Okay thanks, that's really interesting. Sorry for the bombardment of questions but I'm really getting into this TL:
What does the lack/slower industrialisation mean for geopolitics around the world? Are Huaxia, Gurkanistan and Persia still the predominant geopolitical powers like the gunpowder empires in the OTL Early Modern period? I ask because the mention of the "Factories" in some of the maps and infoboxes indicates that there has been at least a degree of Eurocentric mercantilist globalisation at some point since the POD and I wondered what that meant to economic history. What happens demographically in Britain post-POD to prevent the high-resources-high-wages combine that drove industrial innovation?
Also, any chance we could have boxes on the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires and more details on the international agreements that lead to the foundation of the Nondominions?
Please don't apologise for questions, they're great! Engagement is absolutely the goal and I'm so glad you're enjoying it.
Industry:
Note: All of this should be prefaced by saying I am mostly a political historian, that's what my degree was in and what I'm most well read about. I do know a smattering of economics, sociology and demography but they're really not my areas of expertise so this will all be a little thinner than the geopolitics I'm afraid.
Industrialisation absolutely has happened, it should be said, and the world of FNGB circa 2020 has computers (called Calculators) cars, trains, modern factories (though called "workshops"), plastics ect ect, it's just the rate of that development and urban growth was considerably more gradual, sustained and global. As for why industrialisation slows in Britain compared to OTL, part of this is global competition remains higher so wages do not rise as dramatically and, with less food flooding in from overseas, agricultural wages remain higher and in more competition. With a more rural and popular minded government in the form of the FC rather than any of the 17th century English monarchs of OTL, the drive for individuals to leave their rural homes for the cities is much lower than IOTL. Factories bring spices, some raw resources and specialised goods like tea and porcelain to Europe but never in the same quantities or low prices as the extraction Empires of OTL, reducing the resources availible to cities like London and Paris and preventing their industries from booming on such a scale.
I should clarify though industrialisation in the west and particularly Britain
slows but absolutely still occurs. Rather than a great revolution of industry between ~1770 and ~1850, it's a 200 year transition from the late 17th century through to 1900. Britain is never quite the Workshop of the World as IOTL but still the heart of this "Industrial Enlightenment".
World Powers:
Huaxia, Gurkanistan and Persia are all
among the world's first global powers (and in terms of land military power, absolutely at the top) but they're certainly not unchallenged by the west. Albion, France and Mississippi all consider themselves first rate as well and there are a few more up and comers in the Americas and Eastern Europe. The world has never seen a cold war and never been anything like monopolar so the idea of "Superpowers" isn't really entrenched, there are "Great Powers" and that's a rather long list, around ~10 countries; Gurkanistan, Huaxia, Persia and arguably Daehan/Korea for Asia, Albion, France and maybe Norden from Europe, Mississippi from North America, the African Big Three of baKongo, Mwenemupata and Oman-Zanzibar and Mississppi) with lots of other second tier nations like the Netherlands, Bravo-Tizon, Maghribia, Portugal, Lefateswana, Nayanu and Yamoto. Power systems are very regional and very few powers have global reach. In a 1-on-1 fight, the big Asian powers would almost certainly destroy Albion, France, the Netherlands or Portugal
but the Europeans have a genuinely global reach with dozens of factories and colonial holdings as well as proper Blue Water Navies.
European imperialism has still occured but settler colonialism and large land grabs have been limited to the Americas, Pacific and Contrara/Australia. In general Imperialism is seen as an almost purely economic thing where western nations buy, rent or conquer port factories and work through local, independent powers to get what they need. These factories often become booming, multiethnic cities with large industries and economies of their own, fuelling Europe both as pathways for goods to move from one closed economy (say Huaxia or Yamato) and into another, say the Sister Commonwealths. An empire is an economic sphere and arrangement more than a military or cultural one.
Most European Empires haven't "collapsed" outright yet, in large part because their smaller size and less offensive structure. Latin America (including Mississippi) are the only real examples of it and this came in the late 19th century, which is something I'll cover soon-ish, though I'd like to do a general thing on the World Forum and some global states first.
