Entirely Original Alternate Ideologies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The society in the book Star ship troopers was an interesting one.
"
Politics

Starship Troopers seems to have been meant as a political essay as well as a novel. Large portions of the book take place in classrooms, with Rico and other characters engaged in debates with their History and Moral Philosophy teacher, who is often thought to be speaking in Heinlein's voice.[citation needed] The overall theme of the book is that social responsibility requires being prepared to make individual sacrifice. Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common weal. Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service – "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of, as Heinlein would later note, anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C"[16] The Federation is required to find a place for anyone who desires to serve, regardless of his skill or aptitude (this also includes service ranging from teaching to dangerous non-military work such as serving as experimental medical test subjects to military service -- such as Rico's Mobile Infantry).
There is an explicit contrast to the "democracies of the 20th century", which according to the novel, collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."[17] Indeed, Colonel Dubois criticizes as unrealistic the famous U.S. Declaration of Independence line concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but the Colonel claims life and liberty exist only if they are deliberately sought and, often, bought painfully by great effort and sacrifice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers
 
An idea that I heard someone mention in another thread that I thought was kind of cool was a state where most of the population held some sort of noble title, to the point that it's almost democratic, albeit completely unequal.

Or a belief that what makes the people as individuals "stronger" or encourages "strong attitudes" is good. Could be either democratic (As a rhetorical device for politicians to justify stuff, and a way for voters to think) or dictatorial ("For your own good"). Full disclosure- this is something I believe (among other things), and I kind of get the impression that nobody else considers this.

It's also not possible that someone could declare that the "default" human mindset is the correct one, and try to determine what that is and emulate it. Again, could be democratic (How better to determine how humans act then by asking a bunch of humans) or otherwise (see Loki from The Avengers movie) depending on what they find and how they interpret it.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Strangelove made up a very interesting form of anarchism-cooperationism in his "no spanish civil war" TL. It's an interesting evolution in the thought of anarchism in Spain, greatly celebrated by a still living Trotsky. He hints that over time it simply evolves to more or less a regular capitalism with a hand of cooperationist paint.

He could probably explain it better :D
 
Nationakist Commune Party!
not like nazis, but of communism geared torwards the nations military and power, but allowing peaceful elections
 
Okay, there are new ideologies to be had, however I think people need to first realize the areas political ideologies can impact mainly, as usually they're just one of these.

1. Structure: How Power is Distributed.

2. Style: How Power is used.

3. Substance: What Power is used for.

Source from this essay, by the way.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=202342


With that in mind, most ideologies are really one of these three. Democracy is a structure, where as Syndicalism is substance, because the latter focuses on actual policies, not who enforces them, or what have you. It will probably be biased toward certain structures and styles, but it doesn't have to be.

Fascism, meanwhile, is a style. It has no fixed substance, in that its specific social and economic policies change from country to country, while its structure isn't unique, just being a dictatorship. However, its style is unique, in the tools it uses to enforce its policies, and how those are justified.

My point? To get new ideologies, we should explore the parts of these that aren't as filled.

So, Substance is pretty much taken, for now. We have seen every variation of economics pretty much, which are either state driven, private driven, or cooperative driven somehow. There are, of course, complexities within these, and many aren't as explored, but still, these three and mixes of them are pretty much all substance economically.
Social policies are rather context driven, by comparison, to the point where this area could use some focus, but still, not as much as the other two.

However, Structure? Most human societies at the end of the day are one of three structures,

1. Dictatorship(this also includes absolute monarchy, which yes, has differences, but still.)

2. Oligarchy

3. Representative Democracy.

There are many other structures though. What about Demarchy, where leaders and the like are literally chosen at random?

Additionally, what about actual meritocracy? We have seen hints of this, yes, but there has never been a society that actually carried this out to the full extreme. Where only skill could determine a person's position, independent of even wealth. Maybe that is impossible to some extent, but it would be interesting to see the results of someone trying.

And this is just scratching the surface, but the point is, the actual distribution of power hasn't been touched upon nearly as much as style or substance politically.

For Style, this deals with stuff like core political values, and is like substance, rather exhausted. Fascism is really just a remix of right wing values for a modern age upon closer examination, with all of its features except totalitarianism appearing in societies hundreds of years before hand.


Now, you may see ideologies appearing here that already exist, however we need to look at ideologies that are obscure before creating ones whole scale out of cloth, in order to avoid repeating the former. Additionally, I just want to present a new format to look at new ideologies with.
 

Deleted member 40957

Kearnyism (an idea I am toying with for one of my TLs) - after the civil war there is a waive of thought that values the contribution of veterans more than others. Only those who have fought and sacrificed for their country ought to be worthy of public office as only they know the value of freedom and the cost of war. Draft dodgers and lawyers/attorneys need not apply. It is still a democratic movement which, without irony, believes some vote (and voters) are more valuable than others (i.e. veterans).

Heinlein's Starship Troopers is set in a society like this; if you haven't read it you should take a look. (The movie, from what I understand, has a more overtly fascistic feel to it.)

