Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Solmyr 12-08-04, 05:49 AM	I have just now realized that dwarves are, in fact, communists. I submit the following evidence: - they live in tightly organized and structured societies, obeying laws without question - they consider the needs of the society to be above the needs of an individual - they believe in hard work as a purpose in itself, demanding that all able workers contribute their share, receiving only what they need to live with little luxury or excess ("from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs") - sure, they have kings, but those kings don't last long without support of clan elders ("the Party") Thoughts? Nods of agreement? Cries for my blood? :D ;)
Another Gnome 12-08-04, 06:18 AM	I for one really, really, really would NOT go helping myself to a dwarf's hard-earned personal belongings when I need it, claiming it to be communal property. :) I'd rather call dwarves socialist monarchic capitalists. [Edit: on second thought, perhaps I won't provide a real-world reference even in a complimentary fashion.]
Azual 12-08-04, 07:44 AM	you have to understand one thing. Dwarf Society has actually lasted more then 20 years. Communism... I dont see it lasting TOO long :D
Ramius_Mordale 12-08-04, 09:00 AM	I WANT BLOOD! BLASPHEMER!!!!!!! CHARGE!!!!!!!!! :fight!: :mage: :nonono: :evillaugh Okay in all serious now, ah, I thought dwarves were greedy and lived in a clan like mentality. You do what's best for your clan and you try and get them as rich and influential as you can, or something along that lines, by increasing your own personal wealth etc. At least that's how I've always read it to be. :tiphat: -Ramius-
Ogre4Hire 12-08-04, 12:09 PM	No, dwarves prefer an Open-Market economy. Kenders are communists.
Count Arioch the 28th 12-08-04, 12:11 PM	In my world, Duergar are communists, and for them, it works, because they actually expect to have to work their entire lives and have the government collect their products without any pay in return. for them, it works just fine, they like suffering and oppression.
Seeker95 12-08-04, 12:35 PM	I submit the following evidence: 1. - they live in tightly organized and structured societies, obeying laws without question 2. - they consider the needs of the society to be above the needs of an individual 3. - they believe in hard work as a purpose in itself, demanding that all able workers contribute their share, receiving only what they need to live with little luxury or excess ("from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs") 4. - sure, they have kings, but those kings don't last long without support of clan elders ("the Party")1. I disagree with the assessment that they do so without question. They question, and laws changes within a system of ordered evolution. It's just that being the rather perfect society that they are, and being so long-sighted as a people, that change appears rather slow in the narrow focus of the short-lived. 2. Not so at all. It is simply that the needs of the individual are acknowledged as being interdependent upon the success of the society. Not above... rather, equal. 3. Dwarves do not share equally. They receive merit-based compensation. There is a minimum subsistence level accorded to all, but anyone who works harder gets more. They are compassionately free-market (distinct from capitalist) in nature. Dwarves do not permit excess gained from the work of others, but an individual who works in excess gets rewarded in excess. 4. You have this one backwards. Clan elders maintain their position so long as they remain in the favor of the king. Lose the king, and the elders must scramble for favor in the eyes of the new king. And with the long lives of dwarves, it is not in any elder's interest to see a change in monarch. (As long as we are talking seriously!)
Sulaco 12-08-04, 01:28 PM	I have just now realized that dwarves are, in fact, communists. I submit the following evidence: - they live in tightly organized and structured societies, obeying laws without question - they consider the needs of the society to be above the needs of an individual - they believe in hard work as a purpose in itself, demanding that all able workers contribute their share, receiving only what they need to live with little luxury or excess ("from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs") - sure, they have kings, but those kings don't last long without support of clan elders ("the Party") Thoughts? Nods of agreement? Cries for my blood? :D Whatever works for you. Dwarves in my worlds are nothing like this.
ORC_Tuhteth 12-08-04, 02:37 PM	Quick note: This is an interesting topic, but please be sure not to make any real-world references on this subject. For example, it's okay to discuss communism and communists (little "c"), but not Communists or the Communist Party (big "c"). (I hope everyone sees what I mean by this!) Now, taking off the moderator hat for a moment, I agree with Seeker95's comments -- he summed up most of what I was going to say before I had a chance. :)
Edymnion 12-08-04, 02:45 PM	Agreed, Kenders are communists. The way you put it though, Dwarves are socialists. They have institutations in place to provide for the common good, but those that work harder get better stuff. Thats not communism. Communism (big C because its the first word in the sentance :P) says that everyone gets treated equally, reguardless of their contribution.
Bedford 12-08-04, 03:08 PM	This is an interesting topic. But I wonder, how would you define Elven society?
Seeker95 12-08-04, 03:23 PM	This is an interesting topic. But I wonder, how would you define Elven society?Anarchic Society of Drama Queens.
