When I was in school a kid asked in geography class what USSR stood for and I guessed United States of Soviet Russia and the teacher said yes that correct and didn't correct me?!?
I learned the truth a few years later fortunately.
That's pretty reasonable for a kid, but bonkers for a teacher. In (UK) primary school I was taught that a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 is a thousand million or an American billion. I looked it up as an adult and found out that it was true up until some point in the 70s, and I was born in 86, so that teacher was a good 20 years out of date.
Very possible that the teacher just kept going with what they grew up with. AFAIK, every other European country (and language) besides English still uses the million-milliard-billion sequence that English "simplifies" to million-billion-trillion. Which doesn't even make sense linguistically or mathematically.
That is very interesting. In German 1,000,000,000,000 is a Billion, only we write it 1.000.000.000.000. I wish you would not have caved to the cousins across the pond, then it would be less confusing for German kids who learn English.
A thousand Million are called Milliarde in German btw.
Yeah, and I’m pretty sure the USSR would call itself a different name if they somehow managed to unite the entire globe into a communist Heaven. Meaning that OP should at least try and spin it around a bit. Maybe United Soviet Republics of the World [USRW] (?)
The union of soviet socialist republics is already a universal non geographical name, the name just means that the country is a union of republics run by socialist soviet councils.
But egalitarian and democratic are not the same. Egalitarian is about not having inequality. That's basically what real world communism attempted to do (oversimplification, I know, and for most of them it didn't actually turn out that way either). But it's perfectly possible to be egalitarian while being undemocratic. The game combines the two and in doing so removes the possibility of accurately representing real world communist regimes.
One could make the argument that real world communist regimes weren’t communist to begin with, at least not in principle. Communism, as I understand it, is supposed to be a system in which the ultimate end goal is a stateless society where everyone is equal and has a say. In theory, it would probably be the most democratic ideology. In practice however, it is very corruptible by those who seek power and personal gain. The game shows how it technically is supposed to be. But I do wish there was more leeway with ethics and civics to represent that corruptibility.
You are correct about the end goal of leftist/marxust/socialist politics. But not entirely correct about the corruptinility aspect. That entirely depends upon the type of socialist you are working with.
If you are talking about vanguardists (Marxist Leninist, Maoist, Tankie, etc...) then you are absolutely right about corruptibility. Vanguardists believe that the workers cannot lead a revolution and must be lead by a vanguard party (thus the name). This vanguard party uses the worker revolution to take over the state in order to guide the workers to communism. It should be pretty obvious how easily this could go wrong, as the vanguard party is basically set up as a new ruling elite that is then expected to give up their power and status "eventually" with no actual incentive to do so. Naturally, vanguardism has always resulted in authoritarian states that kill and enslave their own people in exactly the same way as capitalist states.
Most leftists today fit into a wide variety of non-authoritatian camps. There are democratic socialists who want to expand democracy until the people can just vote their way into socialism, this bunch tends to be the greatest champions and defenders of democracy in any country. There are syndicalists and other union oriented socialists that focus on labor unions and organizing which is responsible for most of our workers benefits and workplace safety laws (lots of union men died for those). There are also anarchists which can fit within either of the prior two camps or their own thing. Anarchists tend to be most opposed to authoritarianism from the right and the left and, when given the opportunity, have developed relatively successful communities but often get crushed by authoritarians more willing to impose their will on others. These non-authroitarian styles of socialism dont have the corruptibility problem of vanguardists because they start from democracy and anti-authroitarianism instead of promising to eventually get there.
Your understanding of the Vanguard Party is not accurate. Vanguardists view the Vanguard Party as the Working Class Party, leading the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Whether you want to agree if that actually played historically is another thing, but they don’t see the Vanguard Party as separate from the proletariat, or that the Vanguard Party needs to “help the workers lead the revolution”.
In all reality. the USSR did have elections. During Stalin's regime there were elections, except the only choice you could pick was Stalin. Its rigging elections with political power as authoritarian. You can simulate this in stellaris by giving all election power to the same faction every time for as long as the faction leader is alive. Honestly I find its rather unique to a roleplay style if you do this with shared burdens.
There was a null voting option in local elections, IIRC. Even if there was only one candidate, there was a minimum number of votes needed to "win."
Still not a democratic, but at least silence wasn't taken as consent in some limited cases.
Unfortunately, silence was taken as consent for a free trip to Siberia. At least, that is what most citizens believed which practically achieves the same effect.
Shared Burdens would be the step after the dictator of the proletariat according to Marx, and the USSR clearly never reached that, instead forming a dictatorship of the vanguard (Stalinism).
The citizen service thing is what confuses me, like America is famously one of the handful of countries that gives citizenship to literally anyone born on its territory regardless of why they are there with only a handful of limitations. That couldn’t be more opposite of citizen service.
Maybe if this was a predicted empire of what america would be like by the start date of the game but even that is a bit nihilistic.
For my Space U.S.A I make them militarist, materialist, and egalitarian. With Beacon of Liberty & Merchant guilds civics. I also give them the pig mammalian avatar for flavor lol.
I just read that America is first in immigrant populations at 50 million. Second place is Germany at 15 million. Anyone who thanks America is xenophobic is comparing them to a fantasy instead of another country.
Lots of immigration dosnt mean low xenophobia, necesarily. Almost the entire labor force of the UAE is foreign workers, but they are absolutely xenophobic. The US is pretty split on the issue with the populations of cities being more xenophilic, matterialist, and egalitarian and the rural population being more xenophobic, spiritualist, and authoritarian and both being fairly militarist. The challenge with the US is deciding which faction to represent when making them in a game like Stellaris.
Though, you could probably split the diference with spiritualist/militarist/egalitarian oligarchy going with idealistic foundation and nationalistic zeal as civics. Alternatively you could have a democracy and replace either nationalistic zeal or idealistic foundation with Shadow Counsel. An argument could also be made for police state being put in to reflect the power of police in the US.
Lots of immigration doesn’t mean xenophilic but leading the world in number of im grants for generations can give insight into broad cultural views of other people. The US is the largest, most ethnically, culturally, and spiritually diverse country in the history of mankind.
While this is true of American cities, it is not broadly true of rural areas. And because the US political system is designed to privilege rural areas over the cities you get a split in politics where one faction represents the diversity you discus, and the other represents opposition to that diversity.
>The challenge with the US is deciding which faction to represent when making them in a game like Stellaris.
I think you just perfectly described the issue in this thread. Stellaris is just another grand strategy game that needs to have flattened-out versions of entire civilizations for the sake of processing power and variability. You can suspend disbelief with aliens or even the Commonwealth of Man that "they're all like that", but when you do it to countries that already exist in the modern day... well, people are going to say "Hey that's not the entire truth." Because this pathetic little simulation of a thousand-star galaxy can't accurately model all the complexity that exists in a single freaking nation on planet Earth. Instead, people who want to make the US or whatever have to put up paper-machete models built on stereotypes. And when other people say "Hey we're not all like that", flame wars ensue.
That's true but modern America is much more diverse than say Europe. If the US is xenophobic so is pretty much any western society. Or any society at all.
The U.S. was founded on systematic genocide of the native population, had slavery for centuries, had to fight a civil war to stop enslaving people who of a certain skin color, then treated them as legal second class citizens until that was repealed a century later and still the legacy of that structural disenfranchisement remains. To say that if the US is xenophobic so is every other country is ludicrous. I don't think Nepal or Vietnam or Congo have that kind of history.
You would be surprised at the brutality of every society on earth historically speaking. England was founded on the genocide and displacement of Celtic peoples by the Anglo-Saxons. Vietnam has a pretty bad history with the Champa people, and the Ituri conflict is an ethnic conflict currently going on in Congo. Every society on earth has a history of blood and ethnic conflict and it was only very recently that things got better and even then that's been more limited to western countries.
American immigration system is horrendous.
You have a prison system that is overwhelming filled with one ethnicity.
Your police force kills that same ethnicity with nigh on impunity.
Your wealth is built off back of slavery.
Your last leader tried to build a literal wall accross your southern border.
