[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Why fascism is bad but not communism

[Reed Meyer <rdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reinier Post wrote:

First off, Reinier, I want to say that I appreciate the more reasonable
approach you've adopted.  Unlike some of the anti-patch people, who shout
epithets equivalent to "You're obviously a fascist" or who, like the child
who doesn't get his way, "pick up their toys" and leave all huffy.

>>Pure (or "ideal", to use your term) fascism has absolutely NOTHING to do
>> with this "Higher Race"/"Lower Race" stuff.
>
>In that case, you should be proposing Italian symbols and names.

Well, maybe.  Certainly the symbol for the fascist government type
shouldn't be a swastika.  (For legal reasons it can't be the Italian
fasces, either.)  The fascism government definition should be generic (we
all agree on that, I believe), i.e., not even Italian in reference.  What
else do you mean, except the proposed new units?  (The units also should
be generic.  The heavy tank (temporarily known as "Panzer") is this 
as long as the German war symbol is removed.  As Juan Cortes did mention,
the SS Troops unit was based on the Waffen SS, but actually it represents
a general paramilitary infantry force that a fascist government is
supposed to be able to raise with relative ease compared to other
governments.  (I.e., sort of like "fanatics" for Civ II Fundamentalism.)
We didn't limit the SS Troops unit to fascist governments because it
would've required source code changes, and it would've given too much an
advantage to the fascism government type.  I don't know if the Italians
or other real-life fascist governments had units equivalent to the
Waffen SS.  If they did, then for sure the SS Troops have nation-neutral
real-life counterparts.  Since the unit isn't tied strictly to fascist
governments, it can represent any real-life paramilitary infantry force,
I guess.)

>It should be clear to you by now that Nazi symbols or a Fascism
>government don't stand a chance of being included for the purely
>emotional reason that including references to Nazism steps on many
>people's toes.  But it's not the only reason.  It has also been
>said that the proposals are not generic enough, and you're not
>addressing that.

I wasn't aware that the fascism government type didn't stand a chance.
I certainly didn't propose the government type under the assumption that
it would "pass" with NO changes whatsoever.  As for the proposals not
being generic enough, for example with the government type, as I quite
openly said before, I'm willing to make just about any change to the
definition except for its most essential characteristic in terms of
freeciv gameplay (i.e., the characteristic that "defines" the government
type as distinct from Republic, Democracy, etc.), viz., the +1 resource
bonus per tile.
     There are only a couple of "non-generic" parts to the fascism
government definition (at least that have pointed out so far).  As far as
I'm aware, these non-generic parts are: (1) the names for the ruler
titles, and (2) the use of the word "Gestapo" in the help text.  The
solution to (2) is easy: just remove the word "Gestapo" (the sentence
works fine without this word).  As to (1): perhaps it is best that we use
the English word "Leader", and let the word translate into the other
languages for which internationalization is supported.  "Leader" is, after
all, the English translation of the title by which Hitler, Mussolini, AND
Franco were all referred to!  If you don't like "Leader", and alternative
possibly could be "Boss", although this sounds better for a Despot or
Anarchic government.  (Juan tells me that "Jefe" is the title a fascist
leader would probably be referred to in Chile, and "Jefe" is of course
"Boss" in Spanish.)

>A nation representing Nazi Germany (or fascist Italy) would really
>represent just a particular episode in that nation.  In the default
>nation set, generic, politically neutral representations are more
>appropriate.

See my response to SamBC (forthcoming) in another thread.

>The only reason I'm interested in this discussion at all is because
>your work may add something to Freeciv as a game.  If it would improve
>the game to have a new government form with the rules you propose I'm
>all for its inclusion, but the name should be linked more clearly to its
>Freeciv effects, and with 'fascism' of which there are so few examples,
>this link would also be controversial.

Well, I appreciate the interest, but most of the discussion has been
outright rejection of the proposals as opposed to constructive criticism.

But your paragraph refers to an important related point.  Perhaps, as with
many "negatives" in life, this across-the-board rejection of the various
"fascism patch" components is actually a *blessing in disguise*.
     When I first heard about freeciv from Juan and played it, I assumed
that a software package that had been in development for that long and had
been seen by that many people MUST have survived the test, by that point,
that it was/wasn't an infringement of Hasbro's/Activision's copyright.
WRONG!!  I recently read the copyright-infringement threads in the
[Freeciv] mailing list archive for July and quickly came to the conclusion
that most of the freeciv developers/proponents had absolutely no clue what
they were talking about.  One of the few people who seemed to understand
what was going on was Brandon Van Every.  I'm no copyright lawyer, but I
did read a bit about the subject when I registered my web page for
copyright in 1997 (and yes, for anyone dumb enough to rip stuff off from
it, it is registered).  Pretty much everything Brandon said is also my
take on the subject.  Namely, that since freeciv is such a blatant rip-off
of Civ I/II, if Hasbro wanted to, it could get freeciv shut down faster
than a nuke fries half a city's population.
     The fact that such a discussion was happening as recently as July 
can only mean one thing: Hasbro hasn't said anything.  Which means that
either they aren't aware of freeciv, or they consider it such a minor
player in the world-conquest-strategy-game market that it's not worth the
legal hassle.
     But that could change, and I don't want to be associated with freeciv
when the feces hits the fan.  So, I'd just prefer that NONE of these
fascism-and-related patches gets accepted, if that's what's going to
happen.
     Pretty much the only way to guarantee that the commercial Civ
publishers don't bring everything crashing down is to change the things
that blatantly violate their copyrights.  That means (among other things),
changing the technology tree, including the names/definitions of techs and
the shape of the tree; the units (again, their names and definitions);
buildings (same as above), Wonders (perhaps even the term "Wonder" itself
might have to be changed, although some simple phrase could be found that
obviously means "Wonder" to the player), terrain definitions, and yes,
even government types (the names themselves wouldn't have to be changed,
but their definitions vis-a-vis gameplay would have to be).  This affects
not just subdirectories in data/ but also the source code (since
implementation of e.g. buildings is done there).  And as I just said, the
above list isn't all-inclusive; for example, the effect a nuke has on a
city can be argued to be a copyrightable implementation of the "nuking
idea".  There's a lot that would have to be changed.
     But there is hope!  If the freeciv developers' community is willing
to ACCEPT such changes such as the possibilities I've provided in the
"fascism patch", then you guys are that much closer to achieving a unique
and independent game (a goal which, if I were a big-time freeciv
developer, I would consider highly desirable ANYWAY, not just from legal
concerns).  Sure, the fascism stuff is just one small chunk, but it
gets you closer to that goal than where it is right now.  And it's not
like the proposals in the "fascism patch" can't be modified and evolved by
the freeciv community, keeping in the spirit of open source.
     If, however, the sentiment among the developers is that of
conservatism, that of "must emulate Civ II at all costs", which is what
seems to be the case, then I am forced to formally withdraw the fascism
proposals.  (Or maybe not strictly withdraw them, as Juan might not mind
having his name on them; but I wouldn't want my name on any of it.)  I
want to make positive contributions to open source software, but I don't
want to get involved in legal problems.

Cheers,
---Reed Meyer