Farland 12-08-04, 05:08 PM	One of the major differences between communists and socialists to my knowledge is that socialists don't advocate community of women and children. Beyond that, yes I believe dwarves and elves could both be considered socialists. And that isn't so bad. I myself have strong socialist sympathies. [[EDIT: Removed veiled real-world references. -- WizO the Hutt]]
Count Arioch the 28th 12-08-04, 08:48 PM	A pure captalist society can't work in real life either, every economy in the world have a mixture of both capitalism and socialism (With a few other forms thrown in for god measure), because when you go to either extreme, it becomes utterly unstable, and cannot sustain itself at all. [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]]
Shemeska the Marauder 12-08-04, 09:38 PM	[[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]] On topic, Drow you could argue have some bizzare two tiered society of often unregulated capitalism juxtaposed with a matriarchal theocracy. However it's difficult to place real world examples on fantasy races in general. Paints with too broad a brush I find. For a specific dwarven or elven nation you might, but not for the whole race at large. Drow for instance
skywyze 12-08-04, 09:53 PM	Must...resist...urge...to...bash...polit ics... :headexplo
Seeker95 12-08-04, 10:11 PM	Dammit WizOs, get the politics the hell off my boards! :D
SammasterT 12-08-04, 10:23 PM	Dammit WizOs, get the politics the hell off my boards! :D Indeed! Spoken as a true, practical minded dwarf, too hard at work to be bothered with such ideological nonsense!
DarkSoldier 12-08-04, 10:51 PM	I'm fairly sure the People's State of Mordengard (Chainmail) was a communist society.
WizO_Catoblepas 12-08-04, 11:26 PM	To clarify Hutt's message one step futher, please refrain from discussion of real life political figures or organizations, whether directly or in innuendo. If you want to discuss capitalism or communism in a D&D world, that's fine. If you bring in the real world to the conversation, it's not. After all, this is a D&D forum.
Callista 12-08-04, 11:37 PM	Well, some dwarves are certainly communist or socialist in structure (and I would say "socialist" because they certainly believe in personal property). But you can make them whatever you want in your world. The average Dwarf personality--Lawful rather than the human norm of Neutral--probably takes much more kindly to a society that focuses on the whole rather than on the individual. They've got a racial-pride thing going that says, "I'm a Dwarf, and we Dwarves have got to stick together, so if I see another Dwarf in trouble, I'll help them." A society built on that ideal will be socialistic. You'd have to change the dwarf persona a lot if you wanted them to be communists, though. I can see Halflings doing the "communist" thing, though. Not every community, sure, and not the one in cities... but I can see isolated halfling villages literally having everything in common--houses, children, personal property. I have a feeling they'd probably make decisions via a "town council" sort of deal rather than a "The Party Decides Everything" format though. In essence, rulership would be shared as much as everything else. Takes a special breed of Halfling, though. Certainly not the CN-rogue style... more of a Tolkienish-Hobbit sort of halfling.
Josh_Kablack 12-08-04, 11:41 PM	Hrm...I seem to recall that Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger had a communist [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]]-quoting dragon as a character. The image of dwarves carrying around something like [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]]and quoting from the wisdom of the drinking songs in it amuses me greatly.
Callista 12-08-04, 11:54 PM	Nah... the dwarves drinking songs *are* their [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]]. Seriously, think about it. What's a dwarven drinking song gonna be about (besides the obvious "dwarven women")? Right. Glorious battle, glorious victory, glorious death--great deeds done by the dwarves, for the Dwarves. You wanna encourage "good-of-the-many" thinking, do it with drinking songs, because that's what really works with the common people. It'll work much better than asking Dwarves to read pendantic "little red books" that, chances are, they'll just use for toilet paper!
SnowbearK 12-09-04, 01:15 AM	This probably belongs under the 1001 ways to beat a dead horse thread...seeing as how it's been coming up repeatedly ever since Chainmail came out. :rolleyes:
skywyze 12-09-04, 01:50 AM	One could argue that dwarves are greedy and gold-loving, and therefore capitalistic, but at the same time you could say that they're a tightly knit community and therefore communist. So the point is moot: They're both, when it's appropriate. My take is that every race has as much variation on their choice of political government (in the cases where such a thing can be said to exist) as we do in real life. Limit the governmental form of a race to a few possibilities, and you've reduced the span and complexity of your world. And even if the difference is slight, any decision that reduces your potential is a bad one in my opinion. If you want communist dwarves, go right ahead, but there's a lot of potential - both comedic and realistic - in subjecting them to other forms of government. Heck, putting the PCs in the middle of a marxist revolution could be a lot of fun! Of course, this is just how I perceive it. Do as you please. ;)
Callista 12-09-04, 03:04 AM	There's a thread on that in the DM's place, actually--using the [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]] (or a D&D world analogue of it) as backdrop for an adventure. History gives you a lot of ideas, if you know where to look. Personally, I think it takes a certain type of person to make communism work. I don't want to get into the politics of the thing; but why else have some communist countries lasted much longer than others? I think part of the reason is that different cultures react differently to different structures of government. D&D races, of course, are much, much more diverse than humans will ever get; so any style of government you can think of will probably find a home somewhere in the D&D universe--even those that would never work in our world (for example, the communal, freewheeling kender lifestyle--some people might have little concept of private property, but those that do are tribal people who certainly *do* have a concept of fear!--or the brutal hierarchy of the drow; humans just aren't that evil!). Communistic dwarves? Why not? I think the system would have to be adjusted to give dwarves some sort of "wealth"--even if it's in reputation among other dwarves--to hoard, but it could work. If it fits the style of the race, do it! I can see dwarves having all sorts of government styles--from the tribal leadership position decided by combat to a King-Arthur style monarchy. I cannot, however, see them using a bureaucracy-choked style of government like the modern democracies and republics--dwarves just don't have the patience to wait for three months while the ruling body passes a declaration of war againast the orcs! Democracy for humans? Yes. Gnomes? Definitely. But dwarves? Well, if *your* dwarves do that--beyond holding a meeting of the King's advisors, who probably have enough clout to get him to back down--I'm not gonna call 'em dwarves!
