I think an ant colony really is the best way to describe it: one single being completely controls the actions of a number of others, who have little to no free will.
arguably more of a hive-mind since the player is a sentient being as opposed to instincts. Urist McZergling!
-
Urist McZergling cancels rush; getting drink.
-
Did this thread Godwin itself in the OP? :o
Yes, yes it did.
Sigged.
-
Did this thread Godwin itself in the OP? :o
It's efficient, you've got to give it that.
-
The OP watches too much Glenn Beck.
-
Of course even once the economy is started it's far more socialist than most countries, free healthcare and education and even if dwarfs/dwarves can't afford a room or lunch they can still get free beds in the barracks and food on credit.
Free healthcare and education isn't socialist.
Stop listening to Glenn Beck lol.
-
Yea I would say it's somewhat communist. But that doesn't necessarily say much, since we're trying to apply terms used to describe economics systems in the real world with a program that, though amazing as far as simulations go, is still a far, far cry from the workings of a real economy with real people.
And since apparently everyone else is going OT... Hitler was a socialist, just a different variety of socialist from the Soviets.
-
Yea I would say it's somewhat communist. But that doesn't necessarily say much, since we're trying to apply terms used to describe economics systems in the real world with a program that, though amazing as far as simulations go, is still a far, far cry from the workings of a real economy with real people.
Than why are capitalist countries more likely to have free healthcare and education than socialist countries?
Words don't mean what you want them to mean, lol.
-
Buddy, I would like you to substantiate the claim of more capitalist societies having free healthcare than socialist/communist. And I don't mean in sheer numbers (flawed because there are more capitalist countries than socialist) instead in percentage. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Also, in economics alone, a fort is like a commune, but some aspects - nobles, legendaries possibly and the hive mind player do change this.
-
Did this thread Godwin itself in the OP? :o
Yes, yes it did.
Sigged.
awesome
-
Buddy, I would like you to substantiate the claim of more capitalist societies having free healthcare than socialist/communist. And I don't mean in sheer numbers (flawed because there are more capitalist countries than socialist) instead in percentage. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Also, in economics alone, a fort is like a commune, but some aspects - nobles, legendaries possibly and the hive mind player do change this.
Easy, there isn't a communist country with universal healthcare and education lol.
Citizens pay more money for healthcare in China than they do in Europe lol.
It is funny too, because only Americans(who listen to Glenn Beck) think this way. In the rest of the world, healtcare isn't any more socialist than roads, police, firefighters, etc. Which is weird because you don't see people in America calling it socialist that they spend tax dollars to make sure the poor eat properly inspected meat.
-
If there isn't now, I'm wondering about USSR and its various satelite states, or cuba, or anywhere else. Furthermore, I'm english, we have nationalised healthcare, and who the frak is glenn beck. I never assume national healthcare is socialist, I'm hardly stupid.
-
Buddy, I would like you to substantiate the claim of more capitalist societies having free healthcare than socialist/communist. And I don't mean in sheer numbers (flawed because there are more capitalist countries than socialist) instead in percentage. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Also, in economics alone, a fort is like a commune, but some aspects - nobles, legendaries possibly and the hive mind player do change this.
Easy, there isn't a communist country with universal healthcare and education lol.
Citizens pay more money for healthcare in China than they do in Europe lol.
It is funny too, because only Americans(who listen to Glenn Beck) think this way. In the rest of the world, healtcare isn't any more socialist than roads, police, firefighters, etc. Which is weird because you don't see people in America calling it socialist that they spend tax dollars to make sure the poor eat properly inspected meat.
Cuba does, do you have any citations for that claim? Saying all people who listen to Glenn Beck follow him is just stupid, and saying that only Americans listen to Glenn Beck is also stupid. You might not want to say American because that implies people from the continent of America (33 different countries). Please dont use lol after your sentences because it makes you look like a 9 year old. (and even then we have a 9 year old here who doesnt say that after their sentences).
-
Also, substantiate does not mean just say so and thus make me continue to rely on your trust, I'd actually like proof, either a link or even a reference to something. Not to be snarky, but if I just believed your claim, why would I have asked in the first place.
-
Buddy, I would like you to substantiate the claim of more capitalist societies having free healthcare than socialist/communist. And I don't mean in sheer numbers (flawed because there are more capitalist countries than socialist) instead in percentage. I'd be interested in seeing that.
Also, in economics alone, a fort is like a commune, but some aspects - nobles, legendaries possibly and the hive mind player do change this.
Easy, there isn't a communist country with universal healthcare and education lol.
Citizens pay more money for healthcare in China than they do in Europe lol.
It is funny too, because only Americans(who listen to Glenn Beck) think this way. In the rest of the world, healtcare isn't any more socialist than roads, police, firefighters, etc. Which is weird because you don't see people in America calling it socialist that they spend tax dollars to make sure the poor eat properly inspected meat.
Cuba does, do you have any citations for that claim? Saying all people who listen to Glenn Beck follow him is just stupid, and saying that only Americans listen to Glenn Beck is also stupid. You might not want to say American because that implies people from the continent of America (33 different countries). Please dont use lol after your sentences because it makes you look like a 9 year old. (and even then we have a 9 year old here who doesnt say that after their sentences).
please don't do this guys, there are other places to have political discussions. places where half the moderation team isn't the sole developer of my favorite computer game, for example
-
Also, substantiate does not mean just say so and thus make me continue to rely on your trust, I'd actually like proof, either a link or even a reference to something. Not to be snarky, but if I just believed your claim, why would I have asked in the first place.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-3VR6C26-1C&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ea590072f7790868baa962a30d9fdb81
As China becomes more capitalist, the cost of healthcare for is going down.
I can't provide a citation of an college education where you study eastern european countries who revolted against their socialist governments and instituted universal healthcare right after.
I have been all over the world, and I can say that the thought that something paid for by taxes=socialism is a weird one and you don't see it everywhere.
-
Yea I would say it's somewhat communist. But that doesn't necessarily say much, since we're trying to apply terms used to describe economics systems in the real world with a program that, though amazing as far as simulations go, is still a far, far cry from the workings of a real economy with real people.
Than why are capitalist countries more likely to have free healthcare and education than socialist countries?
Words don't mean what you want them to mean, lol.
Oh I mean the game itself is somewhat communist. I wasn't talking about healthcare or education at all.
Editted... I said a lot of other stuff but in the interest of keeping things on topic I'm just not going to go there... Perhaps we can start a thread in the OT forum?
-
But here's my thoughts on healthcare...
"Free" or public healthcare and education (in quotes because they're not actually free, they're just paid for by taxes and inflation of the money supply) exists in countries with predominantly capitalist economies.
You just said it yourself... *head asplode*
-
But here's my thoughts on healthcare...
"Free" or public healthcare and education (in quotes because they're not actually free, they're just paid for by taxes and inflation of the money supply) exists in countries with predominantly capitalist economies.
You just said it yourself... *head asplode*
oh no I didn't delete my OT fast enough, oh well... lol...
Anyway... I did just say that... I never denied it in the first place!
-
I didn't think it was anymore OT than someone comparing a monarchy to communism and hitler lol.
Was King Richard a communist?
-
It's not limited to communism, but don't forget about all the propaganda. All those engravings of the fort's founding, and the leader's rise to power...
-
DF is presently incoherent in the domain of political economy; if you list the defining characteristics of feudalism, capitalism, social democracy, idealized-communism, and really-existing-Communism, DF has a hodgepodge of features from all of them. Even the "economy" is not clear-cut; it introduces a facade of (superficially capitalist) wage labor and commodity exchange, but the money for the wages is not paid by any other individual. The dwarves do not own or exchange means of production as commodities (workshops are built and controlled according to player fiat), but they also don't have workers' councils for the direct collective management thereof.
The closest analogy is corporate: a fortress is a single massive capitalist enterprise, with the player as the capitalist or board of directors, like the "company towns" in coal country in the industrial age, or a modern-day office complex. Workshops and equipment are placed and used wherever and however the company says they should be. A small cadre of privileged managers is groomed to oversee operations and enforce policy decisions, with a shop steward (mayor) elected by the workers to deal with personnel issues. Everything they produce becomes company property, which can be sold to outsiders. Healthcare is paid for by the company insurance plan.
Pre-economy, the dwarves are like salaried employees (paid in-kind) at a start-up who are expected to do whatever tasks are put before them as best they can in a desperate struggle to stay solvent. Post-economy, the company has matured, and it gets tired of them "gaming the system," and so cash incentives for tasks are implemented using company scrip. Prices vary, but based on management's assessment of the situation rather than market conditions. Wages are lower than the value of what's produced, so there's an element of capitalist exploitation, but the profits accrue to the company coffers ("created wealth") rather than any individual dwarf. The company owns all the land, so it builds housing and assigns it or rents it out.
-
I think you hit the nail on the head.
