based

@WHATCHAMACALLIT
I'm not sure, but it is a very simple change and it probably still works.

Vanilla Expanded makes a similar change, so I use that instead of this mod.

Is this compatible with 1.6?

@UmbraLupus64 Certainly the loudest people are. Dunning-Kruger at work.
Aside from reading actual political theory, a lot of problems would be fixed if people at least googled before they committed to say or do something stupid. Even scanning a Wikipedia article is better than nothing. But a lot of these people distrust google and Wikipedia but will uncritically repeat half-remembered TikTok videos.

Given how cancerous this comment section is, its pretty obvious next to none (and I'm very certain that's an overestimate) have actually read any socialist works before... maybe not even any written work by a political theorist or historian.

I mean, when 5 minutes of googling is enough to confirm without a doubt that Anarchism is a branch of socialist thought (like, literally read anything written by Kropotkin, Malatesta, Emma Goldman, etc., just a few paragraphs), it becomes immediately obvious a lot of people here are talking (shouting really) via means of explosive diarrhea from both ends.

Individualism vs Collectivism is a false dichotomy only spread by those who want to distract and draw false equivalence.

@Degen
Yes. The comment section is something of an epic dumpster fire. Admittedly, I contributed to it, but at least I am aware of my own terminally online brain rot, as @Gerewoatle puts it.

@Degen: Terminally online brainrot will do that. I don't think any of them are actually capable of talking about anything else.

Good god this comment section, I wasn't even going to consider getting this mod until i saw ~1200 comments on a simple ideology tweak

@Kalmin
There is no TRUE socialist state as there is no TRUE capitalist state. The "one drop" rule ought not to extend only one way. You should ask yourself to what extent the Finnish democratic control over their own economy contributes to their success, and what would happen if they gave up that control.

Virtually every state has a central bank and a public education system - two planks of the Communist manifesto, and most states have gone further, enshrining public health and housing and other rights. The Overton window has shifted way left over the past few centuries and even modern conservatives would be considered leftist radicals by the standards of the past.

The reality is, as you point out in Finland, that a strong democratic state adopts socialistic policies for its own interests. That is a good thing. I am a stronger democrat than I am a socialist, between a socialist policy and a democratic one, I'd pick the democratic choice. Happily, that dilemma is rare.

Original comment was way longer... but 1000 character limit in a mods comments? thats fair

Finland is not a socialist country, it is a free market economy with a state welfare, funded through high taxation of its citizens, how can the finnish citizens acquire the money to pay upwards of 53% income tax? Through the private sector (Capitalism), service sector, electronics manufacturing, mineral fuel and paper

Finland works because its one of the most democratic countries on the planet with a strong private sector, so much that the people of Finland dont need the welfare and public services offered by the state, but consciously chose to adopt it, and let the state monopolize those sectors (and even in healthcare they allow private alternatives).

Restating what i said above, the people are well serviced not because the country affords them, but because they afford it themselves, they just choose to pay the country to provide them the services instead of private initiative.

Yet to find a TRUE socialist government, that is democratic

@Wolfwood1316
Portugal is a good example. Socialism is written into the constitution. Chile before it was deposed. Nicaragua. I'd count the Kurdish authority. Modern Germany actively encourages worker-owned enterprises, so that's close. Norway, which funds its pubic sector through a state-owned oil company. The government of Kansas was once socialist. Actually there were a lot of socialist cities in the U.S. that were basically couped. New Zealand had a strong socialist government at one point.
Most of them, honestly. Most socialist governments were benign and democratic. The Soviet Union was the noted aberration.

Finland, social democracy.

name a socialist government that isn't/wasn't authoritarian lmao

@CEC (2)
This whole idea that some cultures are "obedient collectivists" and other cultures have "individualists" is purely to scare policy makers into curbing labor rights. They want us all working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, off the smell of an oily rag. And they'll tell you whatever they need to get you to do it: that you're a strong rugged individual and you don't need no union, or that your loyalty is to the country and you don't need no union, or you'll upset your ancestors if you start a union, or God doesn't want you start a union. Individualism and collectivism are not philosophies, they're propaganda strategies. That was as true in 1840s Britain as it is in modern China, the only defense you have against is democracy and labor activism.

@CEC
The difference between China and the U.S. is a varying adherence to democracy. China is hostile to democracy, the U.S. is nominally for it. What you ascribe as "culture" is just a matter of character of the leadership. People are largely the same wherever you go with some minor variance, there is no "clash of civilizations", just the struggles of ordinary people against authoritarianism. I'm lucky enough to have traveled a lot, so I know this.

