Unionism developed in 1924

[Stalin]

Ian created a scenario a few years ago speculating on what the world might be like if a more pragmatic Totalitarian ideology known as Unionism had been developed in 1884. My question is what POD would result in that same ideology developing forty years later instead in 1924, existing along side Communism and Fascism as a totalitarian ideology? What would be the long term results? Could we see Unionist governments arising in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, or the Americas?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by POTUS P.Diffin

Ian created a scenario a few years ago speculating on what the world might be like if a more pragmatic Totalitarian ideology known as Unionism had been developed in 1884. My question is what POD would result in that same ideology developing fifty years later in 1934 in the midst of the Great Depression? What would be the long term results?

I could better speculated if you would tell me what Unionism is.

[Stalin]

Details of Unionist Ideology
By Ian Montgomerie

The ideology of Unionism originated with the 1884 work The March to Unity, and most of its ideas are contained within that work and a host of others which it inspired in the following decade, the heyday of Unionist theory. The ideological fundaments set in this era remained largely unaltered in the actual Unionist governments, although sufficient leeway existed in the application of the ideology that practical Unionist contains many elements not found in the philosophy. In the interests of brevity, this document will not differentiate between the two, although as a general rule the theory is from the original works while nearly all specific applications were developed by the actual unionist movements.

The main tenet of the ideology is that the entire state is an organism which should have central control and cooperation, that the organs of the state should work toward a common purpose, and that the people are bettered as components of the state, working to better the state and thus the members of the state. This ideology is not inherently capitalistic or socialistic, but in fact conflicts with the extremes of both. It is a theoretical, direct justification of totalitarian societies. It does not prescribe a specific end as some other ideologies are want to do (freedom for democracies, communal equality for communism), but rather prescribes the ideal means to gain whatever ends the society (and thus the state) desire. Unionism favors unity of purpose and cooperation (of course), a majoritarian approach to the goals of the state which frowns on active minority dissent, a strong and centralized government, military preparedness, harsh measures against crime, influence of politics and the state in virtually all aspects of life (a weak form of totalitarianism in theory, usually "normal" totalitarianism in practice), and international alliances and unification.

Unionist governments are, in theory, a sort of pyramidal democracy with a restricted franchise. Virtually all members of a Unionist society are Citizens, with equal rights and protections under the law (military courts, secret police, and several other arms have effectively unlimited power against Citizens, but the civil justice system does not - as is typical in many Unionist organizations, the elite have tremendous power over the masses in practice, but members of the masses are protected against those of similar "rank" by a strong legal system). A minority of the Citizens are also Electors - possessing the power to vote, similar to Communist party members in the old Soviet Union. The status of Elector is gained by all those who have served a required term in approved governmental services - military, bureaucratic, police, and more, have no significant criminal record, and have demonstrated their loyalty to the State (which usually amounts to never having demonstrated disloyalty to the state, and having jumped through the required hoops to become an Elector). Membership in the electorate may be revoked.

Lower positions in the Government are voted on by the electorate, from candidatess appointed by the existing government. The members of the Government then vote on higher positions in a similar way - the new membership of a higher body is voted on by the next lower body, from candidates appointed by the higher body (and, universally at higher levels and in theory at lower levels, approved by the political arm of the police). This holds true for government positions, while many bureaucratic positions are appointed or assigned by merit, as is true for the military and the police. In practice this means that democracy is a mere illusion, the heads of government control the choices of the next government to those loyal to them, and control the bureaucracy, the military, and the police by the appointment of, and the power to dismiss, their senior members. Terms of governmental service are universally long. Many higher offices are for life or until dismissed, especially the supreme leader (title varies), who can only leave office if dismissed by a supermajority of the heads of government.

Unionist systems have the basis of the typical tripartite power system of military, police, and party, but under Unionism the supreme leader and his immediate subordinates are in much firmer control than is typical for totalitarianisms, with the loyalty of senior military and secret police members to the Government/State usually ensured by the control the government has over their positions (this varies between Unionist governments).

Ideologically, Unionist systems are egalitarian, meritocratic (with loyalty counting as an important merit), and antinationalist. Unionism holds that all humans are essentially equal, and in fact that cultural differences are universally impediments if they get in the way of loyalty to the State, irrelevant otherwise. The State is not a nation-state, but the centralized government which ideally unites and directs all humanity. Hence Unionism - not just the "unity of leadership and purpose" in any government, but unity of leadership and purpose under _one_ government, one state. The ultimate goal of Unionism is Unification, all of humanity under a single government. An end to racism, war, religious strife, political bickering, and ideological violence under the totalitarian rule of the Unity.