Nondominions:
Nondominions were created by the efforts of the World Forum which is as close to the UN as you get here but notably has a rather different perogative. The WF is explicitly nothing more than a meeting place and council of discussion - there is no illusion of or theoretical attempt at even partial global governance. There is no IMF, no World Bank, ect ect. I'll do more on
This is fascinating, particularly pokolenisn, syagendism and Concordism.
So effectively Bumosism perpetuates an isolated caste system I guess? Even If Muene title aren’t hereditary young administrators are picked within the same group? Btw what religions are practicised in Kongo? A traditional Nzambi cult-ancestral cult belief?, a highly syncretic Catholicism? Also could you fill in names for the various small central/equatorial african countries that don’t have ones on the map?
Glad you're finding it interesting! Yeah Bumosism is pretty much as isolated governing cast though being Muene doesn't immediately make you a "superior" in society, you're not likely to earn much more money or be treated differently, it's seen as a duty more than a privilidge, at least on paper. Religion is varied, a variety of traditional faiths including Nzambi-worship though the state itself is "Catholic", though Rome has very very little sway over faith in the region. Obviously, most people believe a little of all of the above and the line between pre-Christian Nzambi and the Catholic "God", as well as between Saints and traditional Ancestor Spirits is incredibly weak. As Nzambi is basically a Deist God, the belief system is extremely compatible with non-comital, deist Christianity and this is very common in the modern Kongo, particularly among the Muene. Also Christianity never really made it to most of Africa, so the Kongo is a bit odd if anything for this. I'll update on those other countries soon, sadly don't have all my notes with me ATM.
Interesting. I suspect I might find that I had much in common with a Cultivanist - such as being "Nostalgic",pro countryside and with a distaste for cities, as well as the religous asspects, but they do also seem open to some beliefs that I dislike - such as Anti-vaxing or organic food hyping.
(Sorry to mention my real-life views here, I am not trying to debate these views, just compare them to ITTL ideoglogies - so I hope this does not count as current politics)
Cultivarism is a very mainstream ideology ITTL, particularly in the 21st century and is inspired by a lot of Conservative Green parties of OTL, some modern conservatives I know both IRL and on this site and by some ideas I've played with before in a list I did called "Oak and Ash and Thorn" which looked at a very similar but more extreme ideology taking over the UK in the 20th century. I tried to make (nearly) every ideology both distinct from OTL and also sympathetic and Cultivarism is I hope a decent example of that.
Discussion's obviously open, I do enjoy discussing these ideas further just so long as the conversation remains chill and we all get along
Ah i think it’s interesting to see various reactions, while I think culturalism can have virtues on a local basis in threatened rural communities and as some advocacy group, I do believe it would be utterly ruinous if applied to a large extent at the scale of a country, in a world where agricultural productivity is much lower than ours, and ideology that rejects modern farming methods and modern medicine seems like the recipe for the suffering of hundreds of millions.
Levellism, despite its vagueness does seem to be the Best bet for conciliating rural and urban interests both in wealthier and poorer countries and a general aim for equity, tho voluntism does seem it can be more flexible..
Kinda suspicious of polokenism, first of all because i’m Always suspicious of any student “ideology”, but that constant rewriting of constitution and laws does seem it can be redundant and maybe ironically lead to near sighted decisions despite the longer terms of the leader, Anthropism kinda gives authoritarian vibes despite being called democratic, I feel like some developmentalist anthropism could be an interesting ideology, if flawed.
I don’t really see bumosism and whujuzhili as fundamentally more than an ideology to uphold traditional castes, though I wonder if wujuzhili has spread beyond China - or the sinosphere -.
Seems like syagandism can lead to the creation of parallel states structure, and that could be seen as large security threat by many governments, I wonder if it ever was cracked down upon.
Was concordism ever successful In reaching power a country? Would love if you ever cover a Concordian country
I personally tack to Levellism and it still has a strong Digger faction in most countries. Volontism is indeed flexible though the commitment to civic authority and duty as well as to moderation and individual rights keep it well in check. Volontists aren't quite flat out centrists, most tacking liberal though with state intervention and civic obligations.
