Aigym Hlervu's Guide to Socio-Economic Formations of Tamriel.

Helgi_Skotina

Author doesn't know what socialism is and which horrors it means.

Ratzkifal

Helgi_Skotina wrote: »

Author doesn't know what socialism is and which horrors it means.

Are you sure? Clockwork City is quite the horrible place. It's a very fitting description.

Aigym_Hlervu

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Great analysis. I have a few points I would want to make about it though.
First of all I think there needs to be a distinction made between the First Aldmeri Dominion and the Second and Third.

From what we are seeing, I am not convinced the First Aldmeri Dominion is a fascist society rather than an monarchical society with the opposing classes of the nobility and the sapiarchs/priests and the Queen. (The bourgousie in Altmer society can usually trace back their ancestory to nobility as well, as these records are a fundamental part of their society. If you aren't a noble Altmer, you are most likely serving a noble or are one of the outcasts with no rights)

What is missing from the First Aldmeri Dominion compared to the Third that I think is necessary for the society to be called fascist would be the single-party mentality that everyone needs to support the same political faction, for example the Thalmor, and no tolerance for open opposition. "Naemon should have been King" is a sentence we hear a lot ingame and we meet nobles who openly oppose Ayrenn. The ideal fascist dogma is "if it's not explicitly allowed, it's illegal" while Ayrenn seems to be far more lenient more akin of "if it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed".

At best we have an absolute monarchy with regional nobles - at worst it is a fascist society without a fascist ruler with Queen Ayrenn's very hands-off approach at ruling.
However the Third Aldmeri Dominion is most likely a very typical fascist society with the Thalmor and Divine Prosecution policing and ruling over everything.
A definition of fascism on your part would have been good though, especially to distinguish it further from capitalism, seeing as fascism is usually opposed to the free market as well.

Secondly, as a bit of a nitpick, the Bosmer and Orsimer didn't leave due to religious scisms.

The Bosmer were most likely Aldmer (not to be confused with Altmer) colonists who made a pact with Y'ffre in order to survive in Valenwood. The Orsimer were on the same side as the main stream Altmer, even going as far as to try to stop the Chimer from leaving Summerset. Only due to Trinimac's defeat and defilement at the hands of Boethia were they changed and cast out.

Thirdly, I think it's worth examining the Argonians again under a different paradigm with the Hist being their absolute rulers and all Argonians being slaves or serfs to them.

Fourth, another nitpick, Bosmer don't need imported wood to build their own houses, they grow them from live trees. :P

Great work though overall!

Yes, very good critics there, @Ratzkifal, thank you! I haven't thought of the Hist as a ruling entity there. Hmm, I'll think over it. Thanks much!

Helgi_Skotina wrote: »

Author doesn't know what socialism is and which horrors it means.

You are very wrong here, Helgi . I'm very well aware of what socialism, feudalism and capitalism mean, moreover I have personal reasons to dislike exactly socialism among those three formations. But I am not the one who judges those formations from his personal emotional point of view. Because I'm also aware not only of horrors those three formations mean, but also of all the good they've done. To me and, moreover, to you including. My experience showed me multiple times: a very bad, evil deeds sometimes become the reasons of some very good consequences. It's just the matter of time - sometimes decades are needed to pass to see it. And you have to decide what to choose - to accuse someone for doing wrong decades ago or to thank him for doing it because today you have something that couldn't have existed without that evil. It's not a talk of some "what if" concept or any parallel universes. It's reality - pick at least one reason from the link and the result changes dramatically. We just don't know the future until it comes, we can only calculate some miserable expectations only. So don't be so quick to judge, sometimes we need much time to see what some actions lead to. Though of course we have to resist the current evil, but only the history itself shows who's right or wrong.

Socialism has never won it's struggle in the countries where everybody were happy. Just like capitalism could come to power only because feudalism could not solve the exact troubles of the exact society at a certain period of time. The personal attitude to those formations depends much on the historical period of those formations' development, the country (e.g. capitalism is very different in the US and, say, Bangladesh) and the personal social position of the speaker. It is very hard to like an absolutist state when you are a serf with the only right to work harder for your lord almost for free. But it is also very hard to dislike it when you are that very lord.

