Alternate views on certain aspects of the original seven factions

[JarlWolf]

Yeah, its not so much of those unethical experiments, rather that  performs it on a caste of drones who CANNOT progress no matter what. Morgan speaks indirectly of the University when he says,

"You ivory tower intellectuals must not lose touch with the world of industrial growth and hard currency. It is all very well and good to pursue these high-minded scientific theories, but research grants are expensive. You must justify your existence by providing not only knowledge but concrete and profitable applications as well."

Of course he was talking more of economic justification of scientists, but the thing is he calls them Ivory tower intellectuals.

This might be indirect throw at the University and its caste system, and I could very well imagine there is a whole class of people, proletariat who serve as downtrodden, disrespected manual laborers who get very little respect or care and are actively experimented on by the University. And this makes sense, because why would any sensible faction sacrifice its best and brightest in unstable experiments when it has a pool of (unwilling) victims- I mean volunteers to draw from?

That's what I think when I think of Zhakarov's drone issues. And historically, I think of Nazi Super science for equivalent comparisons...


Plus on another note, one of the Free Drone's drawbacks, negative research, is they don't like "Blue Sky Research."

A whole bit of Ludditism could be imprinted on the Free Drone movement because of the University and other faction's total disregard of the drone's health and safety.

[Sigma]

I've always thought it a bit odd that Believer society seems to be so blatantly modeled on American Evangelical Protestantism despite the numerous references to new holy texts, aka 'Conclave Bible' and the knowledge that the Unity crew consists of an eclectic mix of international crew members of a wide set of religious backgrounds.

If you've read the SMAC back-story you know that Miriam is really the most 'accidental' faction leader, she ran away from joining Zhakarov's landing craft (lots of sexual tension their) and stumbled into another craft that was damaged and leaderless and manages to be it's savior in a sense.  Other factions were largely self-selective in their personnel, but Miriam just got a random cross-section of all of Earth, the fact that they are molded into a religious society seems to have been done entirely on Miriam's personal charisma and the bond created by her rescue of them.

Given the mixed background I always imagined 'Conclavism' to be some kind of Bahai like fusion of multiple religions with the Cristian elements perhaps being most prominent.  Alternatively it might be like Mormonism in that Miriam has a series of 'Revelations' which are recorded in the frequently mentioned Conclave Bible.

The Conclave Bible doesn't seem to have anything particularly new in it. The quotes in the Datalinks read like excerpts from the King James Version with fewer archaism, which makes sense for a group rooted in American Evangelical Baptist theology. Miriam stands out from the other factions because her characterization feels a lot more reactionary than the other faction leaders. She was very clearly written as a charactacture and a criticism of figures like Jerry Falwell and other members of the Moral Majority that came down hard on video games in the 90s, which is when SMAC was being developed. She comes off as being profoundly unsympathetic because Firaxis no doubt had little sympathy for that particular ideology.

On the one hand it would feel more natural for a Fundamentalist group in the future to reflect a more diverse religious background, but on the other hand that threatens to water down their identity. In that way the Believers make sense-- every other faction believes in their ideology to the extent that they are willing to commit violence to defend it, so making the Believers a warm and welcoming Universalist church would make them appear weak in comparison to the other factions. The Believers are dogmatic and fanatical, but so are the other factions. They are just more obvious about it.

[KingCrimson]

This is something I like to think about a lot, because it's the sort of thing that really draws me into the game's world.

First, I think the important thing to address is that, as others have pointed out, all aspects of society still exist in every faction. Everyone has scientists, everyone has engineers, everyone has entrepreneurs, everyone has ecologists, and spies, and soldiers, and entertainers, etc. This is important because it's easy to define a faction by their strengths, but in reality (er, such as it is) there are a vast plethora of scientists who aren't with the University, businesspeople who aren't Morganites, religious people who aren't a part of the Believers, and so on. So we don't want to have a "Hive has no economists, Believers have no researchers, Peacekeepers have no soldiers" type of mentality.