From this end and these approaches comes the realpolitik of Unionist international relations. Unionist nations are always extremely cooperative with each other as long as there are non-Unionist enemies to fight, and tend to form one or more power blocs with a small number of distinct leaders, and many smaller nations which effectively become satellite states. Unionist states are always attempting to export their form of government, either by military conquest or simply installing a friendly regime, and can form relationships of convenience with nations ideologically similar to their own, though they will not place too much trust in the relationship. Unionist governments are officially in favor of complete equality, and turn the full measures of their police against the more unpopular forms of bigotry. They are, of course, fully capable of actions against an ethnic group which happens to be mostly opposed to them, but will accept turncoats from the group, will deal with the members it wants to get rid of by imprisonment or execution, and will provisionally assume that the rest are functioning citizens, though they may be scrutinized minutely.

Finally, Unionist economics are a combination of small-business innovation and government supported large business. Small-scale entrepreneurship is not discouraged under Unionism, although in some areas it is difficult to compete with the government or its sponsored corporations without being absorbed. Many areas are nationalized by the government, which amounts to a monopoly which may still be profit-making but whose leadership is firmly under political control, or are client corporations of the government. Clients vary in size from huge to merely medium-sized, and are typically not monopolies - though they may be regional monopolies. To prevent businesses not under direct control of the government from having undue sway on it, while realizing that it is not necessary for the government to directly administrate all major industry, the government typically maintains a handful of clients in a given area, being careful to ensure that there is always some credible competition so that businesses which become unpopular may be at least temporarily discarded for some form of alternative. On the individual level, Unionism is characterized by a high level of taxation, a high level of benefits for those unable to work (and government work or makework for those unable to find work), and many nationalized services, but also by laws which favor the government, its nationalized corporations, and its client corporations over the individual worker.

[Stalin]

Does that answer all of your questions?

[gianluca790]

National Democracy.

[Wendell]

This might be interesting to attempt in the United States, but under whom?

[MarkA]

How is this different to Fascism? It sounds like the ideal state system promulgated by Mussolini.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by MarkA

How is this different to Fascism? It sounds like the ideal state system promulgated by Mussolini.

Ah, but this would actually get the trains to run on time, see?

Mussolini boasted, but was inefficient. Unionism, it appears, works towards efficiency.

[Dave Howery]

It is a theoretical, direct justification of totalitarian societies. It does not prescribe a specific end as some other ideologies are want to do (freedom for democracies, communal equality for communism), but rather prescribes the ideal means to gain whatever ends the society (and thus the state) desire. Unionism favors unity of purpose and cooperation (of course), a majoritarian approach to the goals of the state which frowns on active minority dissent, a strong and centralized government, military preparedness, harsh measures against crime, influence of politics and the state in virtually all aspects of life (a weak form of totalitarianism in theory, usually "normal" totalitarianism in practice), and international alliances and unification.

can't say I care for this part of it...

[Strategos' Risk]

Unionism basically has similar goals as fascism, but grafted on to the universal ecumenical cultureless world of communism's future. It also doesn't go for the same sort of charismatic ideologues of fascism with their claims to bring their society into a neoclassical golden period and to kill all of the degenerates. It's more like control freak fascism instead of master-race/nationalist fascism.

[MarkA]

Originally Posted by Strategos' Risk

Unionism basically has similar goals as fascism, but grafted on to the universal ecumenical cultureless world of communism's future. It also doesn't go for the same sort of charismatic ideologues of fascism with their claims to bring their society into a neoclassical golden period and to kill all of the degenerates. It's more like control freak fascism instead of master-race/nationalist fascism.

In other words it is Fascism.

What you are saying it is not is Nazism.

[Strategos' Risk]

Yeah; Ian created this ideology specifically for an efficient and tyrannous evil empire. What's the problem?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MarkA

In other words it is Fascism.

What you are saying it is not is Nazism.

Fascism and Nazism, both are just about as bad as the other. Only thing that makes the latter worse is the racial ideology incorporated.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

The ideology is all well and good, but I'm not exactly sure who Unionism is supposed to appeal to. From the structure of Ian's TL, I was thinking that it would appeal towards the "dynamic young conservative" section of society, the type of middle- and upper-middle-class person who wants national rejuvenation, but considers fascism too crass. For the period in question, I think the success of Unionism would depend a lot more on who's running the movements in Europe than on the ideology per se. Even silly ideas can change the world, if you've got the right man saying the right things at the right time.

[Strategos' Risk]

Two ideas:

1. Expansionists who desire unification of their surrounding areas, justified by their ideology. Imagine an aggressive Peron who doesn't give a damn if the Brazilians speak Portuguese or not, they deserve to be in the brotherhood of man in unity! Also, Unionism can easily make a multicultural form of Fascism/National Socialism.

2. On the other flip side, perhaps Unionism can develop a sort of intellectual theorist class, as socialism did, with intellectuals arguing that the world deserves to be under good leadership, and united so that cultural, religious, and nationalistic struggles are no more? So it's the ecumenism of communism without the class warfare rhetoric, though there would be something that stresses that perfect social justice could be enacted under the benevolent Ultra-State of Unionism.

I think Unionism (as appropriately described by Ian as called Absolutism by its detractors) is probably Hobbes' Leviathan come to life.