Given the recent cultural reflection of an Eighties revival, the challenge in this is to create a scenario in which the Eighties, with its characteristic tentative optimism, heightened Cold War tensions, and flashy consumerism, never truly ends on the night of December 31st, 1989.
AHC: The Eighties Never End
- Thread starter ChaoticBrilliance
- Start date
Anchises
Banned
- Somewhere between 1980-1983 a young(ish) hardliner takes over the SU.
- The Cold War escalation continues into the mid 90s
-Bush is reelected to a second term, because the Soviet union is collapsing at the end of his second term.
-Breakup is messy with the CPSU clinging to power.
-Computer technology is delayed a little for some reason.
-"End of History" in the early 2000s. Maybe plus 9/11 if you want a more dystopian TL.
Having the 80s lasting culturally forever is impossible without skippy the ASB.
QUESTION: Was the flashy consumerism something that people were actually into, or something that the chattering classes were TELLING us everyone was into?
I know it is now stated that "In the 80s, everyone thought greed was good", but that was a line from a movie, uttered by a character meant to be understood as the villain.
And sure, there were corporate scuzballs in the 80s who were behaving as if greed was good, but I'm pretty sure that's happening nowadays as well. We've even got a Speaker Of The House who lists Ayn Rand as his favorite philosopher.
Are there any known potential historical figures that might fulfill this role? Gorbachev sort of dominates the Eighties scene in Russia so much so that other officials are overshadowed often in the history books.
The same question applies to this: lacking knowledge in the science of computer development in that timeframe, would it be possible to delay technology to the point where, even in the 21st Century, people still make avid use of VHS tapes other than as nostalgia items?
Terming it as "flashy consumerism" is meant to be a description rather than a judgement of what the Eighties reflected.
Anchises
Banned
1) Imho these 2:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Romanov
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Romanov
I don't think huge PODs are needed to let them win the leadership race.
2) Good question. Technology is not my strong suit.
Do you mean it's a description of the overall aesthetic? If so, I'd agree with Anchises that getting it to survive is pretty much ASB. Tastes change, and that's all there is to it.
In essence, the political landscape of the Eighties is perhaps the only extendable aspect of the decade?
Well, basically, yeah. Like with "If Hitler wasn't an anti-semite, he wouldn't be Hitler", we can probably say "If fashion didn't change, it wouldn't be fashion."
That said, I do remember commentators referring to Black Monday in 1987 as a possible turning point, not only economically but in terms of cultural attitudes. I'm not sure how long-term the effects of that were, but to some people anyway, it seemed to be a dividing line.
Incidentally, that crash took place a couple of months BEFORE "greed is good" was ever heard on the big screen, which might back up the point that a lot of the imagery we have of the 80s was retrofitted.
December 31st, 1989: "3... 2... 1..."
"♬ ... 'cause you know it's yoooou, babe... ♬"
[Everyone abruptly wakes up on the morning ofGroundhog Inauguration Day, 1981 ]
"♬ ... 'cause you know it's yoooou, babe... ♬"
[Everyone abruptly wakes up on the morning of
Nope, Styx (be glad it's "Babe" not "Mr. Roboto"). And there is nothing in the closet but parachute pants and Izod shirts.
If Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative" had succeeded, whether through a hotter Cold War necessitating a harsher response from Reagan, or a Sputnik situation where the Soviets did it first, could that contribute to a scenario of a longer Eighties?
Last edited:
FieldMarshal
Banned
Some thoughts:
- Someone like the aforementioned Grigory Romanov takes control of the USSR in 1984 instead of Chernenko or Gorbachev. Someone who’ll reform the Soviet economy and possibly better relations while not loosening up
> Bush succeeds Reagan as President in 1988 and is re-elected in 1992.
- Someone like the aforementioned Grigory Romanov takes control of the USSR in 1984 instead of Chernenko or Gorbachev. Someone who’ll reform the Soviet economy and possibly better relations while not loosening up
> Bush succeeds Reagan as President in 1988 and is re-elected in 1992.
One wonders how either of those are possible: Gorbachev had the strong support of Chernenko, and even Andropov. Perhaps Andropov, upon suffering renal failure, collapses and is pronounced dead later that day, prior to offering official support to either Gorbachev or Romanov?
Furthermore, Bush lost to Clinton for being out of touch with the economy. Perhaps a continued Soviet Union and thus by extension a continued Cold War means that some main reasons for the recession of the early Nineties does not occur?