Clangador 12-09-04, 03:05 AM	Anarchic Society of Drama Queens. LOL. I'll have to use that in a game. :) :) :) ~Clangador "I'm not a Dwarf, but I play on on TV."
Wil_Hyral 12-09-04, 03:38 AM	The original post doesn't describe communism, not on any fundamental levels. People mistake communism for socialism, which is the term used for a government that directly controls production and distribution of goods. ("do what you can, get what you need") Communism is actually the theory that no one person should own property, but that it should belong to the community as a whole. See, even their spelling is similar, communism and community. The difference is that communism by definition does not imply that anyone decides who gets what. Socialism does include the idea that some form of government decides who gets what (as well as who does what in order to get it). It's a common misconception, but it might have been worth my effort to shed some light. Now onto the post's other content. First of all, dwarves vary from setting to setting. Secondly, they're not a hivemind. They can differ in their behavior and interests. Thirdly, it never says in the core books that they're rewarded in any way other than merit (if a dwarf makes a masterwork sword, he gets paid for the skill he exhibited). Fourthly, the core books never insist that all dwarves practice monarchy. Fifthly, the core books don't claim that all monarchy rests on the support of a specific subordinate rank underneath the monarch. I won't even ask where you got the idea that dwarves follow the law without question... that's the same as saying they don't ever change their laws, and they don't have crime. And by the way, how often they question the law has nothing to do with their form of government, communist or otherwise.
RaspK FOG 12-09-04, 04:09 AM	First of all, I agree with Seeker95 (on both of his commentary posts :D ). As for the linguistic background of the words communism and socialism, they are derived from the words communion and social.
eclipticavatar 12-09-04, 06:40 AM	Seeker95 and Wi_Hyral, thanks. You posted my thoughts before I ever got a chance to. :) Dwarves definitely are not socialist, nor are they communists. If anything they are pretty damn capitalist. Elves are neither socialist nor communist also.
Farland 12-09-04, 07:52 AM	Dwarves are NOT capitalist, for one simple reason: equal liability of all to labor. There are no dwarves sitting around on their butts getting rich off the labor of other dwarves. (This is the essense of capitalism.) I wouldn't be surprised if even the king worked. Of course, everyone's dwarves are different I suppose; I speak of traditional fantasy dwarven society, as far as that exists.
Cravensson 12-09-04, 08:57 AM	Remember, too, that Dwarves, Elves, and what have you vary in alignment just about as much as humans do. Player Characters, for example, are usually exceptions to the rule, and if they exist, others like them surely do as well. Most D&D societies, from what I have seen, tend to be monarchies of some stripe or other. There certainly *could* be communistic Dwarves somewhere, I guess, but they would be exceptions.
The White Sorcerer 12-09-04, 09:27 AM	I don't know about other worlds, but Mror dwarves are definately as far from being communists as can be. Call a Mror merchant, clad in expensive jewelry, a communist and get a free trip to Dolurrh!
Callista 12-09-04, 09:52 AM	Remember, too, that Dwarves, Elves, and what have you vary in alignment just about as much as humans do. Player Characters, for example, are usually exceptions to the rule, and if they exist, others like them surely do as well. I would say they don't, generally. As PCs go, sure; but PCs are adventurers--which makes them different. Probably, being different is part of the reason they are adventurers. As far as NPCs and general population, elves have tendencies towards Chaos, dwarves towards Law, and (often) both towards Good. --What are you more likely to see--a human necromancer trying to take over the world with an unstoppable army of undead, or an elvish necromancer? --What are you more likely to see--a human blackguard killing innocents, or a dwarvish blackguard doing the same? Humans, of all the PC races, vary the most in alignment and tendency towards choosing classes. Consequently, they're also the most versatile. The other races are, compared to the Human, specialists. I would also note that, thanks to these variations, Human communites can probably successfully emply more types of government than any other race--from the democratic town council to the cliched Evil Overlord!
