A ideology that had potential, but didn't become popular?

Sustainibilism

--a Western ideology that I just made up, it combines a moderate Green take on environmental issues (sustainable use of the environment), idiosyncratic social conservatism (the ideology aims for cultural transmission and sustainable demography, which it believes requires pro-family measures and propping up traditional institutions), idiosyncratic and fairly vague ideas on foreign affairs (debates on whether sustainibilism means trying to prop up current international arrangements or whether it means moderate efforts to move towards a world of liberal democracies and strong transnational institutions), and idiosyncratic free marketeering (the ideology doesn't like some of the effects the free market has on family and culture, is wary of unchecked growth, but is also persuaded that stasis is unsustainable because it doesn't respond well to systemic shocks, and therefore is suspicious of big corporations and corporate-government-regulatory symbiosis which tends, in their view, towards stasis; a common way of expressing this point of view is 'exercise sustains a healthy body; competition sustains a healthy economy'; but there are some ideas of corporations having social responsibilities and being communities that you wouldn't get in a straight free market perspective; also in some ways this ideology tends to be pro-union, since it likes social institutions)
 
Legalism. Would be interesting to see a modern application of the reigning ideology of the Qin Dynasty...
How would it be different from fascism with Chinese characteristics? Well I guess it would have more emphasis on the law and enforcing it but that kind of thing seems to be more of an inconvenience in modern times, where everything is quite complex and oftentimes it's good to be able to bend/break the rules.
 
I don't think anyone actually advocated it in the 20th century, but I've always thought Demarchy was an interesting idea. Not necessarily a good one, but interesting.
 
I find it interesting that Kemalism was not more widespread, particularly after the cold war.

I suspect the primary problem is that to have Kemalism, you need a Kemal. I'm not exactly a fan, but the man was pretty much a charismatic genius. It's not like a fair number of Arab nationalist leaders wouldn't have wanted to emulate him.
 
You can probably find half-dozen of anarchist flavors alone; the whole spectrum went from crazy reactionaries to hardcore stalinists. The SCW was some sort of ideology convention.

I always loved the anarcho-Carlists ... talk about fusion of extreme poles ...

I still do not understand how a "defense" of their ideas would work ...
 
If you're talking about Carlos Hugo de Borbon's carlism-titoism (for lack of a more succint denomination), it didn't appear until the late 60's. But it is so randomly over the top that I will have to feature him in my timeline at some point. He would probably blend well with Durruti's successors.
 

Perkeo

Banned
meritocracy

I wonder why no society ever tried meritocracy. OK, many systems claim to favor the most able, but not with a system of measuring merit just as elaborate as democracy's electoral system.
 

DISSIDENT

Banned
I was in a punk clique that tried to be meritocratic once. Not fun. You have a few egotistical people who were college graduates who had done anarchist protests and been in bands trying to jointly and arrogantly control the lives of everyone else, i.e. me. One day a few of them "decided" my girlfriend should date someone they likes more than me because he " was a superior person". That was about when I left. Maybe thats why no one ever tries meritocracy.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I was in a punk clique that tried to be meritocratic once. Not fun. You have a few egotistical people who were college graduates who had done anarchist protests and been in bands trying to jointly and arrogantly control the lives of everyone else, i.e. me. One day a few of them "decided" my girlfriend should date someone they likes more than me because he " was a superior person". That was about when I left. Maybe thats why no one ever tries meritocracy.

Would you have liked the circle more if the same decition had been made by the majority or someone who was elected by the majority?

Nevertheless, the method of measuring merit is not trivial - however, neither is the voting system in democracy.

I'm not saying I'd prefer meritocracy, I'm just curios.
 
On Distributism: Fasicinating

From Wikipedia:

According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."


This would be an interesting candidate.
 
Top