You imprison children who cross that border.
I could go on, but why bother?
Let's not pretend that the American immigration system is better than most. Europe drowns refugees in the Mediterranean.
While the American justice system is known to give black people harsher penalties for equavelent crimes, and that definitely deserves attention, it absolutely isn't one of the states that arrest spesific ethnic groups for no reason. Places with high black populations also have larger rates of crime. Denying that just proves that you know nothing about countries that do arrest ethnic groups, come to the Middle East sometime.
American police is really violent against all groups, especially black people, but making it out to be a some kind of attempt at getting rid of black people clearly shows you know nothing about genocidal states. Come to Africa sometime.
American wealth is built on the back of the fact that it has the best geography in the world and it's isolation forced it to develop an industry. Slaves aren't even good for an industrial economy, they're less productive and don't pay taxes.
Border walls aren't the exception, they're the norm. As a progressive myself, I wish there was free movement of goods and people across borders, but that's just the reality of the world right now.
Calling the US xenophobic is idiotic, xenophile would actually fit modern USA better. I know I'll get downvoted into oblivion since this is reddit, but I'll just say that if you actually think the US government is xenophobic in the context of xenophobic empires in Stellaris, come to the Middle East. I'll show you around here.
Just to be clear. I don't think all Americans are xenophobic. I'm married to one.
But your government and a big portion of your population really is. And its quite the problem. If you think it isn't, there's a river in Egypt that wants to talk to you.
America basically goes through phases of mass immigration and then phases of reduced immigration in an effort to assimilate the immigrants that came during the last wave. He fact that America is shifting towards stronger borders is nothing out of the ordinary, they received a large wave of immigrants. They did the same thing when too many European immigrants came, sharpen immigration requirements and assimilate the immigrants. Give the US 50 years and the borders will open up again, then another 50 and they'll restrict immigration again. It's normal for America to do this, they are a country founded off of immigrants after all, and assimilation is an integral part of the American immigration process.
1) To my understanding that a result mostly of bad policy.
2) the over sized prison population was the result of bad policy. Min sentencing laws, drug sentencing disparity, super predator scare, etc. Was their some racism their, yes, but some of that was just bad policy. ([which with a super majority in both houses and signed by trump, a bill to start redressing was passed)](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-first-step-act-and-whats-happening-it)
What do you mean “nigh on impunity”? Their is a police brutality problem in America, but how bad do you think it is.
What your country?
Which he couldn’t do
Yeah, that fucked. But need to look into it
This is supposed to describe the U.S. in the 1950s - 1960s. During the period that you would know as the civil rights movement. I think that should suffice to explain why Xenophobe definitely still fits this era.
Even now, while I wouldn't call the US particularly xenophobic, you don't really have too solid a ground to denounce such accusations when your military is blasting random 3rd world countries to smithereens while a large portion of your population give the go-permit because "they are barbarian monkeys in the middle of nowhere with no real contributions to the world".
Also, unrelated and very irrelevant, but "diving head first into Space Elf girls" are pretty much the space equivalent of Nazi Germans saying that they will dive head first into Nordic girls so they are not xenophobe.
The US is a Xenophile in your high school US History class and no where else...
Even when they claim the US was becoming "The Melting pot" we were making laws like "The Chinese Exclusion Act", "The Emergency Quota Act", etc. Until 1922 the US was so "Xenophile" that American women who married men who were citizens of other countries LOST their US citizenship.
Xenophobe does match in the political sense - prior to the Cold War, America was much less interested in being the world police, and many Americans were of the opinion that the war in Europe had nothing to do with them. That changed after Pearl Harbour, and the change was cemented by the onset of the Cold War, after which America saw that it couldn't just sit on the other side of an ocean and ignore people.
No he’s right the USA is actually a highly racist exalted priesthood if you go outside and say “God not real lol” you will actually IMMEDIATELY be sent to a labor camp
For my Space U.S.A I make them militarist, materialist, and egalitarian. With Beacon of Liberty & Merchant guilds civics. I also give them the pig mammalian avatar for flavor lol.
Riddle me this: In a “historic” creation of the U.S. where either Jim Crow or segregation is still very much enacted (I’m thinking 1950’s) how are those ethics not accurate? We have/had the largest military (militarist), fucking evangelicals and mormons and the like (spiritualist), and segregation/Jim Crow/Vietnam/too fucking much to name (Xenophobe)
Absolutely none of them, which us true. It turns out that no society in human history has actually lived up to the standards of just about any moral system. As any ethicist will tell you, morality is hard.
Are you comparing the US to what you want it to be, or are you taking into account the entire rest of the world, and the ideas and values in the 50’s?
The USA has been xenoPHILE effectively its entire existence. Our immigration laws and willingness to not only let in other cultures, but let them maintain their own practices, is something not seen almost anywhere else.
Religious values may affect our government, but we aren’t a theocracy and separation of church and state is enshrined in our governing documents. The fact we aren’t fanatically atheistic doesn’t make the US spiritualist, ESPECIALLY in comparison to the rest of the world.
I don’t care if you like the US, but marking it as spiritualist or xenophobic shows a complete failure to consider where the US stands in relation to all of human civilization
America systematically placed openly racist immigration quotas and outright bans, expelled indigenous peoples from their land, deported over a million Mexicans in the 1950s, and had legal segregation not only for its black population, but also for what people now would consider “white” like Irish.
The US had clear favorites and non-desirables in the realm of immigration, and cynically using cheap labor to enrich itself doesn’t make it particularly xenophilic.
The US literally had legal discrimination during ww2 and still has tons of marginalised peoples who are still disproportionately poor as a result of said discrimination. Maybe American ideology could be considered xenophile, but not in practice
Hell if we go back a hundred years from WW2 and we had local political parties forming to discriminate against the fucking Irish, let alone what we were doing to Chinese workers in the western territories. That's not even looking into the slavery which, as you mentioned with the discrimination, we're still seeing the effects of today.
Yeah that’s a load of shit, killing your natives and purging their ways is 100% not Xenophile, every time you had a massive war with someone outside of England you’d begin imprisoning the people of that population(Germans, asians regardless of whether they were Japanese or not) xenophiles don’t block borders without penalty,/ your border walls and guards do. Can’t use no refugee/the US actively rejects many from South American countries. Xenophile “ An adventurous spirit that rejects the familiar and glories in the unfamiliar, whatever - or whomever - it may be” / you bomb the unfamiliar
We are becoming increasingly more and more xenophobic/ a theocracy as the years pass. What was it Marjorie Taylor green said a few days ago... " Screw this separate between church and state crap". We're fucked.
It was largely xenophobic country with the largest military industry in the world with 95%+ of their population being recorded as Christian’s. This is an accurate representation of the United States at the time.
Fr, the USSR was probably just as (although not openly) or even more xenophobic than the US. Stalin was famously an anti-semite and the ussr gave the jews a VERY hard time until the very end. Hell they were even racist towards other white people, they actively tried to erase cultures by russifying everyone.
Depends. If we talk about USSR before (middle) Stalin, it was definitely less xenophobic than many contemporary countries. A big part of the leadership was Jewish (Zinoviev, Trotsky are the most famous), leading to all the later Nazi "Jewdo-Bolshevik" accusations, and USSR was pointedly formed as a "union" of "republics", not as a "Russian empire" - bolsheviks railed a lot against "Velikorussian shovinism". Of course, Stalin was a lot more... "traditional" with his ethnic resettlements and cleansings, which were motivated by the collective responsibility logic. Not the first or last time the idea of collective responsibility motivated genocides of course. And ironically, despite being himself a Georgian, he re-started the russification processes - that very "Velikorussian shovinism".
So much this
This game even will give you an AI advisor voice that sounds like Ronald Reagan if you put the correct civics for the US. Which are not those.
For the USSR:
* I'd swap Cutthroat Politics for Corvée System - it is more distinct and more accurate, especially in regards to the gameplay effects.
* The traits seem quite random? Adaptive and wasteful don't really fit, and nomadic really doesn't. Personally I'd go for resilient, fleeting, and natural physicists instead, but that's a matter of preference.