Shemeska the Marauder 12-09-04, 03:39 PM	Dwarves are NOT capitalist, for one simple reason: equal liability of all to labor. There are no dwarves sitting around on their butts getting rich off the labor of other dwarves. (This is the essense of capitalism.) I wouldn't be surprised if even the king worked. I think you fail to understand capitalism, but I don't want to go more off topic here. Back on topic I think we need to look at fantasy societies with both economic and rulership as being largely divorced from each other. You can have a capitalist economy and a king, or a theocracy, or a direct or republican democracy ruling over the country. There's the problem here of capitalism not being a system of government, but simply a system of economics. Communism tends to encompass both a system of heavy handed government based around redistribution of wealth (which may be representative or not) and an economic system focused on the dissolution of private property for the common welfare. Real world examples of communism have been more... bloody... than their theory might hold (ie The Purges) but fantasy societies don't have to have the same real human qualities that make communism effectively impossible to work in real societies.
Farland 12-09-04, 04:14 PM	I beg to differ; I understand capitalism very well, and I stand by what I said. And if you believe that capitalism is onyl an economic system and not a system of government, you have not observed laws and who is running things closely enough.
Callahan 12-09-04, 05:21 PM	Theyre Feudal arn't they? They have a social order based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.
crazysamaritan 12-09-04, 05:28 PM	I beg to differ; I understand capitalism very well, and I stand by what I said. And if you believe that capitalism is onyl an economic system and not a system of government, you have not observed laws and who is running things closely enough. capitalism is a form of economics. Communism happens to influence the form of economics, but the amount can vary. Just because the extreme version redistributes all wealth doesn't mean it has to do so. the extreme version of democracy measn everyone has to vote for something before it ever happens, and that ideal never works.
Wil_Hyral 12-09-04, 06:00 PM	I beg to differ; I understand capitalism very well, and I stand by what I said. And if you believe that capitalism is onyl an economic system and not a system of government, you have not observed laws and who is running things closely enough. From webster.com: : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market It regards prices, production and distribution of goods as determined by competition in the free market. This is in contrast to socialism, in which the markets aren't free of government control. I've never heard any definition of capitalism that insists the involvement of someone sitting on their ass while their men do the work. That sounds more like slavery. This is another case in which capitalism is being mistaken for [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]] capitalism, and even then your observations are questionable. Edit: put simply, capitalism is not a system of government. The two might relate to one another, (sometimes even closely) but that doesn't mean they're the same.
skywyze 12-09-04, 07:43 PM	Actually, you could argue that capitalism inexorably turns into slavery, since in a capitalist society the rich get exponentially richer while the poor get poorer. Thus, eventually the poor will have to do anything and everything the rich tell them to just to survive, since in a true capialist society, nobody can regulate the power of the wealthy over the poor. Voila, slavery. And economics and politics are never completely separate. One is undeniably linked to the other. So though capitalism may be an economic model, it's hugely based on the political ideas that precede it and therefore any distinction between the two become more or less pointless. Random quote: "You're our king? Well I didn't vote for you!" :D
FreeTheSlaves 12-09-04, 10:23 PM	I would think that Tolkiens Hobbits & their Shire is the closest thing to communism. There was a marked absense of any upper or lower class - they didn't seem to have a developed cash based society & everyone looked well fed & housed. I would suspect that any community decisions would be decided on by a council (soviet means council) of elder Hobbits using consensus. Communism is easiest to establish in smaller communities (Shire) with plenty of resources for all.
Callista 12-09-04, 11:29 PM	Oh, no... Hobbit society is more of a hereditary oligarchy, I think. They are ruled by mayors, who generally come from the "best families". For example, Sam is of the servant class, while Frodo, Bilbo, Merry, and Pippin are all "gentlehobbits". However, this doesn't seem to deter either Frodo or Sam from being friends, and neither has any disrespect for the other. Apparently Sam takes pride in being a good servant, and Frodo thinks no less of him than any other hobbit. Hobbits are very status-conscious; and very class-conscious. They stick together, yes; and the poor are fed just because hobbits have good hearts and do so out of good will; but the classes are there, visible, and have an impact on society. (They are, however, not locked in--Sam makes his way, through merit, quite handily to the upper classes near the end of the book.) You really need to read the books. Or, if you have, read 'em again. Especially the "scouring of the Shire" part they left out of the movie (*sigh*... only so much you can fit in one already-a-bit-too-long movie, I suppose). It's the exact opposite. If you want an example of true communism, try Formians... but then, they have a hive mind, so it's not like they really have a choice in the matter (and, for that matter, have no concept of "choice"). Kender, though: There's a communist government for you--though whether it's communism or anarchy is really up for debate. So, Kender--communists? Y'think?