-
It seems more like a monarchy to me. When the fort first starts, everything's communal because survival depends on it. Then a king shows up and coins are minted and everything goes to hell.
-
Well, Shrugging McCommie here sees dwarven society as highly suitable for communist communities. High working morale, low luxury requirements, very flat social hierarchies (if any), egalitarian and progress-oriented culture. Modest standards of living, but a lot of enthusiasm for SCIENCE! Also very accepting of economic control.
An especially large bonus for dwarven commie-ness goes to their ability to build computers. Alright, more like simple calculators at the moment, but who knows? Maybe the dwarves will invent usable computers. With those, a communist society is even allowed to grow to greater numbers, as opposed to the small, almost tribal communities we're used to.
Given sufficient computing power, communist dwarven society can organise its economy with optimal efficiency AND controllability, while simultaneously easing the troubles of population management.
The only question, to me, is this: Can the player truly be an enlightened dictator, and lead the dwarves into a golden age of technology? Or would it be better for the dwarves to remain in their tribal state, unbothered by the hazards of high technology and psychotic overlords?
Well, they'd have to get rid of their nobles in the second case.
Communism, dwarven and real-world, works either in its rudimentary form (which is to say: for prehistoric people), or in an utopian one (which would be in the future, and later rather than soon). Or MAYBE as a parallel social/economic structure, in coexistence with free markets (as opposed to superimposed in hybrid forms such as "social market economy"). And, as all such things do, it requires either enlightened leadership, or some form of non-populist democracy...however that may work.
For dwarves, it's a tough world. Psychotic nobles and a maniac player.
And for real...what would you prefer? A potentially benevolent ruler who can push for progress, but might turn out to be crazy? Or the same eternal stew of corrupt politicians and idiot voters that makes the modern world such a mess? Player or nobles?
...
I'm going to sleep. Feels like I'm brabbling too much.
-
Yeah, I think HebaruSan described how it works most accurately. The ascension of legendary dwarves that no longer have to worry about money is an interesting wrinkle, but maybe these are just trusted workers.
Although mature forts usually have way more goods than the individual dwarves need.
This thread did remind me how I wanted to start a Jacobin fort. All nobles die, of course! And eventually, the king is lured to the fortress and killed. Also, any dwarf with greater than casual allegiance to a deity gets thrown out the floodgates too.
No dwarf shall be free until the last king is thrown into the magma with the last priest!
-
God damn Jacobins, with their god damned guillotine. Proving once again that strong leadership with acceptable goals will eventually defeat weak leadership with desirable goals.
EDIT: I'm talking about Napoleon, of course. And going to bed for real now :<
-
-snip-
CORPORATE
-snip-
That is the best, and most unique, description of the situation I have heard yet. It's also historically accurate for the colonies of the British/French/Spanish empires in the New World, where the goal was to expand influence and turn a profit.
Hm, I wonder if future developments in the Caravan Arc will lead to the Monarchy instituting a Mercantile system, and showing up with an army to punish offenders, with the possibility of revolution or civil war? Because that would be awesome.
-
MAY of already been said but if I am correct, on of Hitlers fundementals was to remove communism.
-
And for real...what would you prefer? A potentially benevolent ruler who can push for progress, but might turn out to be crazy? Or the same eternal stew of corrupt politicians and idiot voters that makes the modern world such a mess? Player or nobles?
One of the first books I had my daughter read was Animal Farm.
It is all the same thing.
-
all dwarves are created equal, some are just more equal than others.
-
all dwarves are created equal, some are just more equal than others.
Bahahaha.
-
Of course even once the economy is started it's far more socialist than most countries, free healthcare and education and even if dwarfs/dwarves can't afford a room or lunch they can still get free beds in the barracks and food on credit.
Free healthcare and education isn't socialist.
Yes it is, it's not privately run but controlled by the state nor do taxes mean people pay proportionally to what they use. This is at the very least nationalism with a tendency towards socialism rather than free-market capitalism.
Stop listening to Glenn Beck lol.
I had no idea who this person was until you mentioned them (and I googled of course), and I have no idea why I would listen to him?
-
Yes it is, it's not privately run but controlled by the state nor do taxes mean people pay proportionally to what they use. This is at the very least nationalism with a tendency towards socialism rather than free-market capitalism.
That is wrong on so many levels.
The state doesn't decide where hospitals should be or how they are run, nor do they own them. All health care means is that the state pays for it. Any regulation isn't control more than meat inspectors make food inspectors socialism.
Roads and bridges are state owned property, and the industry in building them is very controlled by the state. Nor do people pay taxes proportionally to what they use. Fire and police stations are not privately nor do people pay taxes proportionally to what they use.
The fact is, for a properly functioning capitalist society you need certain things done by the government. You need clean air, safe food, solid roads, police to keep you safe, fires need to be put out and prevented, a military to protect you, and people need to be healthy. It isn't socialist, it is common sense.
When the government decides you can't own a widescreen television and instead must use government owned tvs produced by government owned factories you can start to say that might not be capitalist...
-
The fact is, for a properly functioning capitalist society you need certain things done by the government. You need clean air, safe food, solid roads, police to keep you safe, fires need to be put out and prevented, a military to protect you, and people need to be healthy. It isn't socialist, it is common sense.
I agree it's common sense and that a society can not function sensible without it. It is also socialism. All I am say this is against what free-market capitalism suggests, which is why I initially said these things are socialist. The combination of publicly run, state controlled socialist services and a private free-market economy seems to work well for most countries.
-
Every economic simulation game must necessarily be a command economy, because a free market relies on people being intelligent enough to make their own desicions about what's best for them; for that you need a pretty powerful AI.
Also, the game would be boring because you aren't controlling things.
-
Regarding the Nazis: Simplifying greatly, they were not very interested in economic theory. You could say that they went for 'as much control as possible, with as little responsibility as possible' without subscribing to capitalist, communist or liberalist ideologies. They had socialism in their name, but were divided about whether it really belonged there themselves.
They allowed private enterprises, but also made clear that remaining in business was subject to their approval and did whatever they could to suppress political influence of large companies. The government abolished trade unions and took over negotiations on behalf of the employees directly, generally with an eye to increasing productivity. Work times or required qualifications were often increased without a proportional increase in real wages, but employees received soft benefits in job security, work safety, regular breaks, efforts to make working places more appealing and organised leisure programmes.
*
Regarding Dwarf Fortress: We need to keep the scale in mind; the fortresses are still relatively small. Developed capitalist economies only become efficient at a certain size; even its biggest supporters don't usually run their own family as a market economy. The economy kicking in at a few dozen makes perfect sense... the way it works not so much since it's an unholy amalgamation of petty much any concept that has been tried.
-
Hitler failed because he didn't have magma at his disposal
-
Personally, I'd like to have an economic mode switch in the interface. You hit the button, and the dwarves change their behaviour.
...not that simply, of course, and not without some difficulties and complications :P
-
MAY of already been said but if I am correct, on of Hitlers fundementals was to remove communism.
No. He was opposed anyone that could have any sort of power that wasn't him.
Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were basically the same thing. One claimed to be communist and the other claimed to be fascist, but they were both totalitarian states with a state run economy and absolute rule with an iron fist, along with sheer terror.
Just because a country claims to be communist doesn't make it so.
Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea really a democratic republic? It says it is right in the name!
-
Erm, I'm not quite sure what the real life equivalent for a system that is based on throwing all your problems in magma is.
Immigration problems? Magma. Skewed population age? Magma. Invaders? Magma. Unruly nobility? Magma. Energy shortage? Magma.
-
Energy shortage? Magma.
I object. You cannot pump magma with magma, you need magma mist.
-
Energy shortage? Magma.
I object. You cannot pump magma with magma, you need magma mist.
Oh your little toys can sure use wind or water power, but the heavy industry of the real good stuff is definitely powered by magma. You only ever use charcoal as a fuel to piss off elves.
-
Hitler failed because he didn't have magma at his disposal
Man, now I want to play a Call of Duty mod where you are a dwarf infiltrating Hitler's Secret Underground Fortress Laboratory in order to foil his plot to build a Magma Cannon to destroy London with. The Zoo and Arena levels alone would be well worth it.
-
Hitler failed because he didn't have magma at his disposal
sigging
-
all dwarves are created equal, some are just more equal than others.
Soooo siggin' that.
-
Hmm... Is dwarf fortress communist?
Somehow I can't imagine any dwarf being called Comrade Urist.
-
Nah, only to begin with - the same as most settlements, actually. After a good few years, a taxman arrives and the economy starts, and dorfs have to pay for food and bedrooms and clothes and stuff, and start up shops.
-
It's totalitarian with elements of feudalism, as Three Panel Soul puts it:
"So the state distributes all the supplies, sets all the jobs, and controls all the prices."
"Yep."
"Then individuals take supplies for free, and sell them in their shops."