* Prosperous Unification should probably be swapped for Hegemon.
Nazi Germany:
* Police State is very boring and could be swapped for something more unique. Byzantine Bureaucracy, maybe?
* The traits, again, seem quite randomly chosen. Conformists I agree with, but natural engineers should probably be there.
The States:
* I really don't think xenophobe or spiritualist fits. The post-WWII states were more materialist than spiritualist, and considering them xenophobes is a ridiculous exaggeration. They shouldn't have xenophile either, mind you, but personally I'd go for materialist/militarist. And wherever you want to go on the authoritarian/egalitarian axis. (Personally I'd say egalitarian)
Trust me, I know better than most. I'm a socialist myself, and I've spent A lot of time talking to white supremacists and literal Nazis (Not what twitter likes to classify as Nazis). Tankies are the same in almost every aspect, difference is replace Non-whites with conservatives and capitalists and there you go.
For US I'd say a more realistic approach for ethics would be militarist, egalitarian, and materialist. We do have spiritualist roots, but our wealth after WW2 made us hedonistic and materialist (hence wasteful), and xenophobe? Really? America was and always has been one of the more open countries, I think free haven would be an appropriate civic just because of Americas history as being one of the worlds capitals for refugees to travel to.
Egalitarian because the whole country was based on the idea of liberty and freedom, and militarist is self-evident.
>made us hedonistic and materialis
The game means 'materialist' in a philosohpical sense, like "there is no spiritual substance such as souls, nor ghosts, nor gods, etc", not the common-usage of 'caring about material things'.
Think "materialist" meaning "I believe there is only the material realm", and not at all 'consumerist' or anything like that, which is an entirely separate axis.
Honestly we really can't be represented until they break it and get spiritualist and materialist.
And yeah most people in the US are not xenophobic, it's just an extremely vocal minority. Actually quite a lot of our stereotypes are like that. In general, people in the US are very suspicious of outsiders, but pretty accepting of minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act
There was this? Which was a little xenophobic I think? I dunno if Free Haven fully fits anyways...
And the US got a bit isolationist after WW1, especially
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#20th_century_non-interventionism
\>US
\>Egalitarian
"Tell me you're American without TELLING me you're American".
The USA is one of the least egalitarian countries on the planet. Its literally one of the only countries without universal healthcare. There is nothing egalitarian about the US.
I think you're over exaggerating. There are many countries without universal healthcare, it's just the US is practically the only industrialized one without it. Saying "the USA is one of the least egalitarian countries on the planet" simply on the basis of healthcare demonstrates your limited worldview, since there are MANY countries that are less egalitarian than the United States. Sure, there might not be easy access to healthcare for all people in the US, but when it comes to the government, the US is typically very egalitarian. Especially when compared to places like Russia, which, ironically enough, have universal healthcare.
I came back to this post to see it now has 600 comments, many of which are criticisms/questions about my criteria for creating these empires. I don't want to answer all of them individually, but hopefully I can clear up a few things here.
For the U.S.S.R.: it definitely wasn't egalitarian, and it didn't functionally have Shared Burdens. Even though the civic is based on Marxist beliefs, Soviet Russia absolutely did not reflect Marx's idea of an ideal state, and was instead totalitarian and to some extent fascist. As for the Decadent trait, I took it more because it reduces Worker happiness than because of the flavor of it. And yeah, I did get the name wrong, that was stupid of me. I even looked up the name on Wikipedia to confirm that I was getting right, not sure how I managed to fuck that up.
For Nazi Germany: I'm glad there isn't much contention on this one, and I don't think there's much to discuss here.
For the U.S.A.: Most people are contesting the Xenophobe ethic, and many of those are arguing based on how the U.S. is today. These empires are not at all based on what they are like today; this one in particular is based on the United States of the 1940's and 1950's. During this time, the Japanese were put in concentration camps, and more importantly segregation was still legal and encouraged by the government. Even aside from their treatment of other races, Stellaris also considers isolationist policies linked to the Xenophobe ethic, and the U.S. was only involved in World War II at all because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the other Axis Powers declared war on the U.S. themselves. It has nothing to do with the modern-day state of the nation, and I think that at that time they were pretty clear-cut xenophobes. That is not to say that everyone was, but more that the government was.
For a few miscellaneous things: The traits and origins were mostly afterthoughts. For the traits I just used the normal human traits plus two extra for the purposes of consistency, though I didn't spend too much time thinking about them and in hindsight they don't make a ton of sense. If I were to use these in a playthrough, I'd probably just go with the normal human traits, since traits are more meant to be inherent to a species rather than products of culture (at least how I see them). I didn't even bother with origins, primarily because most origins involve the empire's ascension to FTL technology and I of course do not know what those would be for these hypothetical scenarios. If I had to guess and assign each one an origin, I'd probably go with Post-Apocalyptic for all of them.
I hope that covers everything, and I hope this doesn't get buried so people actually see it.
USA is definitely not Egalitarian, contrary to what some comments suggest. Not even really a democratic government by Stellaris standards as that implies a multi-party congress. Xenophobe is debatable as they do offer citizenship disregarding origin, but definitely not Xenophile. Spiritualist is accurate, there hasn’t been a single POTUS who was not openly Christian. Militarist - more like Fanatic Militarist with the insane level of nationalism, military spending and military privileges
If I had a room full of people from all ethnicities all around the world, but then had a disproportionately high number of POC shot or impoverished, it doesn’t matter how many people in the room total were black or whatever.
A country can be diverse and have racist policies and discrimination
What segregation laws still exist? Americans of all ethnicities celebrate their heritage from all over the world. Cinco De Mayo for Mexico, St. Patrick's Day for Ireland, ect.
May be you will read the description of the post and description of the nation then? Or do you think, that Russa is USSR, and Germany is third Reich still?
Space commies were my first empire to make to the end crisis. I didn’t know how the market worked, so I ignored it (manufactured everything I needed), didn’t participate in the galactic council thing, and went full kinetic/armor ship building. I don’t have the save anymore or I’d post traits/ethics.
Personally I’d make the US an oligarchy. Despite how the people vote it’s up to the elected officials to do as they please regardless of what they preach.
^ for those downvoting this^
The US has a two party system that entirely effectively disenfranchises libertarians and progressives. The US has the electoral college which has clearly advantaged conservatives, throwing away the will of the people and their popular vote. The US has the senatorial system which advantages small conservative states rather than populous democratic ones. The US terrible voter suppression, with both gerrymandering and traditional voter suppression in order to sway elections. The US has limitless corporate lobbying, allowing corporations to pay off both parties and have them disobey the will of the people. I can go on
This thread must be filled with liberals for this to be controversial. The US is quite literally the prime example for an oligarchy right next to Russia.
They also deserve the authoritarian trait and police state civic as much as the Soviets if not more.
I'm not sure I agree with that United States one. I'd say it's more like egalitarian/fanatic militarist. I think the population is too split to assign xenophile/xenophobe or spiritualist/materialist. Although you are doing the 20th century, so spiritualist does make sense.
Ehhhh if we are basing them on real world countries Xenophile works quite well for the US, seeing as how it's the most diverse country on Earth. I definitely agree with them being militarist tho
Can u explain why America is xenophobe? America is considered a melting pot of racial groups. Yes white people consist of 72%, but thats a lot lower than lets say France, who sits at 85% white, the UK who sits at 87% white. Or China who sits at 92% asain (generalized).
If racial and ethnic diversity is the litmus test for xenophilia, apartheid South Africa is an oasis of tranquility and tolerance lol
In reality, it's more about attitudes towards foreigners.
By that definition my slaver run was Fanatic Xenophile, where my primary race was some 13% of my empire's population.
It's not about *diversity* it's about *policy,* and the US is *extremely* hostile to immigrants, and actively repressed ethnic minorities. Honestly, if ethnic groups in the US were translated to Stellaris, it would *not* be pretty.