Shemeska the Marauder 12-10-04, 12:28 AM	I would think that Tolkiens Hobbits & their Shire is the closest thing to communism. There was a marked absense of any upper or lower class - they didn't seem to have a developed cash based society & everyone looked well fed & housed. I would suspect that any community decisions would be decided on by a council (soviet means council) of elder Hobbits using consensus. Communism is easiest to establish in smaller communities (Shire) with plenty of resources for all. Or a direct democracy, which is really only possible with a small society by and large. As well lack of a cash based society doesn't necessarily indicate communism (which would abolish the idea of private ownership and personal property rights, etc). It's an interesting idea, though many of us seem to have differing opinions of the exact nature, definition, and practicality of certain economic and political systems (having lost whole branches of the family during the 30's and 40's to the purges, my opinion is low on some of them understandably).
crazysamaritan 12-10-04, 12:46 AM	Actually, you could argue that capitalism inexorably turns into slavery, since in a capitalist society the rich get exponentially richer while the poor get poorer. Thus, eventually the poor will have to do anything and everything the rich tell them to just to survive, since in a true capialist society, nobody can regulate the power of the wealthy over the poor. Voila, slavery. Quit bringing real life into it. In an ideal communism, there's just one community pot of money, and if someone needs cash, they just go to the pot. People work if they want to. They are rewarded for work, and are taken care of if they do not work. In RL, it would tend towards slavery. In a LN group, it would work out okay, but not perfect, LE would fail, and LG would do very well.
FreeTheSlaves 12-10-04, 12:57 AM	Didn't Marx believe that communism was the next evolutionary step after democracy? As such communism would inherit many of it's characteristics. You are absolutely right about communism coming in many different strains, it is after all a political-economic theory that has survived 150 years of turmoil and crossed oceans & peoples. Personally I make an effort to divorce the failed totalitarian dictatorships that masqueraded under a guise trimmed with the trappings of communism - and the (yet-to-truely-exist) genuine communist state. In actuallity, none of the default "fantasy" races live in a communist setting, likely because the authors did not. Instead we have various medieval governments typically based around the ruling high level character(s).
FreeTheSlaves 12-10-04, 01:05 AM	So, Kender--communists? Y'think? Nup, definitely anarchists. Their societies would be very small and unproductive, no work of any length of time would be done (crops) and no ruling decision would be respected by all. Furthermore their kleptomania would hinder any attempt at labour what with tools being misplaced. Also - their comic relief curiousity would kill them off. They would get wanderlust all right, their homes would be hovels and their people destitute.
Scarlet Knight 12-10-04, 01:10 AM	Theyre Feudal arn't they? They have a social order based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture. Yeah, I agree. Modern capitalism and communism are products of industrial society. D&D is primarily medieval fantasy, so the fuedal economies ought to be the rule. Maybe some slave-based economies exist or even some mercantile empires, but please no bourgeois and proletariat in traditional D&D. In an Eberron type of campaign setting, on the other hand, dwarven communists could be possible.
Farland 12-10-04, 08:45 AM	Wil Hyral said: From webster.com: : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market It regards prices, production and distribution of goods as determined by competition in the free market. This is in contrast to socialism, in which the markets aren't free of government control. I've never heard any definition of capitalism that insists the involvement of someone sitting on their ass while their men do the work. That sounds more like slavery. This is another case in which capitalism is being mistaken for [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- WizO the Hutt]] capitalism, and even then your observations are questionable. Edit: put simply, capitalism is not a system of government. The two might relate to one another, (sometimes even closely) but that doesn't mean they're the same. Citing the dictionary is exactly what I tell my students NOT to do when they write papers, because the dictionary offers superficial definitions at best. If "Dungeons & Dragons" were in the dictionary, the definition would be something like, "a game where people take on the role of fantasy characters and roll dice to determine outcomes." But is that the entire definition of d&d? By that definition, you could argue that, no, d&d doesn't have a class of paladin, because webster's didn't say so. Secondly, I could also bring up the idea that webster's dictionary was written by men who are products of a capitalist society. Next, if you do not understand the antagonism of capital and wage labor (the thing that allows capitalists the ability to do nothing and get rich while you and I have to go to work every day and sell our labor for a wage), then it is YOU who truly do not understand capitalism. If you have "never heard any definition of capitalism that [includes] the involvement of someone sitting on their ass while their men do the work" then you don't know much about the economic system in which we live. As for the government thing, of course I understand that capitalism is an economic term, but I was speaking in a broader sense. It is also clear that ideas have a core similarity, and when you take them into different spheres, the terms for those ideas change. In other words, the same core idea underlies capitalism and republicanism (in the original sense). Take capitalism into a political sphere and it becomes republicanism, in my opinion, and vice versa, but they are the same core idea.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-10-04, 09:37 AM	Secondly, I could also bring up the idea that webster's dictionary was written by men who are products of a capitalist society. Once again, 'the man' is involved, always keeping us down. For shame. In other words, the same core idea underlies capitalism and republicanism (in the original sense). Take capitalism into a political sphere and it becomes republicanism, in my opinion, and vice versa, but they are the same core idea. So you'd make the point that a capitalist economic system translates into representative democracy?
eclipticavatar 12-10-04, 09:39 AM	He obviously doesn't know what a republic is. :)
Edymnion 12-10-04, 10:23 AM	Once again, 'the man' is involved, always keeping us down. For shame.Bah, the only "Man" thats keeping any of us down is ourselves. Why [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- Pizza the Hutt]], and I mean, really, [[EDIT: Real-world references removed. -- Pizza the Hutt]]. Ya know? *Please note that the "edits" are attributed to Pizza the Hutt, not WizO the Hutt, and were done intentionally as a commentary on the way the thread is going.