This is why I'm not intended to speak of pros and cons neither of socialism nor feudalism or capitalism here. The guide is only the description based strictly on a scientific theory of one of the well known scientists and it is not intended to convince someone to like something. Sometimes I might choose some other theory to describe the same thing - we'll see. I ask you guys to stay within the thread in-game topic, please.

P.S. @Ratzkifal's right - Clockwork City is indeed a horrible place. "Plastic" food, factories, artificial nature.. It's a nightmare.

SpaceElf

None of the societies in The Elder Scrolls can have their respective economies described as capitalist or communist or socialist in the commonly understood sense.

The majority are some form of mercantilism, privateering, barter, feudalism, subsistence agriculture, and hunter-gatherering. Most are combinations of some kind.

Aigym_Hlervu

SpaceElf wrote: »

None of the societies in The Elder Scrolls can have their respective economies described as capitalist or communist or socialist in the commonly understood sense.

The majority are some form of mercantilism, privateering, barter, feudalism, subsistence agriculture, and hunter-gatherering. Most are combinations of some kind.

I see you are not familiar with the basics, mate. I gave brief definitions up there for those who are not familiar with the scientifical socio-economic theory the post is based on to prevent posts just like yours. It is not something I personally have invented, there is no place for that "commonly understood sense" here you appeal to, because it leads to the lack of understanding of the object of study, mixing the terms and to wrong conclusions. Please, study the basics first before forming your own opinion. Until then we won't be able to be on the same page.

SpaceElf

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

SpaceElf wrote: »

None of the societies in The Elder Scrolls can have their respective economies described as capitalist or communist or socialist in the commonly understood sense.

The majority are some form of mercantilism, privateering, barter, feudalism, subsistence agriculture, and hunter-gatherering. Most are combinations of some kind.

I see you are not familiar with the basics, mate. I gave brief definitions up there for those who are not familiar with the scientifical socio-economic theory the post is based on to prevent posts just like yours. It is not something I personally have invented, there is no place for that "commonly understood sense" here you appeal to, because it leads to the lack of understanding of the object of study, mixing the terms and to wrong conclusions. Please, study the basics first before forming your own opinion. Until then we won't be able to be on the same page.

No need to be rude. You seem to think I was attacking you.

I see that there are no cited sources for your definitions. Could you please provide them?

Aigym_Hlervu

SpaceElf wrote: »

Cygemai_Hlervu wrote: »

SpaceElf wrote: »

None of the societies in The Elder Scrolls can have their respective economies described as capitalist or communist or socialist in the commonly understood sense.

The majority are some form of mercantilism, privateering, barter, feudalism, subsistence agriculture, and hunter-gatherering. Most are combinations of some kind.

I see you are not familiar with the basics, mate. I gave brief definitions up there for those who are not familiar with the scientifical socio-economic theory the post is based on to prevent posts just like yours. It is not something I personally have invented, there is no place for that "commonly understood sense" here you appeal to, because it leads to the lack of understanding of the object of study, mixing the terms and to wrong conclusions. Please, study the basics first before forming your own opinion. Until then we won't be able to be on the same page.

No need to be rude. You seem to think I was attacking you.

I see that there are no cited sources for your definitions. Could you please provide them?

I thought the topic and the definitions were at least familiar to you because this is a theory that was briefly taught back in my days at the world history classes, XX century events part especially. I thought it was taught everywhere and thus I thought you were trolling, mocking or something. I apologize, please, don't take it personal, I really did not mean to offend you. Just use google and you'll soon know what tool I tried to use in this thread to describe Tamriel - the definitions I've given will help you to know the object of your search. It will be much more effective to you (if you find it worthy of your time to study it) to ask questions and give answers to them yourself instead of asking me to tell you certain things. This is the way I did it.