"Yep."
"How do you survive with this insanity?"
"I made a really snazzy leather earring a few years back, so I'm exempt from it all."
-
What you are battling is the preconceived notion that communists are all evil. It's actually the governments that run the communists countries that are evil, just like the corporate interests that run so-called democratic countries. Yes, dwarfs are communist; they live in a communal society where their hard work individually helps the whole community. Think of hippies living on a commune; they are essentially communist without the totalitarian government exploiting them.
The western governments have a way of demonizing certain entities that they feel stand in their way. For example, the US wanted to get their hands on Middle Eastern oil, therefore they turned their sites on Islam. So they set up a number of fake terrorist attacks and suddenly everyone hates and fears Islam, giving the government carte blanche to do as they please in the middle east. Same thing happens in South America and it happened with communism in the 40s and 50s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcarthyism
The people of a nation are never to blame for the wrongs that their governments do. Mostly the people have no choice. How many Americans voted to invade Iraq? None, because there was never a democratic vote on it. Same thing is happening now in Afghanistan.
Dwarfs are communal whose only real government is you, the player. Are you a totalitarian? Are you fair to your dwarfs? This game would get pretty complicated if every move you make in game had to be voted on by the whole lot. You would say "Dig here", and they would all gather together to discuss if it was a good idea, who was going to dig and put a price on the work. Then they would dig one square and start all over. The farmers would have to buy seeds from caravans individually, grow and harvest, then sell their yield to cooks. Cooks would also buy fish from the fishermen. Each entity would need to set up booths to sell their raw wares. The richest dwarfs would be the gem cutters or the miners who were able to mine more precious minerals. There would be no more nobles (big loss), but a large body of worthless politicians who got paid a lot to get together 2 or 3 times a year and pretend to get stuff done. I would quit this game if it were "democratic".
-
I'd stage a coup if this game was democratic :D
Very nice explanation, though, Bungler.
-
... So they set up a number of fake terrorist attacks and suddenly everyone hates and fears Islam, giving the government carte blanche to do as they please in the middle east...
And the thread leaves reality...
-
It is reasonable to say that governments use propaganda to further their interests, it is quite another to be a crackpot conspiracy theorist lol.
On that subject. It isn't just governments who use propaganda, rich and wealthy spread false messages like "just lower our taxes, and you'll be rich like us some day too." Ya right. I think that is the source of the health care = socialism->nazi->kill jews thought pattern, propaganda. People without critical thinking skills buy into it, even though it is against their own self-interest.
-
The western governments have a way of demonizing certain entities that they feel stand in their way. For example, the US wanted to get their hands on Middle Eastern oil, therefore they turned their sites on Islam. So they set up a number of fake terrorist attacks and suddenly everyone hates and fears Islam, giving the government carte blanche to do as they please in the middle east.
And now you've revoked all credibility, you sick man.
-
I'm just going to posit my 2 cents here, and defend what America started as, not a democracy, like all too many people like to believe, but a constitutional republic.
One of the major differences being, in a democracy, if a majority says that you have to die, you die. In a constitutional republic, everything follows guidelines set out in the constitution that marked the start of the nation.
Which would you rather be a part of?
-
I'm just going to posit my 2 cents here, and defend what America started as, not a democracy, like all too many people like to believe, but a constitutional republic.
One of the major differences being, in a democracy, if a majority says that you have to die, you die. In a constitutional republic, everything follows guidelines set out in the constitution that marked the start of the nation.
Which would you rather be a part of?
Well, it's a bit simplistic to say America started it, given that the idea of basic rights in US were inspired by things like the French revolution and Magna Carta.
-
Well, it's a bit simplistic to say America started it, given that the idea of basic rights in US were inspired by things like the French revolution and Magna Carta.
Ummm... the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution
-
Well, the ideas of basic rights existed long before America but the American government is one of the oldest out there. So despite where the ideas come from, it is one of the first governments to actually work. The worst thing to happen to America, ever, was at the hands of religious extremist. Outside of some ridiculous event, it is hard to see western civilization changing.
The only downside is that we have too many rights, some rights don't make sense when it comes to what is best for the country and all who live in it. For example, in China you can't flat out lie about the government or tell people to do things in the name of god lol. I think that is awesome.
-
I think that rat_pack meant was that America started as a constitutional republic and ultimately shifted to a democratic republic, not that constitutional republics are things that America started.
-
I think that rat_pack meant was that America started as a constitutional republic and ultimately shifted to a democratic republic, not that constitutional republics are things that America started.
Thank you.
I though I had worded it in a way that was understandable, but I may have been mistaken.
And from what I've seen, America isn't shifting towards a democratic republic, it's shifting more in the direction of a monarchy, with the president being handed entirely too much power.
I'd personally have a weak federal gov't, and strong state gov'ts, like it was supposed to be, looking at the constitution.
-
Americans discussing politics always turns so bland and petty and stale... :-X
-
Americans discussing politics always turns so bland and petty and stale... :-X
I know we get boring, especially with politics.
Everyone has some generic opinion, at least when viewed from the outside.
I try not to fall in to any of the voter ruts, don't call myself a democrat or republican, don't go for the green party, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, or any other cookie cutter voter group.
When I look on American politics, even I get bored.
Nothing ever changes for the better, America just slips further into debt.
But, I digress.
Armchair Politics should be saved for a dedicated forum, and not clutter Toady's.
More OT:
I wouldn't say DF fits in to any real political system. It really takes from all of them, if you look deep enough.
The only one that doesn't really fit is capitalism, and that's mostly because Toady hasn't added it in yet. Free market economics should come in to play sooner or later, when caravans are more sophisticated. But until then, I will be the most insane dictator my dwarfs will ever see.
-
Guys, guys. Communism and Socialism is not the same thing, seriously.
-
Considering the average morality rate in a dwarf fortress, it probably can't be considered a successful socialist/communist anything, let alone a utopia of any sort. :P
-
Oh dear. Political topic? Doom, I say. Doom.
(Some crap about Hitler and Stalin)
While Hitler is associated with extreme right and Stalin with extreme left, its true that practical differences was cosmetic. Both systems was totalitarian and evil.
So they set up a number of fake terrorist attacks
Oh, another retarded conspiracy theorist. But this is what is expected on Internetz. By the way, USA did land on the Moon.
And while we are at it, I consider USA to be duoparty system: two parties that exchanges power from time to time, mercilessly destroying in any way any thrid option. Democracy? Republic? Good laugh. Only freedom of speech helps you all to not fall in some autoritarian regime.
(Fortress as corporation)
Oh yes. This is best match for this unholy bag of economical and political concepts that (not) function in DF.
Considering the average morality rate in a dwarf fortress, it probably can't be considered a successful socialist/communist anything.
FIFY.
-
(Some crap about Hitler and Stalin)
While Hitler is associated with extreme right and Stalin with extreme left, its true that practical differences was cosmetic. Both systems was totalitarian and evil.
EEEEEEEEVIL! The political system is EEEEEEEVIL!
So tell me: More SATAN EVIL or VAMPIRES RAPING CHILDREN evil? ;D
-
VAMPIRES RAPING CHILDREN
I see you've read something by Anne Rice!
I kid, I kid.
That sounds more like her work under the name "Anne Rampling".
-
Oh, another retarded conspiracy theorist. But this is what is expected on Internetz. By the way, USA did land on the Moon.
THAT WAS THE COMMUNISTS
...Ahem.
The political system of the United States most closely resembles two monkeys flinging shit at each other.
The primary goal of each major party is only to dethrone the other. Only a minority of politicians stand for ideals, and most of them fade into obscurity. The whole shabang is more of "Red Team vs. Blue Team" or "Elephants vs. Donkeys" than politics. It's not about what you think is best for the country, it's about whether you get reelected or not.
-
So tell me: More SATAN EVIL or VAMPIRES RAPING CHILDREN evil? ;D
More like "shooting in the back of head next to opening of mass grave " evil. Satan is in fact unnecessary - real evil is done by humans.
-
In a communist society, everyone does their job and puts all of their hard work (food/furniture) together before sharing it equally with all members of the society regardless of whether anyone else works or not.
I'm fairly sure that's not how communism works, actually.
-
Hitler=facism.
Facism =/= communism
Cummunism= Stalin.
Most players are more like Stalin. Random killings, often of nobles.
DF is what communism is idealy. Everyone working for the common good, living in equally ornate rooms.
Then you have nobles, who change from the easy communism to a annoying monarchy.
Communism is relatively easy to code.
Capitalism is a pain in the arse.
-
If communism was easy to code, it'd be easy to implement in real life. Since, you know..."planned economy" really does have the "plan" (or "programme", as in "programming", as in "coding", as in "code") as its central piece.
Capitalism is actually quite simple to code on a certain level (theoretically), as long as you can manage some kind of semi-intelligent software that evolves in accordance to some reasonable principles of mutation and selection.
