Alternate Ideologies
- Thread starter Višeslav
- Start date
Blackism and Socialism with Indonesian characteristics
Blackism: a left-wing ideology formed among African Americans following an alternate successful Reconstruction. It seeks to defy the white supremacist status quo of the old South and America as a whole by pushing for greater political and social inclusion for blacks. Another main tenet of Blackism is the promotion of an African-American cultural identity to help blacks overcome their internalized prejudice and shame. Blackism's socialist aspects are rooted in the land redistribution policies carried out during Reconstruction, and this played a part in the growth of America's labor movement in the late 19th century.
Socialism with Indonesian characteristics: Might be the PKI's ideology had it came to power. It is basically Sukarno's Marhaenism and Tan Malaka's Madilog philosophy mixed with Marxism-Leninism. However, the religious aspect of "Sukarnoism" is de-emphasized and replaced with secularism.
Socialism with Indonesian characteristics: Might be the PKI's ideology had it came to power. It is basically Sukarno's Marhaenism and Tan Malaka's Madilog philosophy mixed with Marxism-Leninism. However, the religious aspect of "Sukarnoism" is de-emphasized and replaced with secularism.
That was OTL in Ancient Greece and could easily have been amplified. It might have happened in Mesoamerica too, although we don't know for certain. You are 100% correct in that this system would be absolutely full of intrigue and people cheating as much as they could get away with off the field. I'd expect being an athlete to be a dangerous profession because of the risk of being attacked or poisoned by a rival state. One could imagine athletes adhering to incredibly strict codes as a result, going only certain places, eating a very specific diet, and abstaining from sex (don't want enemies to use a prostitute/sex partner you met as a means to poison or kill you). Perhaps they'd be banned from leaving their training grounds until they retired, which might include lavish quarters and (for the time) superb facilities.
I would assume actual warfare would be rare under this system since there are many incentives to peace and the soft power of the sovereign/overlord (i.e. a religious institution or a figure like the Emperor of Japan) could summon a coalition against the offender. Actual wars would be limited to fights against outside societies/"barbarians." I'm not even sure they would have much of a standing army--it would be too expensive, and what would pass for an army would essentially be state-supported hooligan firms/ultras/etc. who would show up to games and act as support for their team and intimidation for the enemy. So the central government might have what passes for an army--a small (since they can't exert actual control and have to spend their limited income frugally, or on ritual matters like temple upkeep), disciplined force that's insufficiently large to enforce its will on the population but sufficient to form the core of an anti-barbarian border guard.
An idea I mentioned in some other threads, but not this one: ancient Roman "socialism".
Born during one of the many crises of the Roman state - either in the late republic or during the crisis of the third century - it would first emerge as a protest movement among those free rural folk that were denied a living and turned into urban proletarii (heh) by the land-owning, slave-holding class, aiming for the abolition of slavery and the redistribution of land among the dispossessed citizens of the Roman domain, up to and including the former slaves. The outsized influence of the army in Roman society would be another target, as the usual custom of awarding soldiers with land would be seen as sustainable only when Rome goes from victory to victory; any slowdown in the Roman domain's expansion leading the military to devour the very Roman state they are supposed to defend.
A few leaders during one of the aforementioned crisis periods experiment with the abolition of slavery and the establishment of smaller, yet fully professional armies, and they take over Rome owing to the advances in civilian and military technology made necessary by the lack of slaves and soldiers; to prevent a class of predatory landowners from arising again, rural and urban profits alike are redistributed equally among working citizens, with the disabled and women (it is Rome, you're not going to get perfect equality) receiving a smaller share as well. Greek-style direct democracy is implemented in the municipia and in the urbs itself, but the institutions of the larger Roman state are kept in place. While Rome eventually falls, its successor states aren't run as feudal monarchies, but as republics not unlike those of Italy, Netherlands and Switzerland in the OTL medieval period, with the old collegia as guilds, and whose free, prosperous peasantry resembles that of IRL Scandinavia, being represented in the various governments.
Born during one of the many crises of the Roman state - either in the late republic or during the crisis of the third century - it would first emerge as a protest movement among those free rural folk that were denied a living and turned into urban proletarii (heh) by the land-owning, slave-holding class, aiming for the abolition of slavery and the redistribution of land among the dispossessed citizens of the Roman domain, up to and including the former slaves. The outsized influence of the army in Roman society would be another target, as the usual custom of awarding soldiers with land would be seen as sustainable only when Rome goes from victory to victory; any slowdown in the Roman domain's expansion leading the military to devour the very Roman state they are supposed to defend.
A few leaders during one of the aforementioned crisis periods experiment with the abolition of slavery and the establishment of smaller, yet fully professional armies, and they take over Rome owing to the advances in civilian and military technology made necessary by the lack of slaves and soldiers; to prevent a class of predatory landowners from arising again, rural and urban profits alike are redistributed equally among working citizens, with the disabled and women (it is Rome, you're not going to get perfect equality) receiving a smaller share as well. Greek-style direct democracy is implemented in the municipia and in the urbs itself, but the institutions of the larger Roman state are kept in place. While Rome eventually falls, its successor states aren't run as feudal monarchies, but as republics not unlike those of Italy, Netherlands and Switzerland in the OTL medieval period, with the old collegia as guilds, and whose free, prosperous peasantry resembles that of IRL Scandinavia, being represented in the various governments.