Well, other than class, race/nationality, and religion, what is one identifier that almost all people have? Gender. And males are less likely to wish to violently seize power from women, due to the existing power structures in most society.

So, some sort of radical-violent feminism that promotes the superiority and natural dominance of women and the inferiority of men. Like Communism, it theoretically has a natural constituency of have-nots in all nations, though as with communism it will have more success in some populations than others.

If it starts early enough, and particularly if it becomes dominant in a major power, we could see women taking the lead in most anti-colonial movements and the governments of new nations, whether they fully partake of the radical ideology or not. (Just as many anti-colonial groups OTL had a leftist tinge, partly due to the example and patronage of the USSR).

This one is interesting - the only part that's a little more problematic is that if it's truly misandrist it can only hope to command, at best, 50% of the population's support. Maybe it could be plausible in a society with a larger majority of women - say in the aftermath of a particularly devastating war.
 
Here's one that while still a form of democracy is different from anything ive ever heard of

Basically a system in which everyone votes, not for their representatives, but for someone else's representative. It would be along the lines of, say, Californians voting for the officials in Alabama. The residents of which would then vote for the officials of Wyoming and so on. The pattern of who would vote for who could be worked out as far out in advance as you want and then not released until just before the election.
 
Here's one that while still a form of democracy is different from anything ive ever heard of

Basically a system in which everyone votes, not for their representatives, but for someone else's representative. It would be along the lines of, say, Californians voting for the officials in Alabama. The residents of which would then vote for the officials of Wyoming and so on. The pattern of who would vote for who could be worked out as far out in advance as you want and then not released until just before the election.

Umm... why? Additionally, this would be a form of represenative democracy that would be... confusing style?
 
Umm... why? Additionally, this would be a form of represenative democracy that would be... confusing style?

I was thinking that it might arise out of a country that went through a whole series of brutal civil wars and/or conflict between constituent regions. After the wars subside the faction that managed to gain control implements this system to try and prevent future internal conflict. I'm not saying it would work but it could be attempted.
 
I have two ideas:

1. Kinderocracy, where children have political rights and adults don't. Instead of getting the right to vote at age 18, you get it at birth and lose it when you turn 18. Parents are required by law to obey their children, and to work their a**es off to buy them everything they desire. Education is voluntary, and schoolteachers are third class citizens.

2. Emotionalism, where all rational thought is abolished and the dictator rules solely through his or her emotions. If the Great Leader hates green beans, they are illegal for everybody. If the Great Leader hates taking baths, no one gets to take them, etc.
 

Deleted member 40957

I have two ideas:

1. Kinderocracy, where children have political rights and adults don't. Instead of getting the right to vote at age 18, you get it at birth and lose it when you turn 18. Parents are required by law to obey their children, and to work their a**es off to buy them everything they desire. Education is voluntary, and schoolteachers are third class citizens.

2. Emotionalism, where all rational thought is abolished and the dictator rules solely through his or her emotions. If the Great Leader hates green beans, they are illegal for everybody. If the Great Leader hates taking baths, no one gets to take them, etc.

Those two would probably go together pretty well.

If you can find some PoDs for either of them, I'll be impressed.
 
I was thinking what kind of events could produce an new ideology. What if there was a massive depopulation event like a nuclear war where survival and reproduction are paramount and presurvation of the old is sacred. Everyone works hard to produce food and shares it for the good of society (a genuine willing communism as in hunter gather or early agricultural society). This ideology survives and grows because the go it aloners died out. Not enough material wealth to argue or in fight about. Everyone has a duty to procreate with everyone else (a super sexaul equality that in turn promotes a child as most important treasure of the whole society). Some would argue the elimination of sexual tension would all but eliminate fighting like in bonobo society. Everyone has a duty to preserve and comprehend knowledge. Expand these out to a xeno-philia (love of the different and foreign).

You eagerly meet a stranger and ask if they have any books or understand quantum physics and if they'd like to procreate with you and or your spouse and if you could have the honor of raising the offsring.
 
Maybe some outdated ideology or political-economic theory á la mercantilism or physiocratism resurrected ? Or realpolitik being more Macchiavelian ? Or world politics being more Asian than Euroamerican in their basic influences ?

Tony Jones had some interesting alt-ideology ideas in his Cliveless World and Mughal World TLs. Check them out if you like.
 
I remember I had an EU3 game which ended up with some really bizarre sliders. (Max aristocracy, max free subjects and innovation, all the religious tolerance national ideas, the government type was a Republican dictatorship.)

I interepreted this government as an oligarchy of aristocrats ruling a largely free society. To explain further; liberal authoritarianism.

People have the natural right to be free. The government should not impede them in their day to day lives, except when they sign away their freedoms for defence and law and order. Freedom of belief, action, and speech is assured.

However, perish the thought that they govern themselves. The peasantry and middle class are naturally only concerned with themselves. They should leave all governance to a select body of those raised with enough wit and capability to govern a nation. These men are only found within the aristocrats. A hereditary body of aristocrats shall elect a leader from among themselves, who shall be beholden to this body and may be voted out by them. The key thing is that the council of aristocrats is not beholden to anyone.