In a communist society, everyone does their job and puts all of their hard work (food/furniture) together before sharing it equally with all members of the society regardless of whether anyone else works or not.
I'm fairly sure that's not how communism works, actually.
That's pretty much the shortest path to how communism can fail, actually - by simply equating it with socialism on all levels.
More like "shooting in the back of head next to opening of mass grave " evil. Satan is in fact unnecessary - real evil is done by humans.
"Evil" is in fact unnecessary since it's an entirely subjective and theological rather than an ethical attribute. Neither the Stalinist system nor Stalin himself were evil. The system was simply badly designed, and Stalin too believed he was doing his best. Seen from his eyes, what he did was probably entirely reasonable and necessary.
Sure, the outcome was pretty craptastic, but that doesn't make the process that led to it or the parts thereof "evil" in any sense.
-
More like "shooting in the back of head next to opening of mass grave " evil. Satan is in fact unnecessary - real evil is done by humans.
"Evil" is in fact unnecessary since it's an entirely subjective and theological rather than an ethical attribute.
Moral relativism does not contradict considering something as "evil" - without any religious overtones. And concept of "evil" have very much to do with ethic.
Neither the Stalinist system nor Stalin himself were evil.
Disagree. Most people that does bad things knows what they do very well.
The system was simply badly designed,
Concept of communism is and was forever doomed to be ideal in theory and creating atrocites when trying to deploy it in practice. Significant part of world tried this in last century - and every such country failed to deliver promised land. Not only that - in most cases these delivered many, many deaths and suffering. Case closed. Of course, there will be always folks in denial ("this was not true communism (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoTrueScotsman)" crap).
and Stalin too believed he was doing his best. Seen from his eyes, what he did was probably entirely reasonable and necessary.
Oh riight (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IDidWhatIHadToDo). ::)
Sure, the outcome was pretty craptastic, but that doesn't make the process that led to it or the parts thereof "evil" in any sense.
Strangest argumentation that I seen in a while. We know that Stalinist system was evil pretty much by outcome.
-
Yea..."We know it was evil", "case closed", "'counter-argument' crap", "the concept is forever doomed". You never really even considered viewing the whole affair from a different perspective, did you?
-
I'm not going to argue for or against any system here, but this quote brings up a cool topic to talk about:
If communism was easy to code, it'd be easy to implement in real life. Since, you know..."planned economy" really does have the "plan" (or "programme", as in "programming", as in "coding", as in "code") as its central piece.
So it's an interesting point and nice etymological link, but I'll present a counterpoint. Communism is, in fact, easy to code. It's the operating system or the peripherals that aren't easy.
If you know that your country has 1,000,000 people and that one farmer can generate enough food to feed 100 people, then you design your system in such a way that there will be 10,000 farmers at any given time, plus or minus an acceptable value to account for natural disasters, disease, etc. The rate of farmers entering the system has to counter the exit rate and so on. Then you have to monitor it to anticipate changes and prepare for them. If shit hits the fan, you need stored food at the very least and a contingency plan (eat the corn and ration the ethanol fuel for a few years). From a computer science / civil engineering perspective, that's first year stuff, right?
The problem with history's communist regimes is that in their ideological fervor, they exiled/killed the thinkers and academics who could do that math, and they were left guessing (poorly).
Not to mention corrupt officials twisted the numbers, stole supplies, extorted their populace, and generally interrupted the flow of goods and information.
A planned economy might work when you can feed it good numbers and when you can rely on the actors, and that's easy in a computer simulation (and not so easy in real life).
-
If communism was easy to code, it'd be easy to implement in real life.
That doesn't follow. Negative gravity is easy to code, for example, very difficult IRL.
-
It does follow from my bracketed explanation :P
Communism is not inherently inferior to capitalism, but it does centralise economic responsibility, thus making it very easy to blame the system rather than the participants. In capitalism, economic responsibility is terribly difficult to pinpoint; but often enough things do go wrong, and then some indefensible scapegoat is usually quickly found and blamed to all hell. Usually, it wasn't purely the blamed individual's or company's fault, but it's far easier to simply point fingers at a single entity than to look deeply enough into all the complicated interactions of the free market to actually make a factually correct statement. Thus, capitalism fails just as hard, but is impossible to blame for it.
And before someone rolls out the "but capitalism generates more wealth than communism!" argument: Historically, it was always poor countries with bad leadership that implemented planned economies, which can't really lead to wealth to the people. Granted, the wealthy capitalist countries are indeed wealthier even by relative comparison, but only in exchange for gross social inequality, lousy consumer protection, rapid resource depletion, ridiculously "optimised" life styles and a gravely and fatally non-transparent interaction between politics and economy.
What was my point again? Right, the relation between programming difficulty and communism. Afaik, it's such (in a similar vein as what GTM wrote): If you can design an automated system that keeps track of all easily quantified variables like industrial input and output, demographic trends, resource distribution, taxation, and whatnot - then you can nationalise a high number of industries and automatise a variety of bureaucratic functions. It's not the full implementation of communism; but it can take a lot of responsibility and risk out of the hands of amoral corporations and incompetent bureaucrats. Which, after all, is more communist than the current situation.
So yea. half-baked, but not without necessity.
-
If communism was easy to code, it'd be easy to implement in real life.
That doesn't follow. Negative gravity is easy to code, for example, very difficult IRL.
This amused me, kudos tps12 :)
-
But it's factually wrong. It must not be permitted to amuse you!
(Negative gravity does not make sense. Mass attracts. Unless you understand WHY mass attracts, and HOW to reverse that (which I suspect you don't), you can't actually code negative gravity. The best you can code is pretend-negative gravity.)
-
But it's factually wrong. It must not be permitted to amuse you!
(Negative gravity does not make sense. Mass attracts. Unless you understand WHY mass attracts, and HOW to reverse that (which I suspect you don't), you can't actually code negative gravity. The best you can code is pretend-negative gravity.)
Why do things have to be right to amuse me?
Furthermore one of the current models of gravity that seems to be in favour is that of particle exchange in a way that matches the other forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) however as a particle has, to my knowledge at least, yet to be discovered and there are a number of flaws I no reason enforce some of the conclusions just because they don't make sense to you. The other major model of gravity is of course that of space-time curvature which again has flaws but of course would allow negative gravity.
Finally all code is simulation at best which is basically another word for pretending. Even the best physic models don't actually create mass and monitor their effects on each other ;)
-
What is this nonsense? "amusement", "simulation"! You must be humourless and infinitely concrete to do science! Stop it!
-
What is this nonsense? "amusement", "simulation"! You must be humourless and infinitely concrete to do science! Stop it!
They are called mad scientists for a reason...
-
The misinformation spread that colludes "communist" with "fascist", combined with what would be a hilarious anti-intellectual fervor that marks the American right were it not so painstakingly upheld as virtuous, is rather distressing.
-
I propose that we demolish all standing economies and place the world's production under my personal authoritarian control.
I've been dying to try out a few of my ideas for running the world into the ground in a fun way. If the way I run my fortresses is any indication, I should be fairly good at doing this.
Even the best physic models don't actually create mass and monitor their effects on each other ;)
I want this device.
-
I occasionally play "Commie Fortress" by turning on all labours for all dwarves (you have to sadly make a distinction between miners and woodcutters but otherwise it can be done)
It's bloody irritating, and you end up with a lot of shoddy goods while your skilled workers are hauling rocks from one end of corridor to the other.
So, fairly accurate IMO. :)
A slightly less insane version is to lump all the "skill only affects speed" and "no skill required" jobs into one lump, and assign about half of your dwarves to it If you're really brave, bang out a axes and throw woodcutting in as well (I wouldn't do mining, because of the chances of gem extraction). Your skilled workers then only do their skilled jobs. This is actually very efficient - the increased number of dwarves available to do an unskilled job more than compensates for the speed at which they do it.
And if I'm using Dwarf Therapist, I use a custom profession called "Comrade" :P
-
Yea..."We know it was evil", "case closed", "'counter-argument' crap", "the concept is forever doomed".
Boy, I am from former communist country. While I am too young to know it in full (it fell* when I was about 7), I know, heard and talk with my parents ant other people. I remember only wonderful shops with retarded name, where you could got Legos(!) and other luxuries for DOLLARS(!!) and empty normal shops (economy of communistic countries was in state of permanent semi-catastrophe). Oh, and standing in lines. BIG lines. On bright side, everyone was employed - and half of them was sitting doing nothing and taking their little money (it was part of reason why economy was like this).
You never really even considered viewing the whole affair from a different perspective, did you?
Different perspective? You mean, sitting my ass in dirty capitalistic nation, where you can actually have decent living in diginity**? Yeah, how I could.
Communism is not inherently inferior to capitalism,
Experience of significant part of world says otherwise. Compare North and South Korea, or East and West Germany. Guess what part is better developed, what part have higher life average, what part have home budgets in less % for necessites etc?