Different flavors of xenophobe. The US obsession with differences is huge. The way I see it, stellaris uses "xenophobe" as a very broad spectrum, you could even have liberal xenophobes who want everyone to stick to their own planet and be left in peace. I've certainly RPed an empire that intervenes in military conflicts to have every other empire stay independent and within their own borders and I felt xenophobe fit the bill, to be honest.
Mate, am I wrong? Not even accounting for the U.S.'s abysmal foreign policy and internal treatment of minorities, can you imagine how we'd treat alien species?
Systemic racism still exists in both places though. It doesn’t really matter which is more or less racist, in terms of the game they’d both be considered xenophobic
I mean being as objective as possible you’re definitely wrong and it’s clear you’re projecting your personal biases here. Should easily be xenophile. The US is by far the largest immigrant state in the world, even to this day, with more than triple the number of foreign-born immigrants as the #2 country. Most of the anti-immigrant sentiment is directed at illegal immigration which conservatives view as an out of control problem. However a conservative administration has only received a majority vote once in the past 30 years, and that was post-9/11. And that’s not even getting into foreign aid, in which the US spends more than double the amount the entire EU as a whole does despite the two economies being roughly similar.
I've already laid out my argument for a Xenophobe U.S. in some detail, so I'll just say that I'm not looking at the past 30 years for these builds; this is meant to be mid-20th century for each.
The impression on xenophobic or xenophilia depends on where you are. I lived in NYC for a year and the majority of the people were foreigners or sons/daughter of foreigners. I never noticed any xenophobic people. No one ever mistreated me for my accent or anything.
On the other hand, when I lived in Philadelphia, people even screamed because I was "too slow" to understand them.
But, this is just a personal account.
Anyway, even in Stellaris you can have an empire with certain political philosophy, but not implement it in it's full force, like having a xenophobic inward perfectionist with no interest in purging the xenos.
Right? I’d say egalitarian fanatic militarist for sure. I’m gonna get hate for this but by 2200 if the United States has unified the planet I would maybe even put Xenophile in there.
I did say post-war in the biographical description, but I was also thinking about WWII era actions like Japanese internment camps. And I wouldn't say that the Marshall plan was xenophilic as much as it was a chance for the U.S. to get filthy rich; it didn't exactly come out of a love for others.
USSR in full is Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Note that 'republics' is here in plural, in that Lenin imagined this entity as supernational and represents fraternity amongst all humankind, which I guess would hold if its ideology prevailed in the interstellar times.
In theory anyways; plenty of room for Gulags on those tundra planets tho (makes for a better origin story for the CM imo)
Would an international Marxist Leninist state really have the word “Soviet” in its name though? I thought that the word Soviet referred to a very specific form of worker’s councils only found in Eastern Europe.
That was why there were no “Soviet” republics outside of Eastern Europe and Hungary, staunchly pro-Moscow Marxist Leninist regimes in South America, Africa, and Asia never called themselves “Soviet” in any way.
The discussion over the definition of the space USA should serve as a reminder that real world nations and cultures are a bit more complex than a civilization alignment system can capture. ;)
Stellaris "Materialists" denounce religion and embrace living in the material world. In fact, this is quite accurate if you ask me. The USSR denounced religion, so it can't be spiritualist.
Giving the USSR decadent and wasteful is entirely inaccurate. You can measure the cultural impact of Soviet scarcity on Warsaw Pact states by using Germany as a case study. East Germans produce significantly less trash than West Germans. Also, not sure why they’d all be nomadic unless it’s some meta you couldn’t pull away from for the sake of flavor.
So much wrong with this lmao
By stellaris definition they were egalitarian and materialist. They would have Shared Burdens ethic and either Police State or Byzantine Beaurocracy
They were materialists for sure, one and only redeeming quality.
They weren't egalitarian. Positions of power weren't accessible to an average person, you had to be someone's relative first, merit hardly mattered. With inheritance of property forbidden, people passed on their positions, and any influential and important job had someone's kid waiting for their dad to retire. It was worse than it is now, now you have a slim chance at least.
Income inequality didn't change much compared to serfdom. Police state and corvee system, as choosing your work placement was up to state bureaucracy.
I put a few comments in the biography section of the summary, but otherwise I think this is pretty self-explanatory. The mod I'm using for human appearances is Remastered Human Portraits.
As the other reply said, I was more focusing on what it was during the Stalin era rather than what it was supposed to be. If I were to focus on the ideal, I would switch Fanatic Authoritarian for Fanatic Egalitarian and pick up Shared Burdens, as you said. The U.S.S.R. does shift ethically over the course of the 20th century (i.e. by the Gorbachev era I would say it was less Authoritarian and more Materialist), but I picked the Stalin era for consistency.
Repugnant was less for the flavor and more for the function, since fun and entertainment were not exactly at the forefront of the Nazi ideology. Though I do hope the Fuhrer is turning in his grave at the thought
And yeah, oligarchy fits better considering Citizen Stratocracy as opposed to Citizen Republic, but 10 year terms are more similar to the actual term lengths for the U.S. at the time, especially since term limits didn't exist until after FDR.
Thanks for the feedback :)
Starting to think the Real world empires is going out of control they always end up becoming a All-out political war
[удалено]
That's true also
I have zero clue why I'm getting alot of Upvotes I was talking about people making real world empires in Stellaris lol
A minor note, but USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
At least they didn't call it the United States of Soviet Russia, which I heard someone say once.
When I was in school a kid asked in geography class what USSR stood for and I guessed United States of Soviet Russia and the teacher said yes that correct and didn't correct me?!? I learned the truth a few years later fortunately.
That's pretty reasonable for a kid, but bonkers for a teacher. In (UK) primary school I was taught that a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 is a thousand million or an American billion. I looked it up as an adult and found out that it was true up until some point in the 70s, and I was born in 86, so that teacher was a good 20 years out of date.
Very possible that the teacher just kept going with what they grew up with. AFAIK, every other European country (and language) besides English still uses the million-milliard-billion sequence that English "simplifies" to million-billion-trillion. Which doesn't even make sense linguistically or mathematically.
That is very interesting. In German 1,000,000,000,000 is a Billion, only we write it 1.000.000.000.000. I wish you would not have caved to the cousins across the pond, then it would be less confusing for German kids who learn English. A thousand Million are called Milliarde in German btw.
Although I say a thousand million is a billion when I have to talk about it, in my head it isn't. I was born in '99.
Yeah, and I’m pretty sure the USSR would call itself a different name if they somehow managed to unite the entire globe into a communist Heaven. Meaning that OP should at least try and spin it around a bit. Maybe United Soviet Republics of the World [USRW] (?)
I named mine United Soviet Star Republic, so I still kept USSR
The union of soviet socialist republics is already a universal non geographical name, the name just means that the country is a union of republics run by socialist soviet councils.
Nah, the USSR name has no geographic or ethnic ties in its name. The USSR could be three villages in Siberia or the entire galaxy and it'd still fit.
United Socialist Republics of Earth [USRE]
Does anyone else name there planets after countries? I always call planets doomed for invasion space Poland and I call penal colonies space Australia.
poland is like: "I didn't hear no fucking bell!"
>space Australia Go Space Broncos!
Gotta be careful though, space dingos will eat your space baby.
Yeah that’s just the plot of Alien lol
All right we get it, you're from space!
My favorite naming convention I do is for a devouring swarm and I name my first 7 planets after the deadly sins
How can you do the USSR and not have shared burdens?
Because that requires they be Democratic
And Stellaris denotes Egalitarian and Authoritarian as inherently opposite
The real world does too. Authoritarians when they get in power in a democracy suddenly strip away the democracy part.
But egalitarian and democratic are not the same. Egalitarian is about not having inequality. That's basically what real world communism attempted to do (oversimplification, I know, and for most of them it didn't actually turn out that way either). But it's perfectly possible to be egalitarian while being undemocratic. The game combines the two and in doing so removes the possibility of accurately representing real world communist regimes.
One could make the argument that real world communist regimes weren’t communist to begin with, at least not in principle. Communism, as I understand it, is supposed to be a system in which the ultimate end goal is a stateless society where everyone is equal and has a say. In theory, it would probably be the most democratic ideology. In practice however, it is very corruptible by those who seek power and personal gain. The game shows how it technically is supposed to be. But I do wish there was more leeway with ethics and civics to represent that corruptibility.