WhiteHarness 12-10-04, 10:52 AM	I understand the reasoning behind, but do not agree with, the WizOs' heavy-handed editing of this thread. It seems like a strange mutation of Political Correctness. How is anyone going to get offended if we mention Real-World names or places? Some posts are almost unintelligible because of all the editing.
Farland 12-10-04, 11:13 AM	So you'd make the point that a capitalist economic system translates into representative democracy? In a very real way, yes. Here's my reasoning: 1. They are both based on the assumption that decisions based on self-interest will lead to a larger good. 2. They are both relativistic. Democracy is relativistic because it implicitly holds that higher truths do not exist, and indeed that truth is collective and created. For capitalism, the higher truth or guiding principle is also collective and created by the operation of the market (really a group of individuals acting for their self-interest). This core group of ideas, when entered into the political sphere therefore becomes republicanism or democracy and when entered into the economic sphere becomes capitalism. Now I understand that one could argue that I have merely identified similarities and not a core idea, but my answer to this is simply that I disagree and believe that the "similarities" I have identified are fundamental enough to make qualify them as the same core idea/s. Now I have been drawn into this discussion because I was challenged to defend my (admittedly not overtly explained) contention that capitalism is practically a form of government. Now that I have explained it in part, I renew my assertion that the dwarven way of life is certainly not capitalistic; it is closer to communism than capitalism. True, it is not a pure form of communism because of its feudal structure, but equal liability of all to labor disqualifies it as pure feudalism as well. The thing it is furthest from is capitalism.
nyysjan 12-10-04, 11:31 AM	i disagree read some cyberpunk novels and see how Capitalism can really :censored: society one must remember that extremes tend to always end up badly and anyway dwarves are nether capitalists or communists they are dwarves even a dwarf can be an individual
Shemeska the Marauder 12-10-04, 12:05 PM	Now that I have explained it in part, I renew my assertion that the dwarven way of life is certainly not capitalistic; it is closer to communism than capitalism. True, it is not a pure form of communism because of its feudal structure, but equal liability of all to labor disqualifies it as pure feudalism as well. The thing it is furthest from is capitalism. And I can't see them as being communist. 1) communism presumes that collctive decisions will be made with the greater good in mind with little to no regard to the rights of the individual. In the most extreme forms there would be no individual rights (though the original intent was certainly based on old ideas of class warfare and only held to apply to property rights, capital, personal property, etc). 2) in theory communism assumes an obscene level of altruism by every individual in society, and that none will take advantage of the system. In practice it has led to the largest abuses of human rights and the largest genocides in human history; there was a reason that Marx never intended for his ideas to be forced into action, but rather that a more perfect society would evolve towards a use of his ideals. Again practice of the ideas has begat horrors irl. 3) Dwarves don't seem to have an abolition of personal property rights or individual rights, but rather an extreme devotion to clan and king that may often make them feel beholden to the point that the welfare of the clan takes priority over themselves. It's not forced though certainly and the society doesn't abhor personal property, or espose ideas of class warfare, etc. You still have nobles, a mercantile class, and perhaps an underclass, though it seems as if the clan as a whole supports their fellows to the point that there isn't a large distinction between the rank and file into richer or poorer, outside of those w/ noble blood or perhaps some clerical or wizardly ability that makes them profit by their own labor. Pure communism would have no additional benefit for hard work, your labor would be stripped from you and you'd receive just as much as joe slouche who didn't lift his finger, common welfare to the lowest common denominator in practice.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-10-04, 12:08 PM	i disagree read some cyberpunk novels and see how Capitalism can really :censored: society one must remember that extremes tend to always end up badly Mmm.... Shadowrun w/ megacorps. Capitalism taken to its greatest extremes in that setting in many ways. And yep you're right, extremes most often end up badly for all involved. :)
Edymnion 12-10-04, 12:49 PM	I understand the reasoning behind, but do not agree with, the WizOs' heavy-handed editing of this thread. It seems like a strange mutation of Political Correctness. How is anyone going to get offended if we mention Real-World names or places? Some posts are almost unintelligible because of all the editing.The simple answer is that this is about D&D. If you want to talk this sort of thing, you have to keep it in D&D. As soon as you start using real world examples, it can quickly turn into a "lets all flame this guy!" thread pretty easily, with other people defending them, and it just turns into a mess. The mods are being heavy handed because if they don't, there are hundreds of precident cases where its gotten out of control. Just be happy they're letting us keep the thread open in the first place, especially since communism and democracy are NOT actual topics that apply to D&D. They didn't really develop until the 18-19th century, and there has never really been a purely capitolist society in history. The whole thing in D&D is that there are kings, kingdoms, etc. At the best there's a ruling council, layered ranks of society, and the commoners/peasants on the bottom. Aka, its feudalism.