(shortcoming of communism easier to blame than shortcommings of capitalism)
Nice way to deal with cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), folk. Explain, explain it away! LALA...
Historically, it was always poor countries with bad leadership that implemented planned economies, which can't really lead to wealth to the people.
I gave above examples (Korea, Germany) of nations that was one before dividing up and failing into hands of different powers. You could not have better comparative experiment. Results are obvious. Ergo, your argument go into drain. By the way, someone would wonder why "poor countries" would always choose communism... maybe because of mentioned by you "bad leadership"? Heheh.
gross social inequality, lousy consumer protection, rapid resource depletion, ridiculously "optimised" life styles and a gravely and fatally non-transparent interaction between politics and economy.
What? You talk like these things are nonexistant under communist rule. I can only laugh. Some fine points:
- gross social inequality: compare quality of life of soviet leaders and proletariat. As saying goes, people indeed ate caviar... by mouth of their communistic representatives.
- rapid resource depletion: many communistic leader had fixation about heavy industry. Do the math.
- fatally non-transparent interaction between politics and economy: planned economy is FATAL.
* Can you please explain why so wonderful system could fell and people actually wanted this? Heheh.
** I am of course assuming that you are american or from western europe or other non-communist country. If you ARE from such comunistic or post-communistic country, you are even more reality-detached.
Damn, it got so political that I will stop. Only one thing: ease of programming economic system (or really anything) have nothing to do with reality. Nothing.
-
Highly emotional statements.
I get it already. You grew up in ye olde Poland, times were harsh, and oh for the love, go a little easy on the hysteria.
So when you're done with playing the "appeal to emotional outrage!" card, you may go ahead and notice how I didn't, at any point, state that historical communism was in any way successful, or that it provided a higher quality of life for its subject populations than its capitalist competition.
My points so far were (or were supposed to be, so take this post as clarifications) that firstly; it's entirely inadequate to introduce a highly subjective term like "evil" to the entire debate. Secondly, judging the communist concept as "doomed" or impossible to implement in reality simply because a dozen psychotic dictatorships and corrupt oligarchies didn't make anything useful of it in the 20th century is both rash and short-sighted. Thirdly that both planned and free markets have their valid applications, and that neither is inherently superior to the other. And for a fourth, I recall there was the issue of how sophisticated programming can be a vital tool in centralising branches of the economy.
Somehow, you extrapolated from those that I must be intending to glorify the communist dictatorships of the past! Hooray! How did you know that? Was it my refusal to chant "Stalin is Satan! Stalin is Satan!"? Or that I didn't first consider how your delicate sensibilities might be insulted by my lack of concern for your people's historical hardships?
Well, let's cut it short. IMHO, capitalism is not the non-plus-ultra of economic systems. Communism was, in those past cases in which it wasn't just a classic dictatorship with a red flag, implemented in horrendously misguided ways. You or people around you have been personally put through hard times because of that. Thusly, you refuse to treat the communist concept as anything other than "evil", or otherwise irredeemably super-bad. Way to go. The fire burned you, thus you prefer to stay cold.
tl;dr: Just because the past fucked up doesn't mean the future can't do better.
-
Not to start a huge argument here, but if capitalism is the "best" system imaginable and communism/socialism is of the devil or however you want to put it... then why is it that pretty much all through Europe and North America, the so-called advanced countries, a significant amount of the populace is living among inhumane circumstances, barely able to earn enough to support themselves and their families? Why is it that the streets are full of the homeless and that people resort to loans with ridiculously high rates in a desperate attempt to go on living?
Yes, I will agree that a lot of things Stalin and Hitler did were terrible and should not have been done. You could consider them "evil", if you believe such a thing exists... that is your decision, since "evil" is not an objective term, unless scientists have discovered it encoded in the universe somewhere and I missed the news. But you must admit that Russia became the superpower it is today during the communist era; and while Hitler did commit atrocities, he also pulled Germany out of the gutter, both spiritually and financially. The system before the nazis came to power was terrible, Germany was at a definite lowpoint due to in no small part the peace treaty made at the end of the first World War.
And just in case someone hasn't noticed: yes, blatantly racist political parties are actually getting into the parliaments all over Europe, which is pretty much exactly what was happening in the 1930s, when (surprise, surprise) there was also an economic crisis all over the advanced world.
By the way, it might be interesting to note that while the basis of capitalism is a free market, prices driven purely by supply and demand, this has actually been upset recently quite a few times. Just think of the bailout of the auto industry in the USA (among others); that's something pure capitalism would not allow and is actually a step towards a more planned economy. In fact, a lot of areas of life are driven by socialist ideals; take for example the fact that healthcare is free or highly supported by the state, making it available to almost everyone, rather than just the rich. CT scans are not cheap, if sick people had to pay for all of that (as they should in a pure capitalism), I imagine life expectancy would be a lot lower.
-
Nobody remembers that the trains ran on time under Mussolini? :'(
-
I prefer a mixed economy, myself. There are a few systems that I believe should be handled/paid for by the government, such as health-care and education, in order to make them available to all, but you can't simply skip out on the advantages of private production either.
But personally, I don't believe any system is inherently bad or evil(Aside from the system I proposed earlier), be it pure capitalism, pure communism, the barter system, etc. I think I could live comfortably in any system, so long as the implementers are competent.
-
OK, I probably shouldn't get involved in this, especially so late in this, but...
Free healthcare and education isn't socialist.
Yes it is, it's not privately run but controlled by the state nor do taxes mean people pay proportionally to what they use. This is at the very least nationalism with a tendency towards socialism rather than free-market capitalism.
Here we have the problem of where arbitrarily defined words meets negative connotations, brought about by a Pavlovian propoganda campaign. (To Shades's credit, he was apparently using "Socialism" in a neutral connotation, but in America, "Socialism", and "Europe" are the words by which Right-wing pundits slander virtually anything they oppose, no matter how similar to the things they support.)
Think about this one carefully: If taxpayer-funded public education is "Socialism", then the only nations in the world that AREN'T Socialist are the utterly failed states, like Somalia, where the whole nation has essentially devolved down to "every family for themselves". At such a point, if Socialism has any meaning leftover whatsoever, it could only be considered a positive thing.
As for the "political philosophy" (using that term as loosely as possible) of Nazis, it's actually much easier to find how a Nazi would react to a given social problem than most people think: The Neo-Nazi movement still exists in America and Europe. In spite of an effort on the part of Right-Wing pundits to try to portray Hitler as a Leftist because it is more convenient for them to paint someone who is synonymous with "evil" as having all the same views as those who are their own political opponents, the Neo-Nazis (who are quite often brothers-in-arms with the KKK in the US) are quite clearly a part of the furthest fringes of the Right. Their political philosophy is best described in terms of a Pavlovian response to conditioned keywords than it is to a set of given principles. Militarism, Religion and/or Mysticism and/or some other Cult of Personality upon which one can swear total allegiance, Traditionalism, and one's own race are the common "happy" connotation words, while other races being mobilized and more powerful politically, a particular pet "evil" form of government or religion or otherwise foreign cultural element, and change or anything that makes people fear for a lack of control are the catchphrases that bring about the "grrrrrrr" response.
While there is nothing expressly written into the political philosophy of Nazism that actually says it must oppose Communism, the Nazi Party that Hitler rose to control formed as a fearful reaction against a growing tide of Communism (due to the essential failure of , which was taking root among some of the Bohemian and labor-related aspects of Germany, and was feared to be a Foreign, Russian Plot to take over Their Country!
Before Hitler went after the Jews, he first destroyed the labor unions and built the concentration camps to put the Communists (and any other political dissenters) in. (He also went after the gays and the insane before he went after the Jews...)
Going back to the Neo-Nazis of the current day, they actually quite love the military, and many of the Neo-Nazi or KKK-related (the KKK is currently fractured into dozens of groups all claiming to be the "real" KKK) groups deliberately fashion themselves upon military life, to the point of wearing army fatigues at all times, and many of them being former enlisted men. They love authority. They just hate the authorities. Like I said, it's not much of a political philosohpy.
As for Bungler (http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=62654.msg1444168#msg1444168)... no.
In this, I am reminded of Michael Chriton's "Rising Sun", in the part where the Sensei character (who is the authorial sockpuppet demonstrating the "wise" reasons to be mistrustful of the Japanese corporate juggernaught of the 80's) denounces the simply blatantly racist cop by saying "There are many good reasons not to like the Japanese. He does not know any of them." (This of course being a way for the author to attempt to differentiate the views he was expressing against the Japanese corporate culture and simple racism. YMMV.)
When you base your arguments upon pretty obviously untrue conspiracy theories, you are wrong, even if, by accident, you happen to be right. Even if a broken clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean the clock isn't still broken when it's right.