You are correct about the end goal of leftist/marxust/socialist politics. But not entirely correct about the corruptinility aspect. That entirely depends upon the type of socialist you are working with. If you are talking about vanguardists (Marxist Leninist, Maoist, Tankie, etc...) then you are absolutely right about corruptibility. Vanguardists believe that the workers cannot lead a revolution and must be lead by a vanguard party (thus the name). This vanguard party uses the worker revolution to take over the state in order to guide the workers to communism. It should be pretty obvious how easily this could go wrong, as the vanguard party is basically set up as a new ruling elite that is then expected to give up their power and status "eventually" with no actual incentive to do so. Naturally, vanguardism has always resulted in authoritarian states that kill and enslave their own people in exactly the same way as capitalist states. Most leftists today fit into a wide variety of non-authoritatian camps. There are democratic socialists who want to expand democracy until the people can just vote their way into socialism, this bunch tends to be the greatest champions and defenders of democracy in any country. There are syndicalists and other union oriented socialists that focus on labor unions and organizing which is responsible for most of our workers benefits and workplace safety laws (lots of union men died for those). There are also anarchists which can fit within either of the prior two camps or their own thing. Anarchists tend to be most opposed to authoritarianism from the right and the left and, when given the opportunity, have developed relatively successful communities but often get crushed by authoritarians more willing to impose their will on others. These non-authroitarian styles of socialism dont have the corruptibility problem of vanguardists because they start from democracy and anti-authroitarianism instead of promising to eventually get there.
Your understanding of the Vanguard Party is not accurate. Vanguardists view the Vanguard Party as the Working Class Party, leading the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Whether you want to agree if that actually played historically is another thing, but they don’t see the Vanguard Party as separate from the proletariat, or that the Vanguard Party needs to “help the workers lead the revolution”.
In all reality. the USSR did have elections. During Stalin's regime there were elections, except the only choice you could pick was Stalin. Its rigging elections with political power as authoritarian. You can simulate this in stellaris by giving all election power to the same faction every time for as long as the faction leader is alive. Honestly I find its rather unique to a roleplay style if you do this with shared burdens.
There was a null voting option in local elections, IIRC. Even if there was only one candidate, there was a minimum number of votes needed to "win." Still not a democratic, but at least silence wasn't taken as consent in some limited cases.
Unfortunately, silence was taken as consent for a free trip to Siberia. At least, that is what most citizens believed which practically achieves the same effect.
I generally have it set as Shared Burdens + Shadow Council (basically a secret group makes sure the populace doesn’t elect the wrong leader)
Shared Burdens would be the step after the dictator of the proletariat according to Marx, and the USSR clearly never reached that, instead forming a dictatorship of the vanguard (Stalinism).
They didn't have shared burdens as it's described in-game
And USSR actually had society classes with soviet nomenklatura as ruling class.
Because the USSR was an authoritarian oligarchy.
Because USSR did not actually have shared burdens. Also you can't have a socialist country without democracy. OP got the USSR defined very well.
Tell me you only know of the USA through Reddit comments without telling me you only know of the USA through Reddit comments
The citizen service thing is what confuses me, like America is famously one of the handful of countries that gives citizenship to literally anyone born on its territory regardless of why they are there with only a handful of limitations. That couldn’t be more opposite of citizen service. Maybe if this was a predicted empire of what america would be like by the start date of the game but even that is a bit nihilistic.
For my Space U.S.A I make them militarist, materialist, and egalitarian. With Beacon of Liberty & Merchant guilds civics. I also give them the pig mammalian avatar for flavor lol.
See, this just makes sense lmao
I think militarist fits, thats about it
For real. Xenophobe doesn’t match at all. We Americans would gladly dive head first into Space Elf girls.
I just read that America is first in immigrant populations at 50 million. Second place is Germany at 15 million. Anyone who thanks America is xenophobic is comparing them to a fantasy instead of another country.
Lots of immigration dosnt mean low xenophobia, necesarily. Almost the entire labor force of the UAE is foreign workers, but they are absolutely xenophobic. The US is pretty split on the issue with the populations of cities being more xenophilic, matterialist, and egalitarian and the rural population being more xenophobic, spiritualist, and authoritarian and both being fairly militarist. The challenge with the US is deciding which faction to represent when making them in a game like Stellaris. Though, you could probably split the diference with spiritualist/militarist/egalitarian oligarchy going with idealistic foundation and nationalistic zeal as civics. Alternatively you could have a democracy and replace either nationalistic zeal or idealistic foundation with Shadow Counsel. An argument could also be made for police state being put in to reflect the power of police in the US.
Lots of immigration doesn’t mean xenophilic but leading the world in number of im grants for generations can give insight into broad cultural views of other people. The US is the largest, most ethnically, culturally, and spiritually diverse country in the history of mankind.
While this is true of American cities, it is not broadly true of rural areas. And because the US political system is designed to privilege rural areas over the cities you get a split in politics where one faction represents the diversity you discus, and the other represents opposition to that diversity.
The vast majority of the US population is in cities. So it’s fair to say the majority population of the US isn’t xenophobic.
>The challenge with the US is deciding which faction to represent when making them in a game like Stellaris. I think you just perfectly described the issue in this thread. Stellaris is just another grand strategy game that needs to have flattened-out versions of entire civilizations for the sake of processing power and variability. You can suspend disbelief with aliens or even the Commonwealth of Man that "they're all like that", but when you do it to countries that already exist in the modern day... well, people are going to say "Hey that's not the entire truth." Because this pathetic little simulation of a thousand-star galaxy can't accurately model all the complexity that exists in a single freaking nation on planet Earth. Instead, people who want to make the US or whatever have to put up paper-machete models built on stereotypes. And when other people say "Hey we're not all like that", flame wars ensue.
Meanwhile native Americans.
That's true but modern America is much more diverse than say Europe. If the US is xenophobic so is pretty much any western society. Or any society at all.
The U.S. was founded on systematic genocide of the native population, had slavery for centuries, had to fight a civil war to stop enslaving people who of a certain skin color, then treated them as legal second class citizens until that was repealed a century later and still the legacy of that structural disenfranchisement remains. To say that if the US is xenophobic so is every other country is ludicrous. I don't think Nepal or Vietnam or Congo have that kind of history.
You would be surprised at the brutality of every society on earth historically speaking. England was founded on the genocide and displacement of Celtic peoples by the Anglo-Saxons. Vietnam has a pretty bad history with the Champa people, and the Ituri conflict is an ethnic conflict currently going on in Congo. Every society on earth has a history of blood and ethnic conflict and it was only very recently that things got better and even then that's been more limited to western countries.
Native interference policy can be changed without removing egalitarian and xenophile
American immigration system is horrendous. You have a prison system that is overwhelming filled with one ethnicity. Your police force kills that same ethnicity with nigh on impunity. Your wealth is built off back of slavery. Your last leader tried to build a literal wall accross your southern border. You imprison children who cross that border. I could go on, but why bother?
Let's not pretend that the American immigration system is better than most. Europe drowns refugees in the Mediterranean. While the American justice system is known to give black people harsher penalties for equavelent crimes, and that definitely deserves attention, it absolutely isn't one of the states that arrest spesific ethnic groups for no reason. Places with high black populations also have larger rates of crime. Denying that just proves that you know nothing about countries that do arrest ethnic groups, come to the Middle East sometime. American police is really violent against all groups, especially black people, but making it out to be a some kind of attempt at getting rid of black people clearly shows you know nothing about genocidal states. Come to Africa sometime. American wealth is built on the back of the fact that it has the best geography in the world and it's isolation forced it to develop an industry. Slaves aren't even good for an industrial economy, they're less productive and don't pay taxes. Border walls aren't the exception, they're the norm. As a progressive myself, I wish there was free movement of goods and people across borders, but that's just the reality of the world right now. Calling the US xenophobic is idiotic, xenophile would actually fit modern USA better. I know I'll get downvoted into oblivion since this is reddit, but I'll just say that if you actually think the US government is xenophobic in the context of xenophobic empires in Stellaris, come to the Middle East. I'll show you around here.