So, to conclude you have a society where individual freedom and rights are held sacred, similar to the liberal democracies today - except the right to choose their own government, which is explicitly denied to them based on class.

Has anything like this ever existed in someones thoughts or in reality?
 
I remember I had an EU3 game which ended up with some really bizarre sliders. (Max aristocracy, max free subjects and innovation, all the religious tolerance national ideas, the government type was a Republican dictatorship.)

I interepreted this government as an oligarchy of aristocrats ruling a largely free society. To explain further; liberal authoritarianism.

People have the natural right to be free. The government should not impede them in their day to day lives, except when they sign away their freedoms for defence and law and order. Freedom of belief, action, and speech is assured.

However, perish the thought that they govern themselves. The peasantry and middle class are naturally only concerned with themselves. They should leave all governance to a select body of those raised with enough wit and capability to govern a nation. These men are only found within the aristocrats. A hereditary body of aristocrats shall elect a leader from among themselves, who shall be beholden to this body and may be voted out by them. The key thing is that the council of aristocrats is not beholden to anyone.

So, to conclude you have a society where individual freedom and rights are held sacred, similar to the liberal democracies today - except the right to choose their own government, which is explicitly denied to them based on class.

Has anything like this ever existed in someones thoughts or in reality?

Sounds a bit like a technocracy (a bit) and it sounds A LOT like the Ankh Morpork government under Vetinari, only again with more nobles.

Also might I ask as what nation you played? This could lead to this being given a temporary/general name (excluding variants for the use of TLs).
 
I remember I had an EU3 game which ended up with some really bizarre sliders. (Max aristocracy, max free subjects and innovation, all the religious tolerance national ideas, the government type was a Republican dictatorship.)

I interepreted this government as an oligarchy of aristocrats ruling a largely free society. To explain further; liberal authoritarianism.

People have the natural right to be free. The government should not impede them in their day to day lives, except when they sign away their freedoms for defence and law and order. Freedom of belief, action, and speech is assured.

However, perish the thought that they govern themselves. The peasantry and middle class are naturally only concerned with themselves. They should leave all governance to a select body of those raised with enough wit and capability to govern a nation. These men are only found within the aristocrats. A hereditary body of aristocrats shall elect a leader from among themselves, who shall be beholden to this body and may be voted out by them. The key thing is that the council of aristocrats is not beholden to anyone.

So, to conclude you have a society where individual freedom and rights are held sacred, similar to the liberal democracies today - except the right to choose their own government, which is explicitly denied to them based on class.

Has anything like this ever existed in someones thoughts or in reality?

I have heard this form of government espoused by a member of the old British House of Lords. As one of the hereditary lords facing expulsion he expressed his "opposition to government by feckless professional politicians". He didn't believe in democracy he said, what he believed in was "Government by the well informed". I must admit I was persuaded!
 
Neither rain nor snow nor gloom of night?

from going postal? good book

Neo-Feudalism: Whenever a political disagreement arises, create a new political subdivision for each group involved. The whole nation is ruled by an elected monarch, with a council composed of all the leaders of the top-level subdivisions of the country.

thats sounds like something that could happen in otl: industrial-feudalism. power is in the hands of small very powerful (and very rich group), the majority of the citizens are merely drones and work and slave for the upper layer, even though they feel they are free and have lots of chances. (yes i know, just a form of oligarchy)
 
Last edited:
The history of western civilization has at various times throughout that history been made out to be a narrative about democracy, going from the values of Athens to the increasing democratization of Western nations throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The hypocrisy of Athenian democracy in the way it helped codify "might is right" ideology and how it held slaves is largely swept under the rug, and instead we simply compare the faults in Athenian democracy with our more modern and purified form, adding to the narrative of Western civilization's progress. The same with the Roman Empire.

So, considering there isn't much about classical civilization that could stop Western historians and philosophers from whitewashing it all for their whig history, why not use the early POD to have the prevailing narrative coming out of ancient Greece not be democracy but something else? We have been able to sanitize all the slavery and brutality and focus on the flaws in the particular form of democracy they had, so we could do the same with Spartan Arete, or perhaps with populism. That latter one is interesting. Say demagogues like Cleon accidentally win the Peloponnesian War, and from then on the narrative coming out of the Greek and then Roman or whatever other civilization overtakes and assimilates Greek thought is that mob rule is the safeguard of liberty from tyrants, and historians ignore and brush over the massacres and incompetence?

The Western narrative of OTL developed into the ideological thought of the Enlightenment that bore the fruits of liberalism and nationalism. Change that narrative, and different fruit grows on the vine.

Using the tool of butterfly nets for a thought experiment, imagine what the United States would be like if most of the Founding Fathers had busts of Cleon rather than Cicero on their desks?
 
The philosophies of the planet Uqbar as described by Borges were pretty unique.

The planet TLON--Uqbar was an imaginary nation--made up by the Tlon-creating conspiracy as a sort of halfway step--whose mythology involved Tlon.

And that stated, Tlon's ideology is unique. And beautifully nonsensical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top