It is also worth keeping in mind that many of the evils that Democracies have produced were produced because people allowed the extremists to hold reality-warping beliefs without saying anything, because they believed that it could help their own side of the argument. (And to that extent, Devek, you aren't helping the argument any by leaping to Glenn Beck several posts in a row. Fighting every political argument like a shouting match against a Beckkerhead only makes you opposed to them, it doesn't make you right.)
Also, The only downside is that we have too many rights, some rights don't make sense when it comes to what is best for the country and all who live in it. For example, in China you can't flat out lie about the government or tell people to do things in the name of god lol. I think that is awesome.
I think you need to revist your Social Studies textbooks from Elementary school, and figure out what "rights" are and why they are there.
How can you decry the way in which Right-Wing pundits use propoganda or lie about the government, and then say that we should adopt a system by which we oppress those who "lie about government"? Who gets to determine what's a lie or not? Whoever happens to be in power at the moment? So whoever happens to have power at the moment gets to just declare everyone else dissenters, and haul them off to the gulags?
This is what rights are all about: Some things are just more powerful than Democracy. If there were a democratic vote upon the matter, Blacks would never have been given civil rights in the 60's. Roughly 90% of the military was opposed to desegragation of the military when Truman gave his Executive Order to do it anyway.
And yes, this means that we have to allow people to say stupid, crazy shit, because stupid, crazy people have rights, too, and that is a small price to pay for the assurance that our own rights will still exist whenever the pendulum of political popularity swings in the other side's favor. (Not that we can't berate and mock them for their stupid, crazy rants.)
Maybe you are opposing the worst of the Right-Wing conspiracy nuts, but by adopting many of the same logical fallacies and fully emotional knee-jerk reactions that the worst of the right adopts, you only make yourself similarly wrong even if you take dissimilar views, and also make a very poor representative of both Liberalism and of America in general to those posters abroad.
While Hitler is associated with extreme right and Stalin with extreme left, its true that practical differences was cosmetic. Both systems was totalitarian and evil.
There are actually plenty of differences that play out more at a "ways they dealt with Cognitive Dissonance" level, but I think the best way to illustrate this is with models of political axis differentiating the scale of progressive/conservative with the scale of libertarian/totalitarian, and noting that both were extreme totalitarianists to the point that it was the most salient aspect of their governance, even if they were different in terms of left/right.
The primary goal of each major party is only to dethrone the other. Only a minority of politicians stand for ideals, and most of them fade into obscurity. The whole shabang is more of "Red Team vs. Blue Team" or "Elephants vs. Donkeys" than politics. It's not about what you think is best for the country, it's about whether you get reelected or not.
While it is indeed easy to become disgusted with such a thing, there is still the problem of making a false equivalency too soon.
To illustrate this, most recently, a jobs bill was going to be passed by Congress that would enable tax breaks and lending for small businesses to help the economy. It was something that not only enjoyed bipartisan support, the co-author of the bill was Olimpia Snowe, Maine Republican famous for occasionally not voting in lockstep conformity with every single other Republican. It was then declared, however, by Mitch McConnel, that this jobs bill would be something that Democrats could campaign on, especially since it could potentially help the economy recover. As such, all Republicans unanimously voted against it, with Snowe (who helped write the bill) claiming that "Democrats would not let enough amendments be passed by Republicans"... when all of these amendments were completely unrelated bills designed simply to stall the process.
(News articles related, for the purposes of citation:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=conservatives+fillibuster+30+billion+loan+small+businesses&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (This is a determinedly "centrist" account, by which it means they try to show both sides in a falsely equal bad light no matter what.)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/say-what-republicans-filibuster-tax-cutting-jobs-bill.php (An obviously liberal-leaning report)
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/06/25/gop-shuts-down-deficit-increasing-jobs-bill/ (And just so it can't be said that only one side of the argument is being made, a right-wing blog, as well.)
Yes, both parties engage in politics, (obviously), but to simply say both sides are equally corrupt without investigating that claim, and give up and expect corruption, rather than punish it, is capitulating in your duties as a citizen. Even worse, it makes it a viable strategy to purposefully depress voter turnout because those people more intent on gaming the system than helping the nation know that the ideologically-driven single-issue voters will always vote and always vote for the same party, no matter what, and that if all other voters stop voting, they can rule the nation even if their coalition consists of only 12% of the public.
If communism was easy to code, it'd be easy to implement in real life. Since, you know..."planned economy" really does have the "plan" (or "programme", as in "programming", as in "coding", as in "code") as its central piece.
Not really. You can program a computer AI to utterly ignore all sense of rational self-interest or even self-preservation. (Heck, DF does quite a good job of that with it's simulated "burning socks are EXTRA valuable!" code.) Real-life Communism fails because, in a system where there is essentially no reward for working harder, and no real fear of losing one's job if one slacks, there is no reason not to do just the most minimum effort it takes to keep one's job. In computer simulation land, every little drone works its hardest at all times for essentially no hope of any fair proportionate reward because that's what it's programmed to do.
A program can model something that could never work in real life very, very easily, because you can simply change all the laws of physics or rationality whenever you need to in order to force the model to work.
Not to start a huge argument here, but if capitalism is the "best" system imaginable and communism/socialism is of the devil or however you want to put it... then why is it that pretty much all through Europe and North America, the so-called advanced countries, a significant amount of the populace is living among inhumane circumstances, barely able to earn enough to support themselves and their families? Why is it that the streets are full of the homeless and that people resort to loans with ridiculously high rates in a desperate attempt to go on living?
OOOH! OOH! I KNOW THIS ONE!
It's because, in the example of the homeless (at least, for the US), most homeless people are the veterans of wars who have completely untreated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that renders them unwilling, not unable to find steady jobs or even desire to participate in society in any way, due to political wrangling and the whims of an electorate that enjoy thinking of themselves as "Supporting The Troops" when it comes to wasting trillions of dollars on Osprey planes that never work, but are too stingy to actually give the veterans of wars the medical attention they need.
Or, more broadly, it's because Democracy is a flawed system in that, in order to become a perfect system, it would require that at least a majority of the voting public be willing to suffer short-term loses for long-term gains, to respect the rights even of unpopular minorities because it is moral and just rather than going with their emotional reactions of disgust and revulsion, and to be educated and well-informed enough to understand the issues of the day, when many bills are so complex and labarynthine that even most Congresspeople in the current system don't even understand the bills they are voting on if it didn't come from their own comittee.
By the way, it might be interesting to note that while the basis of capitalism is a free market, prices driven purely by supply and demand, this has actually been upset recently quite a few times. Just think of the bailout of the auto industry in the USA (among others); that's something pure capitalism would not allow and is actually a step towards a more planned economy. In fact, a lot of areas of life are driven by socialist ideals; take for example the fact that healthcare is free or highly supported by the state, making it available to almost everyone, rather than just the rich. CT scans are not cheap, if sick people had to pay for all of that (as they should in a pure capitalism), I imagine life expectancy would be a lot lower.
Actually, you might want to take some of the Supply-Siders' own handiwork, as well. The American market for Flood Insurance, for example, is sold by private insurance companies that keep all the profit they make by selling insurance, but TAXPAYERS pay the actual claims upon those insurance policies. This is because flood insurance simply isn't profitable if you want to run it as a business, but at the same time, the Supply-Sider's get upset if you allow a "Government Takeover" of a service that is necessary for the public good, but will allow Government to actually run something akin to a business. As such, we have the "best" of both worlds - massive profits for the rich friends of the Supply-Siders, and a massive government money sinkhole that helps prove that "Government can't do anything right" because they purposefully stack the deck against it, helping them politically as well.
IS IT NOT NIFTY?
-
SOMEBODY LOCK THIS THREAD
Seriously. We derailed it so much that it hopped on a different rail whatsoever and is going all the way to the Paradox Station.
-
Nobody remembers that the trains ran on time under Mussolini? :'(
In fact, it's a long-lingering piece of (oh dear) fascist propaganda: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp
-
CT scans are not cheap, if sick people had to pay for all of that (as they should in a pure capitalism), I imagine life expectancy would be a lot lower.
In 'pure' capitalism, poor people are *supposed* to die. Otherwise they'd have no incentive to work for their money!
SOMEBODY LOCK THIS THREAD
Seriously. We derailed it so much that it hopped on a different rail whatsoever and is going all the way to the Paradox Station.
Aaah, come on. Arguments need to be had. You can always ignore the thread if you don't like it, after all.
-
Nobody remembers that the trains ran on time under Mussolini? :'(
In fact, it's a long-lingering piece of (oh dear) fascist propaganda: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp (http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp)
Don't worry, I also recall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini) that his body was strung upside down at a gas station in Milan... :)
-
It's because, in the example of the homeless (at least, for the US), most homeless people are the veterans of wars who have completely untreated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that renders them unwilling, not unable to find steady jobs or even desire to participate in society in any way, due to political wrangling and the whims of an electorate that enjoy thinking of themselves as "Supporting The Troops" when it comes to wasting trillions of dollars on Osprey planes that never work, but are too stingy to actually give the veterans of wars the medical attention they need.