I've always felt that the way the Believers are written clashes a bit with the way the Believers are played. Based on tech, project and facility blurbs, Miriam sounds IMHO more like a religious version of Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park than anything else - not a hyper-militant Luddite, but rather the skeptic saying "Instead of wondering if it can be done, maybe we should be asking whether it should be done." Based on some of her quotes, she seems to be fairly well-versed in science herself. Once things like the Dream Twister, Thought Control, and Punishment Spheres start showing up, it actually becomes far easier for me to empathize with her. At first it's easy to dismiss her rantings as technophobic nonsense, but once you've unleashed genetic warfare against a base, then had servile alien life forms obliterate every last trace of humanity there, you begin to wonder if maybe she had a point.

Of course, the way she's played is completely different - incredibly militant and deeply opposed to any sort of scientific progress. Perhaps that's reflective of gameplay and story segregation - or perhaps it's reflective of her rhetoric being a smokescreen to conceal her true ambitions. SMAC has this fantastic tension where you're never really sure if the leaders see their ideology as an end itself, or simply as the optimal means to achieving some other goal.


I don't think that extra research fits Yang. To me, the things that would make the Hive skilled researchers are also the things that would make them poor ones - while they are efficient and disciplined, they are also highly discouraged from thinking "outside the box." I think the two would cancel each other out.


The issue of Zak's drones is an interesting question, because IMHO the game is a bit inconsistent about the nature of drones, as well. Are they discontents? Lower-class workers? A specific caste? Depending on the answer there, we're going to end up with a different picture of where his extra drones come from, I think.


To me, the most interesting question is how much interaction there is between factions on a small scale level. Do the Morganites have shops and warehouses in other factions? Do University command centres use Spartan theory as the basis for their military training? Do the Believers have churches and/or missionaries scattered throughout Chiron? Do businesses around the planet outsource manufacturing to Hive industrial complexes? I would imagine that the Peacekeepers would be particularly tumultuous, as they seem like the type of faction who wouldn't be too insistent that immigrants, refugees, or conquered people assimilate. My guess would be that some Peacekeeper bases would be a sort of patchwork quilt of different factions - across the street from a Believing church, a collection of University exchange students have a quick dinner in a Hive-style feeding bay, while debating the merits and shortcomings of Gaian and Morganite environmental policies. That sort of thing.

[JarlWolf]

Valid points, though one thing to keep in mind is that these factions are ideologies taken to the extreme; and thus the dogma that goes with it. Morgan does have his enterprise spread about across the factions, but that does not mean citizens interchange very often, especially considering that world trade and travel is NOT established on Chiron, and the close knit control the factions have on their followers and the companion fanaticism for the ideal makes it very unlikely such metropolitan societies exist, at least for most of the game. Of course; that may change- but built up cultural values will take their precedence and do in our world as well. An extreme ideal in isolation builds up a mentality and character in people over time, and this is evident in history. And when those ideals collide, the result is often very messy. The Believers to me are so hostile not because their actual ideal is such a theocratic killing of science, but rather they are simply fighting for their faction survival, and part of their anti-science rhetoric comes from that fear. Miriam is an intelligent woman, but she is also one who uses charm as much as she does fear. And she has an image to uphold to her enemies- a fearful tide of theocratic punishment that she will damn her foes with. And to her own followers, a healthy skeptic and questioner of science, to use faith as a means of living your life in good safety and direction.

Of course things cross over here and there.

As for question of drones; drones are a mixture of lower class people, not merely just lower class labourers but labourer's who work the least skilled jobs. And sometimes drone's even have deliberate alterations to their mental capacity, and are often the victims of experiments and such too. See them as a caste of human beings who are not as valued by the rest of society. The Free Drones is a bit of a Proletarian Union movement in a sense in that it wants the drones, the truly disadvantaged case of society to rise up and form their own society. Of course being drones and the social stigma's associated they have problems in that society too. One of them is fear of researchers and an imbedded ludditism to themselves due to that fear.

Its a bit different then my Crimson Comrade's who were actually a full on Marxist revolution which took ALL the Proletarian as a whole, and other classes of society too; to rebel against Usurper and their pawn's despotic rule. And in the lore of my custom factions the Crimson Comrade's sort of absorbed the Free Drones once the Usurper threat came along because alone the drones got demolished.

