Communism (& Socialism) in RPGs

[eyebeams]

Common ownership of land and capital is possible in virtually any society that comes to mind.

Not really, unless you apply very vague standards to both. Landholding is not necessarily the same as ownership and even ownership is an imprecise blanket term for a number of relationships. Lords held land for their lieges. They didn't own it. What we think of as land ownership in a commonsense fashion really came into existence in the 18th century after the collapse of chain-of-title systems. Before that, the fee was subject to a number of restrictions based on custom, leading to things like subinfeudination since the "owner" could not actually sell is "property," as title belonged to the Crown (this is technically true today, but land registry severed most title customs). These restrictions were gradually relaxed.

Also, the idea of a watermill as a capitalist institution is . . . novel . . . given that millers were typically tenants who rented according to customary dues.

 

[Mardoc Redcloak]

Not really, unless you apply very vague standards to both. Landholding is not necessarily the same as ownership and even ownership is an imprecise blanket term for a number of relationships. Lords held land for their lieges. They didn't own it.

What does that have to do with anything?

Whatever the actual relationship of lords to the land, common ownership of land was still theoretically possible.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Also, the idea of a watermill as a capitalist institution is . . . novel . . . given that millers were typically tenants who rented according to customary dues.

I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere. There is serious historical scholarship on the nature and use of waterwheel-powered mills. These required a lot of investment and could provide a lot of return.

See, for example, the discussion of such mills in A Culture of Improvement: Technology and the Western Millenium by Robert Friedel.

Especially interesting is the discussion of these waterwheel powered mills near a dam at Toulouse, the Bazacle, in the 12th century.

Even before the mills took on the great expense of the dam construction, their ownership was put in the form of shares, each worth one-eighth of the mill. These shares were bought and sold, just like stock, and their value fluctuated depending on the condition of the individual mill, the state of trade and agriculture, and even speculation.... As early as the thirteenth century, the millers were more likely to be the employees of capitalists rather than owners, and in the next century the system was elaborated into a form of corporate ownership, where shares no longer corresponded to portions of individual mills, but to stock in the Societe du Bazacle, or example, which owned the dam, a resevoir, related fishing rights, and several mills.

NB:Missing French accents are due to my inability to figure out how to include them in the message board text.

 

[eyebeams]

What does that have to do with anything?

Whatever the actual relationship of lords to the land, common ownership of land was still theoretically possible.

Theoretically, very few people *today* actually own their land free and clear. In reality, we have most of the characteristics of ownership. In the middle ages, far more was dependent on the customs related to the people and the land involved. The question arises of who'd actually own this land in common. Freemen didn't own their land; they paid rent and obeyed the local custom.

If you call these relationships capitalist or communist, you define the terms so vaguely that they could mean anything.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

"There's not a lot of communism in RPGs!"

There is not a lot of democracy, either, but I seem to be the only one troubled by that.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Theoretically, very few people *today* actually own their land free and clear. In reality, we have most of the characteristics of ownership. In the middle ages, far more was dependent on the customs related to the people and the land involved. The question arises of who'd actually own this land in common. Freemen didn't own their land; they paid rent and obeyed the local custom.

If you call these relationships capitalist or communist, you define the terms so vaguely that they could mean anything.

Dude, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. And you come across as condescending. Sometimes I do too, but I'd like to keep this thread positive, so that's why I'm saying something here.

Simply because the majority of economic transactions take place within a particular framework does not mean that there are opportunities for transactions of other economic types. Few economic systems are absolute within their host societies, and those that are tend to be found in very small societies, I suspect.

So I agree that it is possible to have common ownership of land in almost any society. However, it is probably not likely, and the great success of such a venture is probably in jeopardy by the other social forces. E.g., if it is successful and threatens a feudal lord, the lord may very well simply take control of the land and re-purpose it.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

There is not a lot of democracy, either, but I seem to be the only one troubled by that.

I'm not particularly troubled by the lack of communism or socialism in these games. I am troubled from time to time by the lack of democracy.

What does it say about a group of people that is so willing to immerse themselves in these non-democratic societies?

Playing a character that pledges allegiance to a monarch or feudal system is really a stretch for me, I tell you.

(Though currently I'm playing a character that is the mortal-plane agent of an evil deity. I think that's way more of a stretch.)

 

[The Ubbergeek]

There was NO modern-style fantasy in feudal ages...

Granted, D&D is not to be an exact copy, but the harsh times, well...

 

[Mardoc Redcloak]

I'm not particularly troubled by the lack of communism or socialism in these games. I am troubled from time to time by the lack of democracy.

What does it say about a group of people that is so willing to immerse themselves in these non-democratic societies?

In D&D, means are available to assess the worthiness of rulers that don't exist in the real world: detect evil and detect good, for instance.

One would imagine that in a lawful good society guarantees would be there to ensure that the ruler is actually good-hearted and well-trained. So it's not just a matter of subordination to whatever potentially awful ruler happens to be in power.

Of course, some of us might question whether even this sort of benevolent monarchy is truly justified... but hey, that's what chaotic good is for.

 

[RFisher]

What does it say about a group of people that is so willing to immerse themselves in these non-democratic societies?

I put a representative democracy in my campaign world. Everyone else thinks they're crazy. Other states avoid dealing with them as much as possible because their policies shift radically after nearly every election. Their promises are only good until the end of the current term (if that long). Despite the potential for heirs by blood or selection to bring a bad leader to power, most people feel that's less risky than handing power to the best demagogue. (^_^)

As much as I may like democracy, I recognize that it's got a whole lot of faults. Lots of fodder for satire when placed in a world in which it's a rarity.

Playing a character that pledges allegiance to a monarch or feudal system is really a stretch for me, I tell you.

IME, most adventurers don't swear allegiance to anyone except perhaps a patron deity. Sure, they'll aid the cause of a monarch because they like the throne's current occupant or because royalty pays well, but it's seldom about loyalty.