Reds fanfic

[Bulldoggus]

That's a semantic distinction. Within the context of the FBU, ordo-liberals would be the left-wing of the establishment.

I think free markets would be an obsolete belief, more or less. What we would call SocDems would be on the left, and ordo-liberal Rhine modeling types would be the center right. I think the establishment's right would be bible-thumpers and ultra-nationalists (with Libertarians seen as paste-huffers).

But like OTL, the Social Democrats Bulldoggus describes are not connected to the tradition of social democracy, rather a rupture from the right-wing of Labour that was never committed to classic social democratic principles to begin with. They were liberals of the New Liberalism school, whose connection to the labor movement was tactical, not organic.

That depends. Of the Old Right of Labour, there were types like Roy Jenkins or Hugh Gaitskill, who were Old Liberals with red rosettes (and to be clear, I love Woy), and Denis Healey types who were working or lower-middle class and believed in the welfare state and other SocDem policies, but not outright socialism. The SDP consist of the latter (because the Woy types leave far earlier in the first place). David Owen is sort of an outlier, because he was a strange, ego-driven man (I could write a whole dissertation on the psychology of David Owen).

I do have a few general notes on the list itself. One of them has been the epithets used to describe hawks vs. doves in foreign policy. I had used lions vs. unicorns, based on the heraldry of the British monarchy, and it was originally used derisively. Francophones would be more reluctant at first to use it, but eventually it becomes common parlance.

Seems a bit esoteric, but I can dig it.

I also have to stress that the FBU is not a Keynesian hugbox. They still have to deal with the dynamics of capitalist crisis.

Oh, you silly commies, thinking crisis can happen in a Keynesian system.

Really, though, I think they switch to the German model of government, corporations, and unions all working together. A union rep is on company boards, regulations are tight, and CEO's get in serious trouble if they fuck with them. Far more sustainable than either Keynesianism or Monetarism.

 

[Miss Teri]

If you're wondering, I've been on a bit of a organized crime kick, recently. Rest assured, I'll get to the right side of the law soon.

The World is Yours!: a history of the Anglo-French "Scarface"(1979)

Scarface was a 1932 film directed by Howard Hawks and produced by Howard Hughes. It stars Paul Muni as the titular Scarface, an Italian immigrant named Antonio "Tony" Camote, who works as an enforcer to Mob boss Johnny Lovo (Osgood Perkins), and his eventual rise through the mafia as enforcer. Ben Hecht's screenplay (based on the Armitage Trail novel of the same name) was loosely based off the life of Alphonse "Al" Capone, whom Hecht had briefly met as a Chicago reporter. In an eerie parallel, Tony dies at the end from being gunned down by police, much how the real Capone would eventually die three years later.(The Breen Code forced an alternate ending where Camote was arrested, convicted, and hung for his crimes).

Many of the participants in the film would go on to have illustrious careers in socialist Hollywood. Howard Hawks would become one of America's leading auteur directors and Paul Muni would later become a producer of Yiddish cinema. Howard Hughes, on the other hand, fled to Britain in the lead-up to the revolution, and built a large business empire from there. By the 60's, Hughes had built a business empire from his airplane business and from his ownership of RKO, which he used as his media base (expanding to television broadcasting with RKO-TV, among other things). He had first hit the idea of remaking Scarface , first after hearing of an unrelated Capone biopic of the same name being produced in the UASR in 1966, offended that it was "appropriated" (despite Capone's title predating the film). He had also been reading about gangsters from the East End of London, in particular the Kray Twins. The idea of a remake set in the London East End, with the protagonist an enforcer for a pair of gangster brothers inspired by the Krays, came to Hughes as a way to "regain" the title. Hughes had Michael Caine in mind for the lead. Hughes had the idea on the docket, but production stalled (contrary to popular belief, it was not because of the Kray's intervention, but largely other projects took precedent, often to RKO's detriment). Pre-production started in 1975, with location scouting and scripts being commissioned. Hughes' death in 1976 briefly put it on hold, but it restarted in 1977, with new funding from Indian film producers. This was key, as the new producers felt that it would be closer to the source to have the gangster be an immigrant. Given the job as director was John Mackenzie, a former associate of Ken Loach.

Eventually, the film became about Ananth Chandrahari (Amithabh Bachchan), an Tamil Indian immigrant living in West London, who becomes a low-level drug smuggler for local gang leader Ashwin (Ben Kingsley).His success in that field allows him to steadily rise through the ranks of the local Indian syndicate (becoming Ashwin's enforcer), and slowly become intoxicated by the power and the wealth that it entails. He also courts Ashwin's white girlfriend Lindsey (Glenn Close) The East End gangsters were repurposed in the role the Irish mob played in the original, as the rival gang whom Ananth tries to combat throughout the film. Like the original, the film ends with Ananth getting gunned down by police as his operation goes down.