Calling bumosism and whujuzhili about "upholding traditional casts" is sort of fair. For whujuzhili this is definintely true and the system is notoriously corrupt and broken, though the Kongo is doing better and has a much more open and dynamic political culture. For now whujuzhili is pretty much excluslively Chinese, though there are no doubt some abroad who admire it, particularly more authoritarian academics and technocrats.
Syganadism is generally dismissed rather than cracked down upon; it's seen as a bit of a "hippy" movement and rarely considered a threat. It is by far more popular in the Americas and Africa than elsewhere, though some groups in the old world have integrated some ideas. Peoples and Nations in the FC have a Synganadist wing who want Scottish, English and Irish governments to move to a model based on citizenship law rather than regional law. Some American states really aren't a fan though and Mississippi absolutely
despise it, as do most Anthopists and Concordists.
Concordism is the governing ideology of Mississippi and its popular in Yamato and a few other places, particularly the Americas and some parts of Europe. I'll absolutely cover Mississippi soon and a few other spots which might be of interest.
How does Anthropism square the circle of nature preservation sometimes contributing to people's happiness? Same with environmental regulations aimed at protecting people from pollution rather than preserve nature as it is? I could see that becoming a generational issue within the movement as the dangers of unchecked industry start becoming obvious. I think it would end up resolved by analyzing nature through what it brings to humans rather than nostalgia or conservatism in the abstract.
Depends on a lot on the person, they're not evil or suicidal so they're not going to just kill off all the plants, if anything they're the ones most doggedly pursuing GM (which is a field of science that remains purely theoretical) and artificial fertilisers, pesticides ect to maximise production and therefore abundance. Obviously they vary and at times can be little more than populists, enacting such legislation if they think it'll maximise human happiness in the moment. Properly radical Anthropists think it's all a waste, however, and any government restriction that stops someone doing something will make them sad, leading to an ideology verging on Hedonist Anarcho-Capitalism. That lot are rare through and most of the mainstream just focus on the little stuff; drugs, sex, rock and roll, low red tape, big welfare state and high productivity.
Concordism is very scary since it takes leftist analysis of exploitative relations, but also take it as an opportunity to attack other "parasites", which is probably an excuse to shit on minorities and people who do not fit neatly into its system. I wonder if that's an universal constant of the movement or something different wings of it fight over.
Again, varies, can be super vicious and in particular some are cruel to the elderly, disabled and sick but there are of course lots of compassionate Concordists and moderates who think that's just insane and we should be helping them reach a better, more equal footing. Radical Concordists in places like Mississippi however are rather by the book, in a few dark ways.
I don't think Anthropism is authoritarian, that's just cold war brain. On the other hand it probably sucks when it comes to addressing pollution and miss the value people can put on having access to nature.
Without sounding like a broken record, it
can be authoritarian though its mostly not. Really it manifests often as something comparable to left-libertarian populism and at it's worst its Dirtbag Lefists, not Stalinism.
Polokenism sounds very big brained and remind me a lot of younger radical centrists who think they have all the answers. On the other hand, since it's mostly focused on the how rather than the what, its worth is probably extremely dependent on what the generational issue of the moment is. Right now, we could use some of that energy to handle climate change, so that's probably an example of it being circumstantially a positive contributor. The whole constitution rewrite seem like good sense to me, the means of political expression and social norms change with time and it's worth having a regular process to ensure a rewrite happens.
This is pretty accurate. It draws on radical centrists and technocrats like Andrew Yang (who I should note that I really do like) with the generational politics being a big factor, it's very popular among college students. The Generational Constitution I took from Jefferson IOTL and I've never seen it proposed elsewhere, though it strikes me as fascinating if not all together practical.
Personally, I guess I'd end up on the radical end of the Levellers with some Anthropist elements (minus the captain planet villain speech) and probably an interest in reclaiming Concordism to focus on exploitative power structures.
Not too dissimilar to me, though I suspect I'm a little more moderate, coming in on the "Soft Left" of Levellism, with Concordist class analysis, Anthropist approach to social reform and some Cultivarist environmental leanings. I tried to put a bit of what I believe into quite a few of the ideologies though some like whujuzhili and outright rexism are far beyond my wheelhouse.