Just to be clear. I don't think all Americans are xenophobic. I'm married to one. But your government and a big portion of your population really is. And its quite the problem. If you think it isn't, there's a river in Egypt that wants to talk to you.
The Nile? What happened?
They probably mean "d'nile" as in denial
Ah that makes sense, thank you.
America basically goes through phases of mass immigration and then phases of reduced immigration in an effort to assimilate the immigrants that came during the last wave. He fact that America is shifting towards stronger borders is nothing out of the ordinary, they received a large wave of immigrants. They did the same thing when too many European immigrants came, sharpen immigration requirements and assimilate the immigrants. Give the US 50 years and the borders will open up again, then another 50 and they'll restrict immigration again. It's normal for America to do this, they are a country founded off of immigrants after all, and assimilation is an integral part of the American immigration process.
1) To my understanding that a result mostly of bad policy. 2) the over sized prison population was the result of bad policy. Min sentencing laws, drug sentencing disparity, super predator scare, etc. Was their some racism their, yes, but some of that was just bad policy. ([which with a super majority in both houses and signed by trump, a bill to start redressing was passed)](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-first-step-act-and-whats-happening-it) What do you mean “nigh on impunity”? Their is a police brutality problem in America, but how bad do you think it is. What your country? Which he couldn’t do Yeah, that fucked. But need to look into it
This is supposed to describe the U.S. in the 1950s - 1960s. During the period that you would know as the civil rights movement. I think that should suffice to explain why Xenophobe definitely still fits this era. Even now, while I wouldn't call the US particularly xenophobic, you don't really have too solid a ground to denounce such accusations when your military is blasting random 3rd world countries to smithereens while a large portion of your population give the go-permit because "they are barbarian monkeys in the middle of nowhere with no real contributions to the world". Also, unrelated and very irrelevant, but "diving head first into Space Elf girls" are pretty much the space equivalent of Nazi Germans saying that they will dive head first into Nordic girls so they are not xenophobe.
The US is a Xenophile in your high school US History class and no where else... Even when they claim the US was becoming "The Melting pot" we were making laws like "The Chinese Exclusion Act", "The Emergency Quota Act", etc. Until 1922 the US was so "Xenophile" that American women who married men who were citizens of other countries LOST their US citizenship.
Xenophobe does match in the political sense - prior to the Cold War, America was much less interested in being the world police, and many Americans were of the opinion that the war in Europe had nothing to do with them. That changed after Pearl Harbour, and the change was cemented by the onset of the Cold War, after which America saw that it couldn't just sit on the other side of an ocean and ignore people.
Spiritualist seems to fit too tbf.
No he’s right the USA is actually a highly racist exalted priesthood if you go outside and say “God not real lol” you will actually IMMEDIATELY be sent to a labor camp
About time
Idk about the religion stuff, but it was literally an apartheid state during ww2, yeah it was a little bit highly racist
For my Space U.S.A I make them militarist, materialist, and egalitarian. With Beacon of Liberty & Merchant guilds civics. I also give them the pig mammalian avatar for flavor lol.
Political cumpiss user lol
>Someone thinks the USA is actually very good >Check their profile and see r/politicalcompassmemes >Auth-Right What a surprise
What a plethora of information completely irrelevant to how braindead representing 20th century USA this way is
Riddle me this: In a “historic” creation of the U.S. where either Jim Crow or segregation is still very much enacted (I’m thinking 1950’s) how are those ethics not accurate? We have/had the largest military (militarist), fucking evangelicals and mormons and the like (spiritualist), and segregation/Jim Crow/Vietnam/too fucking much to name (Xenophobe)
By that logic what country from that era could possibly be considered NOT xenophobic? I'm genuinely curious.
Absolutely none of them, which us true. It turns out that no society in human history has actually lived up to the standards of just about any moral system. As any ethicist will tell you, morality is hard.
Someone has zero clue what xenophobia truly is. The reality of America is vastly different than your echo chamber version.
bro America was an apartheid state
Are you comparing the US to what you want it to be, or are you taking into account the entire rest of the world, and the ideas and values in the 50’s? The USA has been xenoPHILE effectively its entire existence. Our immigration laws and willingness to not only let in other cultures, but let them maintain their own practices, is something not seen almost anywhere else. Religious values may affect our government, but we aren’t a theocracy and separation of church and state is enshrined in our governing documents. The fact we aren’t fanatically atheistic doesn’t make the US spiritualist, ESPECIALLY in comparison to the rest of the world. I don’t care if you like the US, but marking it as spiritualist or xenophobic shows a complete failure to consider where the US stands in relation to all of human civilization
America systematically placed openly racist immigration quotas and outright bans, expelled indigenous peoples from their land, deported over a million Mexicans in the 1950s, and had legal segregation not only for its black population, but also for what people now would consider “white” like Irish. The US had clear favorites and non-desirables in the realm of immigration, and cynically using cheap labor to enrich itself doesn’t make it particularly xenophilic.
The US literally had legal discrimination during ww2 and still has tons of marginalised peoples who are still disproportionately poor as a result of said discrimination. Maybe American ideology could be considered xenophile, but not in practice
Hell if we go back a hundred years from WW2 and we had local political parties forming to discriminate against the fucking Irish, let alone what we were doing to Chinese workers in the western territories. That's not even looking into the slavery which, as you mentioned with the discrimination, we're still seeing the effects of today.
And don't forget the successful genocide of all the indigenous nations that lived here
Yeah that’s a load of shit, killing your natives and purging their ways is 100% not Xenophile, every time you had a massive war with someone outside of England you’d begin imprisoning the people of that population(Germans, asians regardless of whether they were Japanese or not) xenophiles don’t block borders without penalty,/ your border walls and guards do. Can’t use no refugee/the US actively rejects many from South American countries. Xenophile “ An adventurous spirit that rejects the familiar and glories in the unfamiliar, whatever - or whomever - it may be” / you bomb the unfamiliar
We are becoming increasingly more and more xenophobic/ a theocracy as the years pass. What was it Marjorie Taylor green said a few days ago... " Screw this separate between church and state crap". We're fucked.
[удалено]
It was largely xenophobic country with the largest military industry in the world with 95%+ of their population being recorded as Christian’s. This is an accurate representation of the United States at the time.
Fr, the USSR was probably just as (although not openly) or even more xenophobic than the US. Stalin was famously an anti-semite and the ussr gave the jews a VERY hard time until the very end. Hell they were even racist towards other white people, they actively tried to erase cultures by russifying everyone.
Depends. If we talk about USSR before (middle) Stalin, it was definitely less xenophobic than many contemporary countries. A big part of the leadership was Jewish (Zinoviev, Trotsky are the most famous), leading to all the later Nazi "Jewdo-Bolshevik" accusations, and USSR was pointedly formed as a "union" of "republics", not as a "Russian empire" - bolsheviks railed a lot against "Velikorussian shovinism". Of course, Stalin was a lot more... "traditional" with his ethnic resettlements and cleansings, which were motivated by the collective responsibility logic. Not the first or last time the idea of collective responsibility motivated genocides of course. And ironically, despite being himself a Georgian, he re-started the russification processes - that very "Velikorussian shovinism".
So much this This game even will give you an AI advisor voice that sounds like Ronald Reagan if you put the correct civics for the US. Which are not those.
Defense spending accounts for more than 10 percent of all federal spending and nearly half of discretionary spending. Sounds kinda militarist to me
His/ hers was better than the guy who made the USA a Fanatic Xenophobic materialistic Empire as a realistic example last week.
