Communist Country?

[Surzt and Gurzt]

I've been working on a campaign setting, and I've been thinking. How would a communist civilization work in D&D? I gave it a thought and couldn't work it out (not very into politics). I'm more concerned how a working one would fare, as opposed to a failed state. Also if anyone would run it, Hobgoblins would be my first choice.

[Tzi]

Well it requires a basic understanding of Marxism and the Marxist economic theories.

Also, Communist countries come in various forms. The ideal Marxist country would be a stateless, classless commune where the means of production are controlled by collectives of people who simply produce for society as is needed and take only what they need. The "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," principle dominates the way goods and services are distributed.

The ideal working Communist country is one without a government, so it wouldn't really be a country. A working one fairing in a world would depend on how aggressive and hostile outside forces intend to be.

[B!shop]

Most communists countries are more similar to dictatorships than to Marx's theory.

There's a strong oligarchy in power (the communist party leader), usually a very complex bureaucracy, and the common citizens are exploited.

[Cyclone231]

Communism, as a political theory, relies upon industrialization. Unless you have a large, unskilled labor force that produces secondary goods (or the potential for the development thereof), it is irrelevant. In most fantasy settings, there is no such thing.

A command economy is probably workable in a D&D society, but like any other modern economic model, it doesn't fit so well. The key point of a command economy is its capacity to grow at a greater rate than capitalism (at least in theory): like all modern economics, it is growth-based. This is in contrast to simpler forms of social organization, where growth, while it does occur, is not assumed to be constant over time.

On the other hand, many communist countries did begin as agrarian peasant countries. In these cases, land reform combined with guerilla warfare would be an accurate description of communists. It is conceivable to draw some sort of movement or polity in Fantasy Not-Feudalism as a combination of, say, the PLA or Viet Cong and the Peasants' Revolt or Shays' Rebellion. Such a polity would emerge out of a small, educated sector (probably priests or disillusioned nobles) which felt that the peasants were mistreated by the structures, and began to interact closely in an organized way with them, eventually leading to an outright rebellion when famine or other meteorological phenomenon reduces crops and pushes the peasants further than normal. This would then develop into a state with an oligarchy (or, perhaps, a Greek or Iroquois-esque simpler democratic state) and quite egalitarian land reform laws.

Damn, now I want to write Not-Iroquois state produced by a combination of not-Liberation Theology and a famine.

edited to add: the Inca had a command economy. Maybe take a look at that, might have something useful for you.

[gkathellar]

Bear in mind that Marx was mostly talking about 19th-century Europe and other post-industrial societies. He didn't believe communism could emerge successfully in agrarian and feudal states — which is why theorists like Lenin and Mao had to "customize" Marx's work for the very different circumstances of their own nations.

Absent industrialization? Telepaths. A race of telepaths might be coordinated enough and collectively interested enough to actually pull it off. Superrationality actually works if people can actually read each other's minds, averting the Tragedy of the Commons.

[Yanagi]

It's a bit of a riff, and not exactly Marxist, but Gandhi's concept of Swaraj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaraj)could be interpreted as a kind of agrarian socialism/communism where governance occurs strictly on the community level.

[Cyclone231]

Absent industrialization? Telepaths. A race of telepaths might be coordinated enough and collectively interested enough to actually pull it off. Superrationality actually works if people can actually read each other's minds, averting the Tragedy of the Commons.The tragedy of the commons is a myth though, the commons persisted for long lengths of time in various societies because if you acted in a socially inappropriate way you faced sanction by others.

Okay, here are two proposed "communist" economic models for an otherwise largely feudal society (I will use the term state to describe power structures even though it's feudal, deal with it):
1) A commune-based system. Farmers in significant groups own large quantities of land collectively and divide them up for working purposes. Sanctions exist for people who act like jerks, up to and including exile. Farmers do not employ others, nor are they themselves employed by others. The state extracts a tax based upon the fertility and quantity of the land the commune has. The urban population is fed by a combination of market mechanisms and this tax (in the form of rationing for military, bureaucrats, etc). The government periodically engages in inspections to ensure the farms maintain this model, and maintains stores of food for times of famine.
2) A Inca-type system. For the most part, agriculture is produced from surplus of ordinary farming communities that live under a strong, centralized state, but some large tracts of the most fertile land is claimed by the government. This land is then dispersed of its native population, with large numbers conscripted from surrounding and distant areas to move there and begin working it. Some small portion of the land is allowed to be used for subsistence, and the surplus is claimed by the state, and stored to feed the state apparatus (in particular, the military). The government also maintains state enclaves at certain key locations. In this model, market mechanisms are used solely for non-governmental groups, such as urban citizens. It should be noted that this model developed in order to provide food for large, continuously active armies and thereby create an increasingly-larger empire.

Politically, you could have:
1) An explicitly atheist ideological state. The problem is that this is not that likely, in pseudo-Europe; ideology is a relatively recent invention. Perhaps there could be some kind of French revolutionary-type humanist ideology behind it.
2) An explicitly atheist or humanocentric monarchy. The government is ruled by a monarch, possibly of a hereditary line, or possibly based on some kind of reincarnationist model (e.g. the Buddhist method of testing a child's reactions to the toys that the previous Buddha used). The state rules on their fiat, based on their authority derived from either their temporal power or personal characteristics.
3) A theocracy. The deity worshiped in question will depend on what economic model used. In the former economic model, a harvest or humanistic god is likely; in the latter, a militaristic one is more probable.
4) A simple democratic republic. People are sorted into various prominent tribal or city groups on the basis of ethnicity or geography. They vote for representatives, who then take part in some local and federal decision-making processes. Unlikely to use the second model, since it relies on depopulation and establishment of completely state-owned agricultural areas.

The most "good guy" communists would be 1 and 4, "bad guy" communists would be 2 and 2.

[gkathellar]

4) A simple democratic republic. People are sorted into various prominent tribal or city groups on the basis of ethnicity or geography. They vote for representatives, who then take part in some local and federal decision-making processes. Unlikely to use the second model, since it relies on depopulation and establishment of completely state-owned agricultural areas.

Deviating on this, you could have Athenian democracy: public officials are chosen from the citizenry yearly by lottery (with the exception of generals and public architects). This encourages (and frankly requires) a politically engaged citizenry to emerge, which is crucial for any functional communist social environment.

Whether or not you'd want such a society to have slaves as the Athenians did or to be genuinely good is a related question that should be answered.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: This is very iffy territory in terms of the forum rules. I think I'm just going to lock this thread now.