Huh, I didn't know that. Well, at any rate, it's definitely not that way over here since, well... this country hasn't really been in a war since WW2, so not a whole lot of veterans. Most of the homeless over here really are homeless because they've quite literally lost everything. And apparently it's actually pretty difficult to get back up even for those willing and able to work, simply because it's rather hard for a homeless person to gain employment and even if they do, a lot of their income is taken away by various illegal forces.
-
Huh, I didn't know that. Well, at any rate, it's definitely not that way over here since, well... this country hasn't really been in a war since WW2, so not a whole lot of veterans. Most of the homeless over here really are homeless because they've quite literally lost everything. And apparently it's actually pretty difficult to get back up even for those willing and able to work, simply because it's rather hard for a homeless person to gain employment and even if they do, a lot of their income is taken away by various illegal forces.
Well, I can't speak to your nation without even knowing which one it is, but at least for America, when your house gets foreclosed upon, it much more frequently winds up with people living with their families.
I'm not sure about this exactly, but I know that, at least before the Bush Recesssion went and made 5 unemployed people for every 1 job opening, our job market was generally good enough that outright ex-cons (of which we Americans proudly have so many ex-cons in the making, we literally don't know where to put them all) could gain employment fairly quickly, if in not particularly good jobs, much less the homeless. The homeless are the people that seriously want no part in society, often because of untreated mental illnesses such as PTSD.
-
Highly emotional statements.
No, not only. But yeah, personal experience trumps blablering of armchair idealist-communist.
how I didn't, at any point, state that historical communism
Do I feel "it was not real communism" crap again? Yes, I do.
how I didn't, at any was in any way successful, or that it provided a higher quality of life for its subject populations than its capitalist competition.
You denied that communism is inferior to capitalism. Oh, you mean this... real... communism. That never existed and never will.
inadequate to introduce a highly subjective term like "evil" to the entire debate.
Yes, it very adequate. Political and economical system (among other things) can be put under judgement. In this context, it would be moral judgement.
Secondly, judging the communist concept as "doomed" or impossible to implement in reality simply because a dozen psychotic dictatorships and corrupt oligarchies didn't make anything useful of it in the 20th century
Hey, I already asked you once why "poor nations" with "bad leadership" are soo attached to communistic concepts. Someone could thought that such system would help "a dozen psychotic dictatorships and corrupt oligarchies" maintain their rules.
is both rash and short-sighted.
No, it is just conclusion from experience of world in previous century. Closest to success that I can thought are socialist systems (like in Sweden), but socialism is different (related, yeah, but different) beast.
Somehow, you extrapolated from those that I must be intending to glorify the communist dictatorships of the past!
No, I extrapolated that you are armchair communist that does not know anything that you talk about. Nothing new on internet. Move along.
Communism was, in those past cases in which it wasn't just a classic dictatorship with a red flag, implemented in horrendously misguided ways.
I consider communism as system that cannot be implemented in any other way than "horrendously misguided".
tl;dr: Just because the past fucked up doesn't mean the future can't do better.
How much more communism have to fuck up and how much people it have to kill before you concede that this concept does not work?
but if capitalism is the "best" system imaginable and communism/socialism is of the devil
Where I said that capitalism is "best" system? I said, in short, that communism does not work. I did not talk about capitalism here.
SOMEBODY LOCK THIS THREAD
Oh, no, no, no. Nothing like smell of internet flame (fueled by politics) in the morning. :) The more main topic of this forum is irrevelant, the better.
it hopped on a different rail whatsoever and is going all the way to the Paradox Station.
More like Retarded Paranoia Station, but whatever fly your boat. ;p After all, all kind of insanity are welcome in DF.
-
Real vs fake communism, socialism, etc: They were kinda real, but corrupt. Just like the capitalism we have isn't "real" capitalism. Too much corruption spoils the soup... er, economic system.
-
Pure communism is an idea that can't be realized and would almost certainly collapse, while pure capitalism is flat out a bad idea. There were a few "true" communist settlements out here, and they all fell apart due to people thinking they weren't getting their share. At the end of the day human greed spoils the idea. Communism seems to be a bad idea as a form of government over all.
Back on topic a bit, the economy does seem to work like the old mining towns did, but turned up to 11. You build your house, make your bed carve out your dining room, grow your food, then use your salary to buy it all.
-
Communism works great!
For small groups of people. But beyond around 150ish people or so the system begins to break down, as people no longer know each other. Once you start getting millions of people involved the system has serious problems basically due to freeriders. I'm sure you're all well aware of what a failed communist country looks like. They are numerous.
Capitalism works great too!
If everyone is informed with all of the information so everyone can make rational decisions. As information is not perfect and people do not have the time, knowledge, or ability to make perfectly rational decisions for every purchase you end up with the trend in capitalism where power and wealth become consolidated into fewer and fewer hands. Eventually, a purely capitalistic society with absolutely no control or regulation will resemble feudalism.
King=CEO
Nobles=Board of Directors
Minor Nobles=Managers
Peasants=Employees (and you)
Its basically your average megacorp from dystopian sci-fi. One megacorp may fight with another, sometimes even with actual weapons, or they may agree to merger, such that eventually you only get one company. It is the state and the economy. Everyone serves the company.
-
DF is fairly communistic/socialistic until the economy kicks in. If people need food, they go to the food stockpile. If the food stockpile is empty and there is nothing else to eat, everyone starves. The only real supply and demand is what the dwarfs supply and what they demand, not counting goods you produce for the trade caravans.
Once the economy arrives, it's not very capitalistic though. There's no real price fluctuations based on supply and demand. Everything just gets a price attached to it, and if the dwarfs can't afford it, they don't get the item. In DF, dwarven syrup will always be worth 2000 (or whatever, I don't have the actual price in front of me) Even though dsyrup is just processed sweet pods in a barrel. You could have a 1000-tile sweet pod farm with sweet pods coming out of your ears, and enough dsyrup to build another complete fort out of the barrels, and it will still cost 2000 a barrel, and dsyrup roasts will still cost 3000 or 4000 or whatever even if you have tens of thousands of those meals, and even if there are no other foods available.
-
The problem I see with most people talking about Supply and Demand is that they very often forget about that whole "Demand" part on the end, and only talk about "Supply".
Demand for products like, say, the only available food in the fort are what economists call "inelastic". This means that you can adjust the prices however much you want to adjust the prices, and people will still buy it, because demand is very much driven by how much a person can do without a product and what products are "substitutable" with your product. For the only available food, alternatives to the only available food are "starving" and "maybe finding a cave spider to eat alive".
Effectively, the sweet pod farmer in that scenario has a total monopoly on the food market, and can charge whatever he damn well wants to charge, because as long as people value not having to rely on finding bugs on the ground to survive more than they value money, they will continue to pay for food.
(Note: In real life, where you DON'T have government monopolies on all products, prices on things like food, where all products are completely interchangable are actually driven very low by the nature of being in "Perfect Competition", where all products are the same, so the only way to compete is on price. Competition forces prices down, and forces innovation in terms of productivity and cost controls, as well as quality control, specifically because you will go out of business otherwise. This is, however, one of the main problems of Communism, where there is no competition to the Government, as well as with Monopolies in general that may emerge from unregulated Free Market capitalism.
Hence, Beeskee's statements about food prices going down in response to an oversupply would be correct IF AND ONLY IF there were competitors in the marketplace trying to underbid one another to sell their product just to get it off the shelves, which in DF, there is not.)
This only gets shaken up when there is a substitute. If someone starts selling muck roots for 5 dbs, it's an alternative to dwarven syrup roasts. It's a pretty crappy alternative, and depending on whether or not there's enough muck roots to go around, the sweet pod salesman might just ignore it, and simply continue gouging all the people who can't get to the muck roots in time (at which point, the demand exceeds supply for muck roots, so THEIR prices will shoot up), but if there are enogh muck roots, then the sweet pod salesman simply needs to look at how demand reacts to the substitute. Dwarven Syrup is sweet and tasty and muck roots are... muck roots. So it's really a question of how much more is someone willing to pay to eat sweet and tasty dwarven syrup than just a muck root. This will change from consumer to consumer, and especially change depending on the economic conditions of the dwarf in question - people go for cheaper, lower-quality substitutes when they are in a recession. So demand, and hence prices, for pork (which is the cheap substitute for beef) will go UP in a recession, while beef demand (and hence prices) will go down... but never to the point where pork and beef have the same price. This will result in muck roots and dwarven syrup drawing together in price until it reaches a stable state where you find a balance in how much more someone is willing to pay for delicious Dwarven Syrup than for Muck Roots.