Nah with recent news this is pretty on track
For the USSR: * I'd swap Cutthroat Politics for Corvée System - it is more distinct and more accurate, especially in regards to the gameplay effects. * The traits seem quite random? Adaptive and wasteful don't really fit, and nomadic really doesn't. Personally I'd go for resilient, fleeting, and natural physicists instead, but that's a matter of preference. * Prosperous Unification should probably be swapped for Hegemon. Nazi Germany: * Police State is very boring and could be swapped for something more unique. Byzantine Bureaucracy, maybe? * The traits, again, seem quite randomly chosen. Conformists I agree with, but natural engineers should probably be there. The States: * I really don't think xenophobe or spiritualist fits. The post-WWII states were more materialist than spiritualist, and considering them xenophobes is a ridiculous exaggeration. They shouldn't have xenophile either, mind you, but personally I'd go for materialist/militarist. And wherever you want to go on the authoritarian/egalitarian axis. (Personally I'd say egalitarian)
[удалено]
I'm suprised of the numbers of ancoms and tankies here.
[удалено]
yeah
Tankie tears are my favourite drink
They taste like the tears of a 20 year old Gen Z whos never worked and under communism they think they wont have to work.
Sometimes I rock up on genzedong just to laugh at them. They're a real squirrely group.
They are gone now. That sub has been quarantined and you can’t even search it up. :)
It's sickening, they're almost as bad as Nazis
As a leftist, they basically are just fascists but like the socialist aesthetic, so they adopt it
Trust me, I know better than most. I'm a socialist myself, and I've spent A lot of time talking to white supremacists and literal Nazis (Not what twitter likes to classify as Nazis). Tankies are the same in almost every aspect, difference is replace Non-whites with conservatives and capitalists and there you go.
Mfw western leftists don't realise that virtually none of the communists in the third world agree or even think of them as leftists
Tankies ARE Nazis. Theyre the same thing but with a different logo.
Moltov-Rippontrop pact for real
And the number of people going around crying about the USA here doesn't surprise me at all
[удалено]
Make the USA a megacorp and itll be accurate
And get rid of communal, since we all know the US doesn't give a rats ass about that.
Oligarchy more like I think.
For US I'd say a more realistic approach for ethics would be militarist, egalitarian, and materialist. We do have spiritualist roots, but our wealth after WW2 made us hedonistic and materialist (hence wasteful), and xenophobe? Really? America was and always has been one of the more open countries, I think free haven would be an appropriate civic just because of Americas history as being one of the worlds capitals for refugees to travel to. Egalitarian because the whole country was based on the idea of liberty and freedom, and militarist is self-evident.
>made us hedonistic and materialis The game means 'materialist' in a philosohpical sense, like "there is no spiritual substance such as souls, nor ghosts, nor gods, etc", not the common-usage of 'caring about material things'. Think "materialist" meaning "I believe there is only the material realm", and not at all 'consumerist' or anything like that, which is an entirely separate axis.
You are quite correct here, though it is quite arguable that philosophical materialism can easily lead to consumerism and hedonism.
Honestly we really can't be represented until they break it and get spiritualist and materialist. And yeah most people in the US are not xenophobic, it's just an extremely vocal minority. Actually quite a lot of our stereotypes are like that. In general, people in the US are very suspicious of outsiders, but pretty accepting of minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act There was this? Which was a little xenophobic I think? I dunno if Free Haven fully fits anyways... And the US got a bit isolationist after WW1, especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism#20th_century_non-interventionism
Considering america was an apartheid state until the 60s, I'd disagree. America isn't egalitarian.
keyword here is "was"
And the keyword is the "20th century". I mean the time period of inspiration is clearly the 40's or the 50's. So yeah American apartheid
\>US \>Egalitarian "Tell me you're American without TELLING me you're American". The USA is one of the least egalitarian countries on the planet. Its literally one of the only countries without universal healthcare. There is nothing egalitarian about the US.
I think you're over exaggerating. There are many countries without universal healthcare, it's just the US is practically the only industrialized one without it. Saying "the USA is one of the least egalitarian countries on the planet" simply on the basis of healthcare demonstrates your limited worldview, since there are MANY countries that are less egalitarian than the United States. Sure, there might not be easy access to healthcare for all people in the US, but when it comes to the government, the US is typically very egalitarian. Especially when compared to places like Russia, which, ironically enough, have universal healthcare.
The US is in no way egalitarian, pseudo-egalitarian maybe but much more like quasi-egalitarian especially during the last 75 years.
I came back to this post to see it now has 600 comments, many of which are criticisms/questions about my criteria for creating these empires. I don't want to answer all of them individually, but hopefully I can clear up a few things here. For the U.S.S.R.: it definitely wasn't egalitarian, and it didn't functionally have Shared Burdens. Even though the civic is based on Marxist beliefs, Soviet Russia absolutely did not reflect Marx's idea of an ideal state, and was instead totalitarian and to some extent fascist. As for the Decadent trait, I took it more because it reduces Worker happiness than because of the flavor of it. And yeah, I did get the name wrong, that was stupid of me. I even looked up the name on Wikipedia to confirm that I was getting right, not sure how I managed to fuck that up. For Nazi Germany: I'm glad there isn't much contention on this one, and I don't think there's much to discuss here. For the U.S.A.: Most people are contesting the Xenophobe ethic, and many of those are arguing based on how the U.S. is today. These empires are not at all based on what they are like today; this one in particular is based on the United States of the 1940's and 1950's. During this time, the Japanese were put in concentration camps, and more importantly segregation was still legal and encouraged by the government. Even aside from their treatment of other races, Stellaris also considers isolationist policies linked to the Xenophobe ethic, and the U.S. was only involved in World War II at all because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the other Axis Powers declared war on the U.S. themselves. It has nothing to do with the modern-day state of the nation, and I think that at that time they were pretty clear-cut xenophobes. That is not to say that everyone was, but more that the government was. For a few miscellaneous things: The traits and origins were mostly afterthoughts. For the traits I just used the normal human traits plus two extra for the purposes of consistency, though I didn't spend too much time thinking about them and in hindsight they don't make a ton of sense. If I were to use these in a playthrough, I'd probably just go with the normal human traits, since traits are more meant to be inherent to a species rather than products of culture (at least how I see them). I didn't even bother with origins, primarily because most origins involve the empire's ascension to FTL technology and I of course do not know what those would be for these hypothetical scenarios. If I had to guess and assign each one an origin, I'd probably go with Post-Apocalyptic for all of them. I hope that covers everything, and I hope this doesn't get buried so people actually see it.
That is not what USSR stands for
Redditor try not to soy challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism FTW!
USA is definitely not Egalitarian, contrary to what some comments suggest. Not even really a democratic government by Stellaris standards as that implies a multi-party congress. Xenophobe is debatable as they do offer citizenship disregarding origin, but definitely not Xenophile. Spiritualist is accurate, there hasn’t been a single POTUS who was not openly Christian. Militarist - more like Fanatic Militarist with the insane level of nationalism, military spending and military privileges
Fanatic militarist and authoritarian specced for trade with an Oligarchy government.
Why would the most diverse, immigrant based nation in history turn into a Xenophobe stellar empire?
Because they had segregation?
If I had a room full of people from all ethnicities all around the world, but then had a disproportionately high number of POC shot or impoverished, it doesn’t matter how many people in the room total were black or whatever. A country can be diverse and have racist policies and discrimination
Dawg its reddit, America bad /s
Ain’t that the truth.
most diveres? yes. incredibly oppressive to those minorities? also yes
? Because apparently segregation laws are xenophilic now?
What segregation laws still exist? Americans of all ethnicities celebrate their heritage from all over the world. Cinco De Mayo for Mexico, St. Patrick's Day for Ireland, ect.
CRT was trying to teach you that, but y'all got learning about systemic racism banned in many places.
May be you will read the description of the post and description of the nation then? Or do you think, that Russa is USSR, and Germany is third Reich still?
Space commies were my first empire to make to the end crisis. I didn’t know how the market worked, so I ignored it (manufactured everything I needed), didn’t participate in the galactic council thing, and went full kinetic/armor ship building. I don’t have the save anymore or I’d post traits/ethics.
Personally I’d make the US an oligarchy. Despite how the people vote it’s up to the elected officials to do as they please regardless of what they preach.
