Would be sort of logical, although perhaps it only applies to the upper classes (again, as Plato apparently suggested).
As Michael Harrington said (of the OTL USA)--"Socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor!"Would be sort of logical, although perhaps it only applies to the upper classes (again, as Plato apparently suggested).
I've suspected for a while that if the Combine does have an economic component to it's ideology (after all, the USSR weighed in on nationalism despite being based on economics) it's probably laissez-faire capitalism. Now, I don't think there's much evidence either for or against this, so it's essentially a hunch based on the writing style of our author. Namely that -As Michael Harrington said (of the OTL USA)--"Socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor!"
Here it is lifestyle, not economic socialism for the rich--although there is little reason to doubt Combine "free enterprises" on the industrial scale are massive, well, combines, cartels, that are "too big to fail" and automatically enjoy public bailouts as needed, without controversy.
What does tradition say?Oh, here's a question. Gay rights in a diversitarian nation.
Turn a blind eye occasionally, but keep them from getting too confident?The same thing it says about suffrage one assumes.
I guess that nations are going to be CELEBRATED for their DIVERSITY of approaches to the matter (yeah, this would mean that both places where gays have full marriage equality and places where they are stoned to death are fine). Of course, the idea that Diversity means gays are accepted as a Diverse group is likely to have some steam. But so would be regarded as acceptable in some contexts the idea that IN OUR CULTURE GAYS DO NOT EVEN EXIST, I guess. They can always carve Heritage Points of Controversy out of this if needed.What does tradition say?
In 2012 a number of Republican candidates stirred up a media frenzy about millions of Americans who were not paying income taxes--because they were too poor, their incomes fell below the threshold. (They paid plenty sales taxes and other such regressive measures of course, so to say they weren't paying taxes was false).
I do agree with your general point here. The right in America does have a very big tendency towards double standards when it comes to the rich and the poor and a tendency to act in ways that are rather contrary to their supposed beliefs. For instance I remember a number of jokes on this site a few years ago, mocking Republicans for simultaneously supporting "small government " while having rather intrusive policies. "Government small enough to fit in your uterus", "government small enough to fit in your bedroom" etc. But perhaps this is really more of a topic for Chat.Note that there is no powerful nation on Earth that is more pompous about Libertarian/Laissez faire capitalism than the USA. And this was as true in 1960 when Michael Harrington wrote those words as it is today. And today as then, in dozens of generally unnoticed ways, of which bailouts of "too big to fail" firms are just the more noticeable extreme, the State in the USA is very solicitous of the welfare of its pampered super-corporations and does them all sorts of favors that, if it were proposed be applied to the general population, would be roundly denounced as "socialism" and castigated as "redistribution" and even"class warfare!"
In 2012 a number of Republican candidates stirred up a media frenzy about millions of Americans who were not paying income taxes--because they were too poor, their incomes fell below the threshold. (They paid plenty sales taxes and other such regressive measures of course, so to say they weren't paying taxes was false). But at that same time--quite a few major corporations pay no corporate income taxes in many years, sometimes years in a row. It didn't get the same attention and criticism though!
So in suggesting that the Combine has "socialism for the rich" I certainly don't mean to suggest it proclaims a socialist doctrine on any principle. It just so happens that the public good often seems to require various boons, incentives and aids to the valuable and highly important captains of our vital industry!
Just like in my own ostensibly anti-socialist country.
And honestly, I'd be first to agree this not actually socialism at all. Only that all the arguments against socialism, if applied here, would prevent what are in fact common an normal practices in America. I would suggest the non-application of the alleged arguments against the evils of socialism shows they are neither well thought through nor honestly believed. Or believed only by act of cognitive dissonance, which is of course pretty common and normal.
I do agree with your general point here. The right in America does have a very big tendency towards double standards when it comes to the rich and the poor and a tendency to act in ways that are rather contrary to their supposed beliefs. For instance I remember a number of jokes on this site a few years ago, mocking Republicans for simultaneously supporting "small government " while having rather intrusive policies. "Government small enough to fit in your uterus", "government small enough to fit in your bedroom" etc. But perhaps this is really more of a topic for Chat.
Thinking on your talk about Societism and its relation to America, I've had an idea on the nature of Societism. What if, Societism is intended to be similar to the darker aspects of American society? Which is to say, dominated by a de facto aristocracy, full of exploitative and unfair business practices and intent on spreading its influence abroad through whatever means are necessary. So far as I can tell, there's nothing contradicting this interpretation. But of course, there's no textual evidence supporting it either ( I think). That's the thing about Thande's future snippets : they are all intentionally vague. We know quite a lot about how Societism operates in theory but what its like in practice is still largely open to interpretation. What we know of their practices is still lacking in detail and we'll have to wait until the end of the war for it to be filled in.
I guess that nations are going to be CELEBRATED for their DIVERSITY of approaches to the matter (yeah, this would mean that both places where gays have full marriage equality and places where they are stoned to death are fine). Of course, the idea that Diversity means gays are accepted as a Diverse group is likely to have some steam. But so would be regarded as acceptable in some contexts the idea that IN OUR CULTURE GAYS DO NOT EVEN EXIST, I guess. They can always carve Heritage Points of Controversy out of this if needed.
This world seems to have very little room for anything like OTL's notions about universal human rights, on either side of the Societist/Diversitarian divide.
Also, wow, teaching Societism to kids. That is insane
Indeed! I had to wonder what planet all the people who were shocked, shocked shocked at an adult giving children a lesson came from, since doing that by all sorts of means is just so very common. Is it shocking because it is a different ideology? Or do many posters here really come from some parallel universe where all presentation of political or moral ideas waits somehow until a person is of some older age than say 12 (the kids in the scene may have included some even older than that, but that age seems about right) and then--how should they be presented, exactly?In OTL, we teach (and taught even more so in the Cold War) capitalist democracy to kids, and the Soviet bloc definitely tried to pound Marxism into every kid's head. And the Diversitarians start their ideological programming young too ITTL.
What does tradition say?
I find your monoculturally singular answer deeply offensive. Nations are entitled to their diversity, including diversity in how they weight social change against tradition. You know who's always talking about structures common to past societies as being inherently natural or right? Societists.
But he is entitled to his differing viewpoint, surely. Even though he is obviously wrong, it is entirely proper to have another opinion on the matter.
For Great Diversity!