I considered lot of these questions when making my custom factions... Crimson, you might want to take a look at those. Here is link:

http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=3751.0

[Yitzi]

The Free Drones is a bit of a Proletarian Union movement

More than a bit; the Free Drones essentially represent the essence of Marxism, even though they've dropped many of the peripheral details.

[Impaler]

Given how intellectual real Marxism is as a philosophy I find it hard to believe that a bunch of essentially Luddite Drones would actually embrace it.  Far more likely would be a less structured form of Socialism, possibly even Anarcho-Syndicalism.  I never got deeply into any of the SMACX factions but the Free Drones never struck me as true Marxists.

[JarlWolf]

And they aren't, the Free Drones are Union Socialists; not full on Marxists. I don't know their stance on private property and the like as its not explicitly stated but the vibe I got from them is that they are aspiring industrialists with strong work ethic, and worker protection laws. They have lots of social services and the like to serve the population and promote industrial educations and so forth, but they didn't come off to me as total re-distributive and equalizers- certainly egalitarian and focused on sharing wealth to extents sure, but not full on "To each their own needs to each their own ability." Otherwise they'd be embracing of technological process as well.

They aren't too far off from a Marxist ideal, but to state they are Marxists is mistake I think. To me they seem to take a little bit of Trotskyism and mash it with Union/Labour socialism- they aren't having complete industrial revolutions as you are essentially liberating people from societies that come from more of frontier colonial civilization then established, industrial capitalism. Not to say that Communism can't erupt from other forms of civilization then that, and its why my Crimson Comrade's aren't full on Marxists either, even though they do closely follow many of its tenets.

I don't think they are about equalization and killing the wealth gap either, they are more about egalitarian worker reform and protectionism then a fully equal society.

Because I could easily see the Drones, if they managed to uphold such a system, easily going for Henry Ford style capitalism over state socialism. (of course they prefer Union socialism because Henry Ford Capitalism only lasts so long as that particular CEO does.) They are just about emancipation of the drones, not leveling the playing field in my eyes.

Edit: And thats why I felt I needed to make Crimson Comrades way back; as I felt there truly lacked a true Socialist/Communist revolution/faction in the Centauri universe, when the conditions of it could very well back one.

Of course, that is not to say that the Drones and Comrade's wouldn't get along. In my lore I wrote for my custom factions the drones were actually absorbed as a movement into the Crimson revolution, because unlike Earth, the socialists on Chiron realized the mistakes of the past and realized in order for their ideal to survive they must band together despite their differences to survive outside threats. The Nazi regime came into power because the Communists and Democratic Socialists had a rift in their relationship and this allowed Hitler and his Nazi party to consolidate their political power. That mistake was not made when the Usurpers came with their pawns and annihilated most of the Human factions into ruin. 

[Yitzi]

Given how intellectual real Marxism is as a philosophy I find it hard to believe that a bunch of essentially Luddite Drones would actually embrace it.  Far more likely would be a less structured form of Socialism, possibly even Anarcho-Syndicalism.  I never got deeply into any of the SMACX factions but the Free Drones never struck me as true Marxists.

I may be misunderstanding things, but as I understand it, Marx's idea, past the short "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which is definitely one of the peripherals that the Drones ditched), is actually fairly unstructured, with people doing whatever holds their interest.

And they aren't, the Free Drones are Union Socialists; not full on Marxists. I don't know their stance on private property and the like as its not explicitly stated

I don't really see Marx's stance on private property as the essence of his philosophy; it's one of the more important peripherals, and one on which the Drones are definitely ambiguous, but not the essence.

They aren't too far off from a Marxist ideal, but to state they are Marxists is mistake I think. To me they seem to take a little bit of Trotskyism

I think Trotsky was probably closer to Marx than even Lenin; he was certainly closer than Stalin.

Edit: And thats why I felt I needed to make Crimson Comrades way back; as I felt there truly lacked a true Socialist/Communist revolution/faction in the Centauri universe, when the conditions of it could very well back one.

The Crimson Comrades seem to me to be more Leninist than Marxist.  They're about organized revolution, not spontaneous proletarian uprisings leading to a Eudaimonic end goal.  So yes, they are more "socialist/communist revolution" than the Drones, but less Marxist.