-
If there is an oversupply of something, that should drive the prices down, in general. Depends on how much the market is rigged. What I was thinking of with supply and demand was things like how in the DF economy, even if the only food you have in your fort is luxury meals, the price of them won't go down. The only alternatives are raw plants and meat out of the food stockpiles. But prices in DF are fixed, so your fort built entirely out of roasts (every single block!) has a bunch of "too expensive to eat" food, and a bunch of hungry dwarfs picking out of the stockpiles and maybe eating vermin, rather than the price of those meals dropping to an affordable level.
Food was just an example, the prices for everything in the fort are fixed, and most of the numbers have little relation to the actual cost of producing that product. That's definitely not communism, capitalism, or socialism.
What it is, is DF, and it is fun and Fun to work around, but an economy overhaul would be nice. The ability to pick an economic model, or parts of each of them that you like best, would be great too. As would the ability to designate a certain minted coin to have a certain value. While I am wishing can I get a pair of magic unicorns too? (so I can breed them for unicorn meat and horns, of course, of course.) I know this is all on the great big to-do list and I'm patient to wait.
-
Having price roofs (or floors) does, indeed, fit the idea of a Command Economy (which is what actual Communism used).
Fixing the price of goods is generally a common tactic among Command Economies, especially impoverished nations run by dictators, especially for basic commodities like food. This is done because, even though it hurts the economy, because it means that the only way to turn a profit is to simply slash costs of production and overhead, leading to low quality and low worker wages, it also makes those dictators popular because then food or electricity or whatever is cheap. Part of what shapes the modern geopolitical system is that nations that can subsist on exporting valuable natural resources, like, say, oil, can afford to be dictatorships with no functional internal economy because oil sales can pay for domestic handouts that keep the populace complacent (like low-cost food and energy), without actually empowering or educating the populace in any way or building the basic infrastructures of a real first world power.
This also means that there is nothing to regulate demand, so you will have, say, long lines for goods because the only way to get goods that are in higher demand than there is supply when you cannot simply out-bid your fellow consumers is to simply be the first one in line when more supply comes out.
These were the things that crushed the USSR - Russia relied entirely on its sale of oil to prop up its completely derelict production capabilities. As long as the price of oil stayed high, Russia was invincible. As soon as the price of oil fell (from around a dollar a barrel to twenty cents a barrel) in the wake of the resolution of the Arab Oil Embargo (and the Arab nations started massively producing, dropping the price of oil), the Russian economy collapsed because it could no longer pay for state-owned industries that they never bothered to make turn a profit because oil could pay for the waste.
(And when you turn on the news, how much Russia threatens its neighbors and thumbs its nose at America is directly proportional to the price of a barrel of oil, even today.)
-
There are two interesting points here:
The first is monopolies and, in connection, state fixed prices (or price ranges). While monopolies are generally frowned upon in capitalistic economies, exactly because they'd allow the provider to set whatever prices they'd want, it should be noted that for a number of products, monopolies exist naturally.
Think of products and services such as electricity, heat or public transportation. Many countries or regions only have one of these, essentially giving the providers a monopoly. If you feel electricity prices are too high, you do not have the option of switching to a different provider, so you either pay or go without power. Since infrastructure essentially prevents competition in these areas (you can't really run two electric cables to every house), the only thing that can be done is the state fixing the prices for these products... which is a socialist feature.
The point I've been trying to make is, most economies in the world currently are basically midway between a controlled and a free market. Some things are state controlled, some are left to roam free. How much the imaginary slider moves towards one direction or the other depends on many things, most notably the general economic situation of the country; ie. richer countries tend to have a more free economy, because the people can generally afford to buy overpriced things.
The other thing people seem to be misunderstanding is the idea behind communism. See, the basic idea there was that eventually society would change in a way that everyone would basically just share everything necessary to live; there would be no currency in this situation! Of course, getting to this state would be fairly difficult: the idea was that there'd be a temporary phase, during which there would be a government with fixed leaders. They'd work to turn society into this ideal and once it's been accomplished, they'd step down, since there'd no longer be a need for a state or leaders.
So the basic timeline Marx thought up was...
1) A communist revolution
2) A temporary phase, when currency and leadership still exists, setting up...
3) True communism, a utopia where everyone is equal and resources are shared, rather than sold and bought
Of course, in reality, the third phase was never reached. One could argue this was because the idea of communism is, in itself, flawed; or one could argue it was of more practical reasons, such as incompetent leadership, poor handling of problems and simply the fact the leaders weren't actually trying to reach true communism.
In the above, Marxist sense, "communism" never actually existed during history and still does not. Correctly, only "socialist" states existed (and exist to this day). But just to get back to the topic, pre-economy Dwarf Fortress is actually very much like what Marx envisioned as a true communist society.
-
I'd say it isn't communist to the extent that (probably because of size) doesn't exhibit the communistic structure. It is collectivist, to an extent. It could as well be a small corporation or large partnership as a commune. The fact that there's a player who wants to game, and the dwarfs are so damned stupid, would restrict it from explicitly exhibiting capitalist/ classical liberal/ libertarian/ anarchist, but really, co-operation at the level of 100 individuals or less doesn't really say anything about big-picture theories of society and commerce. Just the fact that dwarfs are so unpredictable and individually detailed does suggest individualist thought as a cornerstone of the game design, though.
With regards to Marx, the problem is that phase 2 is an intractable and stable authoritarian state. The other problem is that Marx considered money as a thing rather than a technique. Sharing is an exchange, and therefor in the broad definition is an economy. Even more difficult to eliminate would be status both as a good and as a medium of exchange. Within DF individuals are far from equal and status is of massive importance: just ask your Master Cheesemaker about that. That the status conferred (by the player) is related entirely to skill-set and productivity suggests meritocratic capitalism or philosophical "objectivism" (Ayn Rand).
-
Is thisbecause of the comment I said towards your idea of a watter tower?
-
SOMEBODY LOCK THIS THREAD
-
With regards to Marx, the problem is that phase 2 is an intractable and stable authoritarian state. The other problem is that Marx considered money as a thing rather than a technique. Sharing is an exchange, and therefor in the broad definition is an economy. Even more difficult to eliminate would be status both as a good and as a medium of exchange. Within DF individuals are far from equal and status is of massive importance: just ask your Master Cheesemaker about that. That the status conferred (by the player) is related entirely to skill-set and productivity suggests meritocratic capitalism or philosophical "objectivism" (Ayn Rand).
Heh, nothing livens up a party like brining Ayn Rand into it.
The problem with that is that "legendaries" are generally selected completely arbitrarily. If you have a legendary armorsmith, it's either becuase you hit the fey mood jackpot (which is completley random, and has nothing to do with any one dwarf's "earning" it), or else because that dwarf was selected by whatever arbitrary means the player used (she was the #3 dwarf in the starting seven) to determine who would get the armorsmith training, while other dwarves, who may well be far more intelligent and hard-working, never get a chance to do anything but haul.
While there is some meritocratic reward in the player's eyes to hard work in terms of promoting a skill, they generally don't have any real status above the other dwarves in game-terms, and may be just as much a homeless hobo as any of them while the nobles own everything and do nothing.
-
So it's like real life, then.
-
I dont think so much that its communist so much as a capitalist venture by the starting 7 dwarves. everything is shared because they all work for the same company. Making money (or increasing the total value of your fortress, w/e) is one of the objectives of the game, is it not?
-
It seems more like a monarchy to me. When the fort first starts, everything's communal because survival depends on it. Then a king shows up and coins are minted and everything goes to hell.
Really? I thought it started that way.
-
Three-Panel Soul (http://www.threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2009-07-21) describes it pretty succinctly, and very accurately.
I would say that most fortresses go through stages, though.
"FAMILY" (Embark to 16 dwarves): A "family" sort of unit. Everyone knows almost everyone else. EVERYONE works and contributes to the "society."
"CLAN" (17 to 40 dwarves): A group made up of smaller "family" units. Everyone shares food, families share some things, (like bedrooms) individuals own items. Almost everyone works.
"PSEUDO-SOCIALISM" (40 dwarves to start of economy): This is the stage that most of us are familiar with. Families share rooms, everyone shares everything else. A growing portion of the population is composed of useless Soapmakers and Fishcleaners who are nothing but freeloading beer guzzlers.
"MONARCHICAL-RUN ECONOMY" (Start of economy and onwards/downwards): Tax collector/baron arrives, and the economy kicks in. Nobles juggle prices like hot potatoes. The idlers are now steadily going into debt and blubbering to your mayor about it. The Soapmakers' Guild is up in arms about the lack of jobs. Half your fortress is slap-happy and ecstatic, and the other half is busy getting Hammered, evicted, and throwing tantrums.
Somewhat of note: All belongings of a dead dwarf transfer ownership to his/her spouse. If not applicable, it's a free-for-all.