The film was a commercial success, but received mixed reviews upon release. Many newspapers were horrified by the violence in the film. However, some in the FBI hailed the film, and it would come to be seen as a classic. It would receive critical acclaim in Comintern. It was even chosen as part of the Venice Film Festival (normally reserved for Comintern films). Communist observers would comment on the film's exploration of power and wealth, and the means of pursuing them, and the consequences of it. It would also become a classic in India, where gangsters state that Ananth was an inspiration.

 

[Miss Teri]

Really, though, I think they switch to the German model of government, corporations, and unions all working together. A union rep is on company boards, regulations are tight, and CEO's get in serious trouble if they fuck with them. Far more sustainable than either Keynesianism or Monetarism.

Well, there were mentions of "patriotic unions" that the government set up to combat the Labour affiliated trade unions.

Though the system might be in such a way that the government and corporations effectively control the economy, with the unions ensuring that workers don't grind efficiency.

 

[Bookmark1995]

Well, there were mentions of "patriotic unions" that the government set up to combat the Labour affiliated trade unions.

Though the system might be in such a way that the government and corporations effectively control the economy, with the unions ensuring that workers don't grind efficiency.

But are these so-called "unions" advocates for things like shorter hours, or shills meant to dissuade labor activism.

 

[Miss Teri]

But are these so-called "unions" advocates for things like shorter hours, or shills meant to dissuade labor activism.

The latter, most likely.

Maybe generate good publicity and try to drown out leftist attempts to unionize.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

I'd say these unions are likely a mixture of actually a mixture of PA shills and people who actually want better wages, less hours, and more rights for common people.

I think sometimes the TL tends to make the right wing a little too nefarious.

 

[Knightmare]

The latter, most likely.

Maybe generate good publicity and try to drown out leftist attempts to unionize.

With occasionally throwing a bone to avoid a French haircut, I suspect.

 

[Bookmark1995]

With occasionally throwing a bone to avoid a French haircut, I suspect.

I'd say these unions are likely a mixture of actually a mixture of PA shills and people who actually want better wages, less hours, and more rights for common people.

I think sometimes the TL tends to make the right wing a little too nefarious.

I think if they want to avert a socialist upheaval, they would have to do more than just throw bones.

I think FBUers would get things like health care and housing, just not control over means of production.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

I think if they want to avert a socialist upheaval, they would have to do more than just throw bones.

I think FBUers would get things like health care and housing, just not control over means of production.

I usually think Keynesianism on steroids, mixed with periods of stagflation partly because of capitalism's inherent problems and partly because of being muscled out by three Red Giants.

Then again, the Rhine Model of Social Market Economy might be something the FBU introduces to prevent Stagflation.

 

[Bookmark1995]

I usually think Keynesianism on steroids, mixed with periods of stagflation partly because of capitalism's inherent problems and partly because of being muscled out by three Red Giants.

Then again, the Rhine Model of Social Market Economy might be something the FBU introduces to prevent Stagflation.

How is the UASR model recession/stagnation proof?

 

[Aelita]

I'd say these unions are likely a mixture of actually a mixture of PA shills and people who actually want better wages, less hours, and more rights for common people.

I think sometimes the TL tends to make the right wing a little too nefarious.

It is useless to moralize about the inexorable trend for firms to economize or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

The classic Keynesian welfare state didn't die because a cabal of evil neoliberals took power. It died because the nationally managed capitalism went into crisis in the 70s, and austerity combined with globalization was the only way out.

 

[Aelita]

How is the UASR model recession/stagnation proof?

Insofar as they maintain the value form, it isn't recession proof.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

It is useless to normalize about the inexorable trend for firms to economize or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

The classic Keynesian welfare state didn't die because a cabal of evil neoliberals took power. It died because the nationally managed capitalism went into crisis in the 70s, and austerity combined with globalization was the only way out.

I agree with you. The point I'm trying to make is that these Unions probably arent filled with simple shills alone but with people who actually want what's best for their nation but who don't agree.

 

[Bookmark1995]

commonpedia.uasr

Soviet Diaspora

The Soviet Diaspora refers to Soviet citizens that have chosen to temporarily or permanently relocate abroad, or the descendants of Soviet citizens.


Defintion

The idea of a Soviet people is controversial, due to the large and diverse population found within the USSR. Only about 500,000 Soviet citizens describe their ethnicity as Soviet [1]. The Comintern Migration Board includes within its definition "people who had been born within the Soviet Union."

Members of the Jewish diaspora whose ancestors fled Russia before World War I are not included in the Soviet diaspora page.