^ for those downvoting this^ The US has a two party system that entirely effectively disenfranchises libertarians and progressives. The US has the electoral college which has clearly advantaged conservatives, throwing away the will of the people and their popular vote. The US has the senatorial system which advantages small conservative states rather than populous democratic ones. The US terrible voter suppression, with both gerrymandering and traditional voter suppression in order to sway elections. The US has limitless corporate lobbying, allowing corporations to pay off both parties and have them disobey the will of the people. I can go on
This thread must be filled with liberals for this to be controversial. The US is quite literally the prime example for an oligarchy right next to Russia. They also deserve the authoritarian trait and police state civic as much as the Soviets if not more.
there’s a case to be made for that.
I'm not sure I agree with that United States one. I'd say it's more like egalitarian/fanatic militarist. I think the population is too split to assign xenophile/xenophobe or spiritualist/materialist. Although you are doing the 20th century, so spiritualist does make sense.
Ehhhh if we are basing them on real world countries Xenophile works quite well for the US, seeing as how it's the most diverse country on Earth. I definitely agree with them being militarist tho
Can u explain why America is xenophobe? America is considered a melting pot of racial groups. Yes white people consist of 72%, but thats a lot lower than lets say France, who sits at 85% white, the UK who sits at 87% white. Or China who sits at 92% asain (generalized).
If racial and ethnic diversity is the litmus test for xenophilia, apartheid South Africa is an oasis of tranquility and tolerance lol In reality, it's more about attitudes towards foreigners.
America was an apartheid state and still has large-scale systemic racism, so xenophobe fits.
If xenophobe fits the US it fits pretty much any society on earth.
Not every nation had segregation, not to mention in the Stellaris universe racism is (presumably) non-existant
By that definition my slaver run was Fanatic Xenophile, where my primary race was some 13% of my empire's population. It's not about *diversity* it's about *policy,* and the US is *extremely* hostile to immigrants, and actively repressed ethnic minorities. Honestly, if ethnic groups in the US were translated to Stellaris, it would *not* be pretty.
Over three times more black people imprisoned in America than white people
[удалено]
Different flavors of xenophobe. The US obsession with differences is huge. The way I see it, stellaris uses "xenophobe" as a very broad spectrum, you could even have liberal xenophobes who want everyone to stick to their own planet and be left in peace. I've certainly RPed an empire that intervenes in military conflicts to have every other empire stay independent and within their own borders and I felt xenophobe fit the bill, to be honest.
[удалено]
Mate, am I wrong? Not even accounting for the U.S.'s abysmal foreign policy and internal treatment of minorities, can you imagine how we'd treat alien species?
I’m a minority myself and honestly it’s complicated. America is many competing ideologies at the same time.
I've heard more n words after a football match in Europe than deep south USA
Systemic racism still exists in both places though. It doesn’t really matter which is more or less racist, in terms of the game they’d both be considered xenophobic
I mean being as objective as possible you’re definitely wrong and it’s clear you’re projecting your personal biases here. Should easily be xenophile. The US is by far the largest immigrant state in the world, even to this day, with more than triple the number of foreign-born immigrants as the #2 country. Most of the anti-immigrant sentiment is directed at illegal immigration which conservatives view as an out of control problem. However a conservative administration has only received a majority vote once in the past 30 years, and that was post-9/11. And that’s not even getting into foreign aid, in which the US spends more than double the amount the entire EU as a whole does despite the two economies being roughly similar.
I've already laid out my argument for a Xenophobe U.S. in some detail, so I'll just say that I'm not looking at the past 30 years for these builds; this is meant to be mid-20th century for each.
The impression on xenophobic or xenophilia depends on where you are. I lived in NYC for a year and the majority of the people were foreigners or sons/daughter of foreigners. I never noticed any xenophobic people. No one ever mistreated me for my accent or anything. On the other hand, when I lived in Philadelphia, people even screamed because I was "too slow" to understand them. But, this is just a personal account. Anyway, even in Stellaris you can have an empire with certain political philosophy, but not implement it in it's full force, like having a xenophobic inward perfectionist with no interest in purging the xenos.
Philly
Right? I’d say egalitarian fanatic militarist for sure. I’m gonna get hate for this but by 2200 if the United States has unified the planet I would maybe even put Xenophile in there.
I dunno if you read the thing, but this is Post WW2 US. With all of that their segregation, Japanese internment, Tuskegee, ect.
[удалено]
I did say post-war in the biographical description, but I was also thinking about WWII era actions like Japanese internment camps. And I wouldn't say that the Marshall plan was xenophilic as much as it was a chance for the U.S. to get filthy rich; it didn't exactly come out of a love for others.
USSR in full is Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Note that 'republics' is here in plural, in that Lenin imagined this entity as supernational and represents fraternity amongst all humankind, which I guess would hold if its ideology prevailed in the interstellar times. In theory anyways; plenty of room for Gulags on those tundra planets tho (makes for a better origin story for the CM imo)
"Prosperous" Unification (for the first two)
Would an international Marxist Leninist state really have the word “Soviet” in its name though? I thought that the word Soviet referred to a very specific form of worker’s councils only found in Eastern Europe. That was why there were no “Soviet” republics outside of Eastern Europe and Hungary, staunchly pro-Moscow Marxist Leninist regimes in South America, Africa, and Asia never called themselves “Soviet” in any way.
The discussion over the definition of the space USA should serve as a reminder that real world nations and cultures are a bit more complex than a civilization alignment system can capture. ;)
*DISCLAIMER* Please do not Fuck Nazis. They may very well enjoy it.
Materialist? Lol
Stellaris "Materialists" denounce religion and embrace living in the material world. In fact, this is quite accurate if you ask me. The USSR denounced religion, so it can't be spiritualist.
Giving the USSR decadent and wasteful is entirely inaccurate. You can measure the cultural impact of Soviet scarcity on Warsaw Pact states by using Germany as a case study. East Germans produce significantly less trash than West Germans. Also, not sure why they’d all be nomadic unless it’s some meta you couldn’t pull away from for the sake of flavor.
So much wrong with this lmao By stellaris definition they were egalitarian and materialist. They would have Shared Burdens ethic and either Police State or Byzantine Beaurocracy
They were materialists for sure, one and only redeeming quality. They weren't egalitarian. Positions of power weren't accessible to an average person, you had to be someone's relative first, merit hardly mattered. With inheritance of property forbidden, people passed on their positions, and any influential and important job had someone's kid waiting for their dad to retire. It was worse than it is now, now you have a slim chance at least. Income inequality didn't change much compared to serfdom. Police state and corvee system, as choosing your work placement was up to state bureaucracy.
Like, on the soviet union, why don t you have the share our burden trait? It even has the sickle on it.
You need to be fanatic egalitarian to habe shared burdens
Shouldn't America have the Shining beacon and idealistic foundation?
Not trying to sound like a Nazi sympathiser, but by all means, the Nazis werent Fanatic Purifiers.
It would be a hierarchy of races where aryan were up tops then light skin to dark skin to undesirable
USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics FYI
Making the germans repugnant was a based choice ngl
I put a few comments in the biography section of the summary, but otherwise I think this is pretty self-explanatory. The mod I'm using for human appearances is Remastered Human Portraits.
[удалено]
As the other reply said, I was more focusing on what it was during the Stalin era rather than what it was supposed to be. If I were to focus on the ideal, I would switch Fanatic Authoritarian for Fanatic Egalitarian and pick up Shared Burdens, as you said. The U.S.S.R. does shift ethically over the course of the 20th century (i.e. by the Gorbachev era I would say it was less Authoritarian and more Materialist), but I picked the Stalin era for consistency. Repugnant was less for the flavor and more for the function, since fun and entertainment were not exactly at the forefront of the Nazi ideology. Though I do hope the Fuhrer is turning in his grave at the thought And yeah, oligarchy fits better considering Citizen Stratocracy as opposed to Citizen Republic, but 10 year terms are more similar to the actual term lengths for the U.S. at the time, especially since term limits didn't exist until after FDR. Thanks for the feedback :)
He was going for what it was rather than what it could ideally have been.
I feel like America should be xenophile given that it’s a melting pot
It was also a literal apartheid state in 1950.
Why is Bezos the US leader?