[JarlWolf]

I may be misunderstanding things, but as I understand it, Marx's idea, past the short "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which is definitely one of the peripherals that the Drones ditched), is actually fairly unstructured, with people doing whatever holds their interest.

Marx stated that, while the state would wither, people would still be collective as they work for the common good. He was heavily influenced by Rousseau and the Hegelian, and as a result Marx explicitly stated that yes, while people will pursue their interests, they will still work towards the common goals of the greater good and collective as the worker, and this is how he more or less states it, will know what people need and know the troubles and tribulations of poverty because he himself lived through it, and will help others along in the process.

So while puritan Marxist Communism has a fair degree of personal liberty, the general will of the people and good of the community is still a very high precedent thing.

I don't really see Marx's stance on private property as the essence of his philosophy; it's one of the more important peripherals, and one on which the Drones are definitely ambiguous, but not the essence.

Marx was HIGHLY against Private Property because, again he says private property is what corrupts the individual and turns him greedy, more or less. He believed that property shared in common will be far more beneficial and it'll break the tragic cycle of the Proletariat being exploited by the Burgiouse and capitalist classes. Private property must be eliminated for true equality to occur. 

I think Trotsky was probably closer to Marx than even Lenin; he was certainly closer than Stalin.

Stalin was an autocrat, Trotsky was an elitist and Lenin was a populist. They all have their merits and their beliefs, and being close to Marx does not necessarily deem you closer to Communist ideal. What deems you closer to Communist ideal is realizing the end goal of the revolution; and while Trotsky had a fairly good understanding that if Communism was to succeed there was need for genuine global support, and proper uprising- he had problems realizing this and he had a somewhat elitist air to him that put off a fair amount of Communists. Lenin made sure he did not appear as elitist by making him seem more aspiring and relatable, and while Lenin had his own glory cult he was far more stable in his operation then Trotsky. Lenin realized that you had to have capitalism, even in small degree's, before you could progress to communism. Trotsky ignored this.

The Crimson Comrades seem to me to be more Leninist than Marxist.  They're about organized revolution, not spontaneous proletarian uprisings leading to a Eudaimonic end goal.  So yes, they are more "socialist/communist revolution" than the Drones, but less Marxist.

The Crimson Comrades ARE organized themselves, but they also encourage and support Proletarian rebellion elsewhere and are active revolutionaries themselves. They empower populaces to revolt, through media, exposure of corruption, smuggling arms, etc. And the Crimson Comrades do not have outright propaganda for state figures and leaders, or at least, condoned. It still exists but the thing is, Vazheli and other individuals within the Confederacy do not actively make campaigns of glorifying themselves, and he himself amongst the other heroes the populace looks to as role models do not live glamorous lives. Vazheli lives fairly frugally himself and lives in a rather modest housing unit; almost a bit lower quality then that of his fellow faction members, and the only real sort of propaganda esque operations that go on is when there is active citizens and such that perform great feats. This isn't to glorify them but rather to empower the other citizens and give them motivation, and its still keeping to the tradition of Marxism fairly well:

You have a society that is for the Proletariat, the majority working classes, if not fully Proletarian in itself (Proletarian does not mean merely factory or farm workers mind- it means anyone who sells their labour for a living.) and supports their livelihoods and endeavors, a rather communal mindset coupled with an albeit violent, but egalitarian world view of spreading their revolution and encompassing the rest of the world in their egalitarian regime. The leaders, the council of this is DEMOCRATICALLY elected in a fairly representative, confederal/regional manner meaning that each region is fairly well represented; and the lack of Capitalist enterprise ensures that votes are not bought out/shareholded. I could go into detail how the whole system works but I'd just be ranting about a fictional Centauri faction, which is not the point of the response.

(I enjoy this mind, don't think I am offended  )

The Peripherals do matter. Small details can change how an entire society runs; that's why you always read the small print in contracts and other papers because on single line or sentence can determine how a whole operation conducts itself.
Many people have been fooled and enslaved because they didn't notice the peripherals/didn't care about them.