Anyway, the same things they were saying about the Chinese now they were saying about the Japanese thirty years ago. They all told us Japan was going to be a superpower because they had this unique work culture. It was a myth as it usually is, Japanese people are no more eager to waste their lives working as the Chinese or Americans are. If you look at the Chinese, strikes are very common and there's serious public order issues that necessitate the firewalls and the surveillance state.

The distinction between individualist and collectivist cultures is only relevant when talking about cultures that just don't have a concept of an individual. The modern world pretty much universally accepts the concept of the individual (minus some pseud bullshit from hippy types), but anthropologists tell us that early humans basically saw themselves as 'one with the tribe', and that there were clear factors that made it so people had no reason to think of themselves as individuals. There simply wasn't any way to differentiate yourself since life was so straightforward and you were totally reliant on the people next to you, who you spent all of your time with.

(This is something I think Rimworld could do better with, by the way. Primitive cultures have different ideas about things like sleeping in the same room as the rest of your family, that could become a mood impact later on.)

The individualism versus collectivism dichotomy makes no sense in real life either, on both a theoretical level and a practical level.

Countries that we call "collectivist" are some of the most greedy, shortsighted, and back-stabbing cultures in existence (China). They're really just cultures where people have gotten used to the existence of authority and there is a lot of virtue signalling about loving grandma or whatever. It does not mean people truly see themselves as ants purely working for the greater good of the colony, this is just the framework in which they are finding ways to further their own self-interest.

Meanwhile, countries that we call "individualist" (as if that's even possible, the whole point of a country is to have a collective) are really gung ho about the rights of others (US, Western Europe, etc.) and accept the notion that guaranteeing your own rights requires establishing a single standard that does the same for others.

I meant to say I limit my warcrimes ONLY to anything vaguely imperialist surrounding. I try to get along with the other factions and try to not kill those who are outwardly hostile but sophians I just kill on sight, none are to be spared. I sometimes just kill a bunch of them only to spare one and turn it into some human larvae, a high ranking title noble reduced to a slug.

Then send him crawling back home or in a drop pod full of chemfuel rigged to blow.

Finally, a rimworld mod that freakin gets me. Tbh tho the rimworld community is full of individualist, anti-commie brainlets anyways. I mean in a game where we celebrate the most heinous war crimes, its gonna attract a few unironically evil people.

I used to be "haha murder murder torture" but then it just got boring and later kinda depressing, so I limit my warcrimes against anything vaguely imperialist sounding.

@Onba
Let's say you have a collectivist society that has slaves. If the majority of people become slaves, does society sudden change to benefit the slaves because they make up the majority? No. Slavery is therefore compatible with individualism, by your definition. If I own myself, I also have the right to sell myself into slavery, which does happen historically. If the state tells me I can't sell myself into slavery, that's an collectivist imposition on my individual liberty. So not only is slavery compatible with individualism, a truly individualistic society must have slavery.
Of course, individualism and collectivism don't really exist as political forces, every ideology has both "collectivist" and "individualist" concepts, even right libertarianism.

The first thing you own in an individualist community is yourself, controlling other is directly apposed to this, thus no slavery. Also an ideology is only about one individual it's much harder to create an 'us and them' mentalist. Collectivism is about the good of the group over the one and so abusing one person is good if the majority benefits, thus slavery. It all in history, individualism always eliminates slavery, collectivist always create some form of government enforced work or they fall apart. As Lenin said, "He who does not work shall not eat".

It should. It's a very minor change. I don't use this anymore personally because VE:Memes makes a very similar change.

Does this work in 1.4?

No problem, thanks for the civil discourse.

Earlier I was conflating Libertarianism with Liberty, and Authoritarianism with Authority. You're right on that part.

"Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" the motto from the French Revolution.

Liberté, Liberty, is the opposite of Autorité, Authority. That's what I am trying to say. But I'm wasting your time. Enjoy your mod.

@King
From the French Revolution. Egalitarianism is distributed power and authoritarianism is hierarchical power. This has been the left/right divide since the French revolution when the monarchists took the right side of the national assembly and the liberals took the left.

@king you are correct, don't worry

Where do you get those definitions?

@King
Egalitarianism - power distributed evenly.
Authoritarianism - power in the hands of the few.