The number can include or exclude, by some measures, tourists.

Statistics

UASR: 6,000,000

China: 1,600,000

Argentina: 1,200,000

Palestine: 1,100,000

Mexico: 900,000


Japan: 620,000

East Germany: 580,000 [2]

Canada: 400,000

Romania: 300,000

Czechoslovakia: 250,000

Poland: 230,000

Bulgaria: 200,000

Yugoslavia: 180,000

Hungary: 150,000

Mongolia: 100,000

Spain: 90,000

Korea: 70,000 [3]

Albania: 60,000

South Africa: 40,000

History


Before 1928, the majority of Soviet Diaspora had been White Russians or ethnic groups who had fled the repressions of the Soviet Revolutionary War, many of them nobleman or bourgeois. Joseph Stalin's ascent to power and his initial implementation of "socialism in one country" initially isolated the Soviet people.

With the Second American Revolution, the wave of socialism in Latin America, and the Spanish Civil War, the USSR began its tentative steps toward international alliances, with thousands of Soviet soldiers serving in those conflicts.

The Second World War and the Cold War gave Russian soldiers and advisers a worldwide presence, and saw the permanent deployment of Soviet soldiers across Latin America, East Asia, and Eastern Europe.

With the treaty of Buenos Aires in 1953 lowering travel and trade barriers in the Red world, more Soviet citizens began immigrating to other Comintern nations, mainly the UASR, Chile, Mexico, and Argentina seeking greater political and social freedoms not yet present in Russia.

The socialist nations of South America sought Russian people to gain expertise and population that been lost in the brutal South America theater, and the developing economies of Central America sought Russian knowledge.

The formation of Palestine after the Second World War led to the migration of 600,000 Soviet Jews between 1950 and 1975 who were eager to practice their faith and escape the discrimination of Soviet society.

The Cultural Leap and the removal of travel barriers led to student and civilian migration into the states of Eastern Europe.

[1] OTL, about 20,000 Russians identify themselves as Soviet.

[2] The Volga Germans.

[3] The Koreans of Central Asia.

 

[teg]

At the end of the day, the pro-government unions have to offer their members something or they will have no pull over the radical unions. Plus it is likely the loyalist unions have patronage from both the PA and the government, insofar as the two can be separated in the FBU. Presumably loyalist unions in the FBU will be able to offer their members a range of benefits from retail discounts (this already happens in modern day Britain) to enrichment such as entertainment and holiday offers. All of this will presumably be made difficult for the revolutionary unions to provide. Plus the FBU establishment could stack the deck in other ways - workers who are members or have been members of revolutionary unions may not get access to social support for instance. (Something like this implemented by the Churchill government in Fight and Be Right.) Plus it has been implied that the Liberty movement has paramilitary affiliations which are used against strikers. In short, if the loyalist unions look like they can provide at least good short term benefits for less trouble, they'll remain popular.

On a more general note, I actually think the FBU will look very like pre-revolutionary France. The bumper profits of earlier years can no longer be provided and nothing can bring them back but perhaps by contracting state functions such as healthcare and the railways to private companies, the establishment can guarantee a stable revenue stream for capitalists and insulate the lower classes from the worst effects of the squeeze. Now this isn't sustainable. The internet will make it harder to cordon off information from the Comintern, which reveals that the FBU's standard of living is in chronic stagnation and the slow but steady retreat of the empires will make it difficult to keep the system solvent. However as the Soviet Union demonstrated and North Korea continues to, such a system can endure for quite some time, usually until somebody sincerely tries to fix it.

teg

 

[Bulldoggus]

Decided to Redo this with internal party colors.
Winston Churchill (1949-55)
Harold MacMillian (1955-62)
Reggie Maudling (1962-64)
Paul Legentilhomme (1964-67)
Jacques Chaban-Delmas (1967-72)
Cyril Smith (1972-3)
Enoch Powell (1973) (Note: While Powell was a Tory as PM, he would become a founder of the NF)
Jeremy Thorpe (1973-7)
Denis Healey (1977-78)
Willie Whitelaw (1978-79)
Jean Royer (1979-80)
Keith Joseph (1980-84)
Sir Rhodes Boyson (1984-85)
David Owen (1985-87)
Michael Heseltine (1987-90)
John Smith (1990-92)
Jacques Chirac (1992-96)
Gordon Brown (1996-97)
Jean-Marie Le Pen (1997-99)
Ken Clarke (1999-2005)
Iain Duncan Smith (2005-07)
Nicholas Sarkozy (2007-10)
Tony Blair (2010-)

Of course, if you like, I could bring in some more obscure figures.