[Yitzi]

Marx stated that, while the state would wither, people would still be collective as they work for the common good. He was heavily influenced by Rousseau and the Hegelian, and as a result Marx explicitly stated that yes, while people will pursue their interests, they will still work towards the common goals of the greater good and collective as the worker, and this is how he more or less states it, will know what people need and know the troubles and tribulations of poverty because he himself lived through it, and will help others along in the process.

Sounds like something a Eudaimonic society would probably include.

Marx was HIGHLY against Private Property because, again he says private property is what corrupts the individual and turns him greedy, more or less. He believed that property shared in common will be far more beneficial and it'll break the tragic cycle of the Proletariat being exploited by the Burgiouse and capitalist classes. Private property must be eliminated for true equality to occur. 

He does; the question is whether that's part of the essence of his position.  I think it's, at the very least, farther from the essence of his position than those things that the Drones have and the Comrades do not (e.g. an endgoal that's quite high in freedom.)

Stalin was an autocrat, Trotsky was an elitist and Lenin was a populist. They all have their merits and their beliefs, and being close to Marx does not necessarily deem you closer to Communist ideal.

True; the Comrades are certainly closer to the Communist ideal than the Drones are.  The question is whether they're more or less Marxist.

The Crimson Comrades ARE organized themselves, but they also encourage and support Proletarian rebellion elsewhere and are active revolutionaries themselves. They empower populaces to revolt, through media, exposure of corruption, smuggling arms, etc. And the Crimson Comrades do not have outright propaganda for state figures and leaders, or at least, condoned. It still exists but the thing is, Vazheli and other individuals within the Confederacy do not actively make campaigns of glorifying themselves, and he himself amongst the other heroes the populace looks to as role models do not live glamorous lives. Vazheli lives fairly frugally himself and lives in a rather modest housing unit; almost a bit lower quality then that of his fellow faction members, and the only real sort of propaganda esque operations that go on is when there is active citizens and such that perform great feats. This isn't to glorify them but rather to empower the other citizens and give them motivation, and its still keeping to the tradition of Marxism fairly well:

You have a society that is for the Proletariat, the majority working classes, if not fully Proletarian in itself (Proletarian does not mean merely factory or farm workers mind- it means anyone who sells their labour for a living.) and supports their livelihoods and endeavors, a rather communal mindset coupled with an albeit violent, but egalitarian world view of spreading their revolution and encompassing the rest of the world in their egalitarian regime. The leaders, the council of this is DEMOCRATICALLY elected in a fairly representative, confederal/regional manner meaning that each region is fairly well represented; and the lack of Capitalist enterprise ensures that votes are not bought out/shareholded. I could go into detail how the whole system works but I'd just be ranting about a fictional Centauri faction, which is not the point of the response.

[/quote]

They don't have the "endgame" feel I'd expect from true Marxism, though.

The Peripherals do matter.

They definitely matter; they do not, however, play as large a role in determining closeness to an ideal.

[JarlWolf]

Well considering the Comrades are the revolutionary phase, they will act as such. You cannot go to the end goal of Communism without doing the proper steps, its like expecting a nation to go to the moon out of thin air without having the industrial capacity to support a space program, the education required, the wealth required or even having the space program to begin with. It's comparable to that.


The Comrade's end goal is indeed Communism in its end goal; because take a look at their preferred policy: Eudaimonia. They get immunities to the drawbacks of planned, but it isn't their stated ideal. As for who is more Marxist, its a sort of moot point when it comes to the Comrades or the Drone's because BOTH are their own branch of Socialism, the Crimson Comrades are revolutionary confederalist/communalist communists and the Free Drones are Union inspired socialist egalitarians.

Neither are true Marxists, and they shouldn't be. Marx wrote the book with Friedrich Engels, but that does not mean the pure format of his ideal is what works. Do Christians worship the original cult of Jesus Christ? I think not. They more rely on the disciples interpretations, and depending on the slant/sect, you might rely on Peter's (Catholic) or your own based on what you read (Protestant.)

Communism, while not a religion is an ideal and any ideal, including religions are dictated by how they are interpreted and practiced.

But, I am curious, what makes the Drones more Marxist then the Comrade's? What details stand out that make the former more then the other?