Farland 12-10-04, 01:02 PM	A well-stated response, Shemeska. Let me address some of your comments. And I can't see them as being communist. 2) in theory communism assumes an obscene level of altruism by every individual in society, and that none will take advantage of the system.[quote] Is there such a thing as "obscene altruism"? The two words seem mutually exclusive to me. In any case, communism isn't altruistic. It doesn't ask any individual to sacrifice more than any other individual. [quote]In practice it has led to the largest abuses of human rights and the largest genocides in human history; there was a reason that Marx never intended for his ideas to be forced into action, but rather that a more perfect society would evolve towards a use of his ideals. Again practice of the ideas has begat horrors irl. Marx intended the communist revolution to be violent. I think that that is "forcing it into action." But I agree that what was called communism in the 20th century had terrible effects. The reasons are very complex, but I don't think one could rationally argue that the twentieth century experiments proved communism to be impossible. 3) Dwarves don't seem to have an abolition of personal property rights or individual rights, but rather an extreme devotion to clan and king that may often make them feel beholden to the point that the welfare of the clan takes priority over themselves. True. But one could argue that this is indeed a form of communism. What's the major difference? That's the point of this thread. It's not forced though certainly and the society doesn't abhor personal property, or espose ideas of class warfare, etc. Communism only abhors personal property in the form of capital. Communism doesn't aim to do away with an individual's things. I don't think individual dwarves own capital. I doubt that an individual dwarf owns the forges or the mines. They are the property of the clan or the community as a whole. You still have nobles, a mercantile class, and perhaps an underclass, though it seems as if the clan as a whole supports their fellows to the point that there isn't a large distinction between the rank and file into richer or poorer, outside of those w/ noble blood or perhaps some clerical or wizardly ability that makes them profit by their own labor. Exactly, and exactly the reason I say they are closer to communist than not. Again, I don't claim that they are pure communists. Pure communism would have no additional benefit for hard work, your labor would be stripped from you and you'd receive just as much as joe slouche who didn't lift his finger, common welfare to the lowest common denominator in practice. No, I disagree. A communist would argue that the benefit from hard work is greater than in a capitalist society. Although not monetary renumeration, one gains satisfaction, the ability to own (collectively) the product of one's labor (rather than seeing it go to make someone else rich and you poor), and relief from alienation. These are very real, and not merely theoretical, benefits. A communist would argue that capitalism strips your labor from you, not communism. And the last statement is flat-out wrong. Communism has equal liability of all to labor, as I've stated. So therefore if Joe Slouch didn't lift his finger, Joe Slouch wouldn't get any share of the community products and would starve to death. Interesting discussion, this. :)
Woas 12-10-04, 01:08 PM	Perhaps if anyone wants to talk about brainstorming or creating a dwarven culture with socialistic government or whatever, we could open a thred over on the Homebrew Workshop boards. Anway, I feel that dwarves would form the perfect feudalistic society, like others have mentioned. I view the dwarves loyalty to the clan something like the hierarchal system presented in medieval europe with loyalty to a family or something akin to the Star Trek Klingons and their conenction with a house. I pictures dwarves with many coats of arms and long family trees.
taltamir 12-10-04, 03:28 PM	Yes dwarfs are communists. In fact, most Utopian Societies as described are communist. What is bad about communism? The soviet union was a totalitarian communist government, it did bad things. Many thirld world countries are totalatrian capitalist countries, they are WORSE. If you had a communism (an ecnomic system) in a non opress government, it would be a whole different story (I would like to point out the Israeli Kitbutzes. Those are communist communities within israel, a capitalistic nation. There are a bunch of rules on how you move between them, but anyone may choose to belong to either one and may change their status at any point) While its true that kingship is totalitarian, a kingship is not WORSE then a democracy, it is often a better form of government, however it suffers from extreme lack of stability. One bad king..... and everything goes down the drain. BTW, the smurfs are communist aswell. So, to sum it up. Communism is NOT a system of government, but a monetary system. And really, its not like its evil. Viewing it as evil and as "something that will never work" is all BS leftover from the red scare.