 

[Bookmark1995]

commonpedia.uasr

American Diaspora

The America Diaspora is the population of USAR citizens living abroad either temporarily or permanently, or their descendants of either full or partial American ancestry. The American diaspora of 1933, and the Yuma-Cuban community is excluded from diaspora counting.

Statistics

USSR: 4,500,000

Mexico: 2,100,000

Argentina: 1,500,000

China: 1,200,000

Canada: 1,100,000

Japan: 900,000

Chile: 700,000

Colombia: 600,000

Dominican Republic: 500,000

Guatemala: 450,000

Haiti: 400,000

Panama: 400,000

Nicaragua: 350,000

Palestine: 300,000

Honduras: 250,000

Costa Rica: 200,000

El Salvador: 100,000

East Germany: 100,000

Poland: 90,000

Liberia: 80,000

Vietnam: 60,000


History

After the 1933 Revolution, the Union of American Socialist Republics immediately began funding and supporting socialist regimes in Central and South America. With this aid came military and technical advisers, some of whom became permanent residents in these countries.

The Second World War and the early Cold War saw the UASR establish an increasingly global presence, with a permanent presence of American troops in the Asia Pacific Region and Eastern Europe, as well as a technical advisers, university students, and diplomats.

Migration From the UASR

By the 1970s, a major shift began to occur in international migration. Since 1935, the US had always been a net recipient of immigrants, mainly South American migrants, and Eastern European refugees, aside from the Second World War.

Immigration to the UASR peaked in 1971, with nearly 1,500,000 immigrants arriving. But after that, net immigration to the UASR began to decline, as rising standards of living, declining birth rates, and rising social liberalization in the rest of Comintern reduced the rate of migration to the UASR. The rise of economic opportunities and a more tolerant social climate triggered permanent settlement of UASR citizens in areas that had long been sources of migration. Many of these American migrants were also descendants of immigrants wanting to return to their now prosperous homelands.

By 1990, for the first time in American history, there was a net negative migration of nearly 10,000 citizens. As more and more UASR citizens enter retirement age, more and more are of the elderly are choosing to live in retirement communities in tropical regions of Central and South America and Southeast Asia.

 

[WotanArgead]

social liberalization

One question - Why do you call social problems of sexual emancipation, minorities, etc.? Nothing like this, just here in Russia we mean something related to maternity leave, medical care and unemployment benefits.

 

[The_Red_Star_Rising]

commonpedia.uasr

American Diaspora

The America Diaspora is the population of USAR citizens living abroad either temporarily or permanently, or their descendants of either full or partial American ancestry. The American diaspora of 1933, and the Yuma-Cuban community is excluded from diaspora counting.

Statistics

UASR: 4,500,000

Mexico: 2,100,000

Argentina: 1,500,000

China: 1,200,000

Canada: 1,100,000

Japan: 900,000

Chile: 700,000

Colombia: 600,000

Dominican Republic: 500,000

Guatemala: 450,000

Haiti: 400,000

Panama: 400,000

Nicaragua: 350,000

Palestine: 300,000

Honduras: 250,000

Costa Rica: 200,000

El Salvador: 100,000

East Germany: 100,000

Poland: 90,000

Liberia: 80,000

Vietnam: 60,000


History

After the 1933 Revolution, the Union of American Socialist Republics immediately began funding and supporting socialist regimes in Central and South America. With this aid came military and technical advisers, some of whom became permanent residents in these countries.

The Second World War and the early Cold War saw the UASR establish an increasingly global presence, with a permanent presence of American troops in the Asia Pacific Region and Eastern Europe, as well as a technical advisers, university students, and diplomats.

Migration From the UASR

By the 1970s, a major shift began to occur in international migration. Since 1935, the US had always been a net recipient of immigrants, mainly South American migrants, and Eastern European refugees, aside from the Second World War.

Immigration to the UASR peaked in 1971, with nearly 1,500,000 immigrants arriving. But after that, net immigration to the UASR began to decline, as rising standards of living, declining birth rates, and rising social liberalization in the rest of Comintern reduced the rate of migration to the UASR. The rise of economic opportunities and a more tolerant social climate triggered permanent settlement of UASR citizens in areas that had long been sources of migration. Many of these American migrants were also descendants of immigrants wanting to return to their now prosperous homelands.

By 1990, for the first time in American history, there was a net negative migration of nearly 10,000 citizens. As more and more UASR citizens enter retirement age, more and more are of the elderly are choosing to live in retirement communities in tropical regions of Central and South America and Southeast Asia.

I presume that those 4.5 million Americans live in the USSR and have not somehow formed a diaspora in their own country?

 

[Bookmark1995]

I presume that those 4.5 million Americans live in the USSR and have not somehow formed a diaspora in their own country?

What do you mean by that?