[Yitzi]

Well considering the Comrades are the revolutionary phase, they will act as such. You cannot go to the end goal of Communism without doing the proper steps, its like expecting a nation to go to the moon out of thin air without having the industrial capacity to support a space program, the education required, the wealth required or even having the space program to begin with. It's comparable to that.


The Comrade's end goal is indeed Communism in its end goal; because take a look at their preferred policy: Eudaimonia. They get immunities to the drawbacks of planned, but it isn't their stated ideal. As for who is more Marxist, its a sort of moot point when it comes to the Comrades or the Drone's because BOTH are their own branch of Socialism, the Crimson Comrades are revolutionary confederalist/communalist communists and the Free Drones are Union inspired socialist egalitarians.

Neither are true Marxists, and they shouldn't be. Marx wrote the book with Friedrich Engels, but that does not mean the pure format of his ideal is what works. Do Christians worship the original cult of Jesus Christ? I think not. They more rely on the disciples interpretations, and depending on the slant/sect, you might rely on Peter's (Catholic) or your own based on what you read (Protestant.)

Communism, while not a religion is an ideal and any ideal, including religions are dictated by how they are interpreted and practiced.

But, I am curious, what makes the Drones more Marxist then the Comrade's? What details stand out that make the former more then the other?

Ah, I missed that their preferred ideology is also Eudaimonic.  Ok, so I sit corrected; they are more Marxist than the Drones, though the Drones are still far more Marxist than the Hive (which is the most Stalinist faction.)

[JarlWolf]

The hive to be is not communist or socialist in the slightest. They seem more fascist as a matter of fact;

However I'd define their ideology as Legalism, or based off of Chinese Legalism.

They focus more on law, order and security then equity, benevolence and citizen care; they are more about collective obedience, discipline and adherence to the law then any sort of revolutionary communist ideal.

Stalin may have been autocratic; but his reforms WERE aimed to the benefit of the citizens and the national industry; its just his methods were fairly brutal. Yang is all about promoting security and control rather so he has a stable society. Stalin was all about mass industrialization and taking control so he can increase the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union.

If that meant taking land from the Kulaks, (kulak meaning fist in Russian, and for good reason they were called this,) who were unpopular landowners who bullied serfs and peasants, then so be it. He'll use this scapegoat to deter any criticisms against his policies while also industrializing entire nation.

I don't approve of Stalin and his brutality but the man wasn't stupid. And he was one of the reasons the Great Patriotic war was not lost to the Axis. Otherwise 90% of my country would've been butchered or enslaved by a fascist regime.

Of course; Yang is on a completely different premise. And he has reasons to be just as ruthless, if not more so, with his followers given that a secure, monitored society is a lot more stable in such an environment as Chiron.

[Impaler]

Yang might also have been justifiably motivated by the break-down of social order that occurred on Earth, a break-down so catastrophic that it literally reached across the light-years to seed the crisis that broke up the Unity Crew.  Like Deidre he is trying to prevent a repeat of the 'tragedy of Earth' as he sees it.

As far a fascist though, while their are some elements of that I always felt the Spartans were supposed to be the fascist allegory, they are after all named after the ORIGINAL fascist society. 

In a broader sense though ALL the factions are run by a single cult like leader and are trying to concur each other, the very nature of a CIV or 4X game kind of makes you the player a fascist leader.

I find the Chinese legalism strikes very close to the mark for the Hive, it's just never called so by name in any of the Hive flavoring text in the game, perhaps because western audience are just not familiar enough with legalism for the developers to have felt it could be called out by name. 

I think Yang tends to be mislabeled as a Marxist/Communist because of the Hives ECONOMY penalty which most folks immediately interpret as a central planning penalty (even though their is a SE setting that clearly encompasses that practice meaning no faction is automatically using central planning).  Also Yang being Chinese tends to strongly bias us to paint him with a Maoist brush.  I think Yang would have been more interesting as a character if his nationality had been different, maybe Korean or Laotian, a reasonable cultural background for legalism but not one which would be clouding our interpretations.

One of the key principles of legalism is a paternalistic disdain for the masses, a belief they are inherently foolish and unable to govern themselves and Yang certainly ascribes to that belief, but he dose have some hints of Confucian belief in the potential for self-improvement, 'overcoming crass demands of flesh and bone' etc.