Callista 12-10-04, 04:49 PM	For the purpose of this post, I will define "communism" as "the general system of ideas put forth by Marx, as they are used in countries such as the USSR, China, Korea, etc." Whatever your ideas about communism working or not working for humans, you really have to think about it in D&D terms. Look at the difference between human cultures--for example, the culture of Canada versus the culture of South Africa. BIG difference--and there's hardly any difference in the physical aspects of the people, beyond cosmetic stuff like skin color and facial features. It's a given (at least to me) that certain styles of governmennt work better in some cultures than others. For example, a culture that is very happy under a hereditary constitutional monarcy might react violently to a beaurocracy-heavy socialist government; and a culture that thrives with a tribal government doesn't see the point of changing to a republic. In any given D&D race, those variations should also exist. Which means there might be some dwarves that would be happy under communism, and some who would instinctively rebel against it. But that's not all. In the D&D world, there aren't just variations between cultures of the same race--there are totally different species out there! If there's a difference between Canada and South Africa, they grow insignificant when compared to, say, the difference between troglodytes, dragons, kobolds, elves... There are races in D&D that are "always Good/Evil/Chaotic/Neutral". There are races with such low intelligence that they haven't got a language of their own. There are races that have intelligence and wisdom several multiples of the average human's. And each race varies at least to some degree in culture and ideal government (though humans probably vary the most) among itself, not to mention the differences *between* races! Saying that "dwarves are communist" is like saying "Humans are communist"--it's an insane over-generalization. There's so much more to take into account than mere race. Each culture is different; each town and city and kingdom has interpersonal dynamics, different from every other, that contribute to which system of government it is best suited to. So if your campaign has communistic dwarves, I don't see that as a stretch--no more than communistic humans. And, for that matter, they can be satisfied or dissatisfied with their government, just like humans can be. I do, however, think that (just like any medieval culture) dwarves probably use either a Mayor/town coucil or a King/Councilors arrangement more than any other. Philosophically, whether you agree with them or not, things like the democracy, republic, socialism/communism, etc., are complicated ideas, and complicated to put into practice--the political equivalent of gunpowder-powered weaponry in a medieval world. Possible, yes; but dwarven kings are more likely to exist (at least IMC) than the dwarven Communist Party.
Shemeska the Marauder 12-10-04, 05:39 PM	The soviet union was a totalitarian communist government, it did bad things. Many thirld world countries are totalatrian capitalist countries, they are WORSE. Without getting into real world examples... compare the death toll in the former to that of the latter. Orders of magnitude higher for the former (A friend of my grandfather spent 30 years in a gulag). If you had a communism (an ecnomic system) in a non opress government, it would be a whole different story (I would like to point out the Israeli Kitbutzes. Those are communist communities within israel, a capitalistic nation. There are a bunch of rules on how you move between them, but anyone may choose to belong to either one and may change their status at any point) I'll grant you that one, with the sole caveat of that those are voluntary, you choose to join and you can choose to leave, and real world examples have been anything but voluntary. While its true that kingship is totalitarian, a kingship is not WORSE then a democracy, it is often a better form of government, however it suffers from extreme lack of stability. One bad king..... and everything goes down the drain. Very true. Heck an enlightened despot is in ideal situations one of the better forms of government for a society because it removes the layers of beaurocracy you'd find in a representative government. :) Communism is NOT a system of government, but a monetary system. And really, its not like its evil. Viewing it as evil and as "something that will never work" is all BS leftover from the red scare. Read 'Gulag' by Anne Applebaum, a 2004 Pulitzer winning book for general non-fiction, and then see if you still hold that statement to be true. And on that note I'm going to withdraw from this before the thread gets too argumentative. PM if you care to continue, but I'll not make the Wiz-O's jobs harder.
taltamir 12-10-04, 06:55 PM	Quote: If you had a communism (an ecnomic system) in a non opress government, it would be a whole different story (I would like to point out the Israeli Kitbutzes. Those are communist communities within israel, a capitalistic nation. There are a bunch of rules on how you move between them, but anyone may choose to belong to either one and may change their status at any point) I'll grant you that one, with the sole caveat of that those are voluntary, you choose to join and you can choose to leave, and real world examples have been anything but voluntary. That IS a real world example. Those exist, today, and have existed for over 50 years, in Israel. I also would like to point out that while the ideas put forth by Callista are entirely correct, well thought of, and intelligent. they dont take into account that the creators of the world of dnd did NOT do the same. Dwarves ARE considered to be one cultures, humans ARE considered to be one lump. In the real world they are obvious not for all the reasons you explained. In DnD world, they are. I have to say Callista take on DnD is far superior to the official one, and is similar to the one I started making before abandoning it alltogether and starting my own world.
ORC_Tuhteth 12-10-04, 06:56 PM	Okay ... I tried to make it clear that you can discuss generalities but not real-world stuff, but this thread just keeps morphing into a debate over real-world political systems. A person's political ideology can be every bit as personal as a person's religion, and therefore such a discussion is just begging to turn into a flame-fest. I've posted a warning about this, and Catoblepas posted a warning about this, and then I went and edited out real-world comments to make this point abundantly clear, and still people are making tons of real-world references -- this just illustrates how this sort of topic can get derailed very quickly. So, I'm closing the thread.