Libertarianism, as you point out, is just a political philosophy - it's not *part* of a spectrum as much as it *on* the spectrum.

Egalitarian: all people are equal.
Elitism: rule by select few (may include oligarchy or monarchy).

Different axis from...

Authoritarianism: the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
Libertarianism: a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.

Authoritarianism certainly could be considered elitism. Maybe you're referencing oligarchy.

@king

@King it depends on what you mean by "elitism".

Wouldn't the opposite of egalitarianism be elitism?

As an experiment I blocked Ged. You can still view someone's comments.
I unblocked him afterward.

"I can't be baited"
I mean, you've just been baited into admitting you're still reading something you supposedly blocked.

"and this one wonders why he's blocked..."

Not really a mystery. Please go away.

and this one wonders why he's blocked...

I can't be baited, but I can report. Eventually I'll get some ideological competition

Don't respond to Ged. He is actually mentally ill.

Dude actually tried saying I'm mentally ill, simply because I disagree with him, and he cannot produce a substantive counter argument.

He must have his entire head buried deep within the bowels of his echo chamber to reach such and absurdly comical and downright infantile conclusion.

All I came here for was a respectful exchange of ideas, but it always has, and always will be entirely derailed by those who simply have not done their homework. This is why they resort to such silly tactics like this. They cannot sustain the merits.

Okay, thanks.

It should. I play with Ideologies Expanded, which does a pretty similar tweak, so I don't really need this mod active. This is just a very simple XML mod.
I really should update it.

So, uh. Not to derail all that, but does this mod work on 1.4?

"but the left is more suspicious of those who go right to left"
In USA, or in general? What do you mean by suspicious?

In Europe left is in an okay-ish state and feels safe in the open. In my country, Poland, majority of population is right-leaning, so leftists cheer when someone converts and are very welcoming. Of course this doesn't mean there are no schisms over nothing every half year, just because someone's sass level has risen slightly.

For someone who claims to be able to beat anyone in an argument, he's avoiding contact adamantly. Allegations of mental health problems are kind of low blow, but he really checks all the boxes for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

@Hahkethomemah "The premise was that, against our intuition, the biggest world-view changes in our lives are actually quite small or take form of series of those small changes."

Yeah, I've always been fascinated with the way people form opinions that ossify into delusions, but I always thought it had more to do with social sanctioning (you can't really be anti-Trump if all your friends and your whole family are pro-Trump, for example). If there were fewer social stakes I think it would be easier for people to be open-minded. I've noticed the right is pretty kind to people who turn to the right, but the left is more suspicious of those who go right to left. This is a big problem as far as I'm concerned.

Don't worry about Ged, his cowardice is extreme if it's true he actually blocked me. I didn't block him because nothing he says scares me.

I just see a page of blocked messages.

Hopefully this is the product of their world view unraveling, but something tells me they are probably stuck in a perpetual cycle of patting eachother on the back, requiring validation and acceptance for their house-of-cards of a world view.

This is what is required to hold these views. Any amount of scrutiny leads to the utter destruction of everything they believe to be true.

Either way, they must be taking the loss quite well. I'll check back in, in a few days.

Our minds judge new information based on ones accepted in the past as true. If something is wildly different, it's perceived as nonsensical or useless and rejected. This is very fluid, and unless we sit in the basement and dive in the same echo chamber over and over, we slowly drift in this or that direction every day. Just by receiving and processing stimuli and matching that to who we were earlier.

That's how rationality is built, and some pieces at the center are hard to remove, as it's their very purpose to form a stable foundation. Smuggling in arational elements, like faith, or re-wiring our needs (like self-esteem) to depend on particular pieces gives us irrational reasons to entrench and keep them despite what otherwise would be a rationale sufficient for change. Each time we don't remove something that should be removed or add something that shouldn't be added, we're corrupting the process and open the way to build on that mistake further.

Of course, it's impossible to detach yourself completely, so this phenomenon shouldn't be universally condemned. We'd all be guilty, just in different degrees. The problematic thing is that the most attached people very actively seek opportunities for confirmation, find it even when it's not there, and every time they do, it gets worse.

What I mean by "every time it gets worse" is a bit convoluted.

One of the most unexpected insights that stuck with me for a long time was something I picked up at a random, minor psychology conference. The premise was that, against our intuition, the biggest world-view changes in our lives are actually quite small or take form of series of those small changes.