Slaver Socialism
Slaver Socialism
All free adults who are not convicted criminals are given two slaves by the government at the age of 18. Some rent theirs out for money, others let their slaves run businesses and take a large cut of the profits. Those free people who become rich or were born rich can afford more slaves.
As individualist "good guys".
Most slave owners are OK to their slaves and tend not to treat them too harshly, as they know that if their two freely-given slaves die, they can only get more if they buy them, and buying slaves is expensive. Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs, and a lot of the middle rank jobs, are held by slaves. Many owners treat their slaves as part of the family rather then being very cruel to them, to lessen the chances of escape or revolts. Any race can be enslaved, not just black people. A slave owner can be enslaved if found guilty of certain crimes against free people or the government. Slavery for life is rare, most owners freeing their slaves when they reach the age of 70. Certain slaves have even become famous, although most of what they earn goes to their master or misstress.
As colectivist "good guys"
Most slave owners are OK to their slaves and tend not to treat them too harshly, as they know that if their two freely-given slaves die, they can only get more if they buy them, and buying slaves is expensive. Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs, and a lot of the middle rank jobs, are held by slaves. Many owners treat their slaves as part of the family rather then being very cruel to them, to lessen the chances of escape or revolts. Any race can be enslaved, not just black people. A slave owner can be enslaved if found guilty of certain crimes against free people or the government. Slavery for life is illegal. Certain slaves have even become famous, although most of what they earn goes to their master or misstress.
On paper at least, and in the large towns and cities in practise, slaves have some rights. They have Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day as holidays, and torture or murder of them and the removal of their body parts are banned. After 30 years, and sooner in cases of gross unpleasantness against them, they are freed and given two slaves of their own.
As individualist bad guys.
Although there are exceptions, a lot of slave owners are very cruel, and an owner can treat their slaves however they like. Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs are held by slaves. Middle ranking jobs are mostly held by free people. At best, most slave owners think of their slaves as tools. Whippings and other forms of torture are common and so is rape. Many slaves spend their whole lives as slaves from the cradle to the grave or the urn, and they are kept in order with harsh punishments even for small offenses.
As collectivist bad guys
Slave owners here get their slaves taken away and given to someone else if they are caught being nice to them. . Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs are held by slaves. Middle ranking jobs are mostly held by free people. Slaves have no rights at all. Whippings and other forms of torture are common and so is rape. Many slaves spend their whole lives as slaves from the cradle to the grave or the urn, and they are kept in order with harsh punishments even for small offenses. For rebellion, they are tortured to death if recaptured. A nation like this sees many other nations as inferior and as ripe for conquest to bring in a glut of slaves-more so if there are no nukes in this world. Think Nazi Germany or the worst excesses of Mao Zedong's China.
All free adults who are not convicted criminals are given two slaves by the government at the age of 18. Some rent theirs out for money, others let their slaves run businesses and take a large cut of the profits. Those free people who become rich or were born rich can afford more slaves.
As individualist "good guys".
Most slave owners are OK to their slaves and tend not to treat them too harshly, as they know that if their two freely-given slaves die, they can only get more if they buy them, and buying slaves is expensive. Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs, and a lot of the middle rank jobs, are held by slaves. Many owners treat their slaves as part of the family rather then being very cruel to them, to lessen the chances of escape or revolts. Any race can be enslaved, not just black people. A slave owner can be enslaved if found guilty of certain crimes against free people or the government. Slavery for life is rare, most owners freeing their slaves when they reach the age of 70. Certain slaves have even become famous, although most of what they earn goes to their master or misstress.
As colectivist "good guys"
Most slave owners are OK to their slaves and tend not to treat them too harshly, as they know that if their two freely-given slaves die, they can only get more if they buy them, and buying slaves is expensive. Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs, and a lot of the middle rank jobs, are held by slaves. Many owners treat their slaves as part of the family rather then being very cruel to them, to lessen the chances of escape or revolts. Any race can be enslaved, not just black people. A slave owner can be enslaved if found guilty of certain crimes against free people or the government. Slavery for life is illegal. Certain slaves have even become famous, although most of what they earn goes to their master or misstress.
On paper at least, and in the large towns and cities in practise, slaves have some rights. They have Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day as holidays, and torture or murder of them and the removal of their body parts are banned. After 30 years, and sooner in cases of gross unpleasantness against them, they are freed and given two slaves of their own.
As individualist bad guys.
Although there are exceptions, a lot of slave owners are very cruel, and an owner can treat their slaves however they like. Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs are held by slaves. Middle ranking jobs are mostly held by free people. At best, most slave owners think of their slaves as tools. Whippings and other forms of torture are common and so is rape. Many slaves spend their whole lives as slaves from the cradle to the grave or the urn, and they are kept in order with harsh punishments even for small offenses.
As collectivist bad guys
Slave owners here get their slaves taken away and given to someone else if they are caught being nice to them. . Those jobs that are military/security related, "fun", professional careers (lawyers, politicians and the like) or too dangerous to give to slaves(like working at nuclear power plants) are staffed by free, paid workers, but all the rubbish jobs are held by slaves. Middle ranking jobs are mostly held by free people. Slaves have no rights at all. Whippings and other forms of torture are common and so is rape. Many slaves spend their whole lives as slaves from the cradle to the grave or the urn, and they are kept in order with harsh punishments even for small offenses. For rebellion, they are tortured to death if recaptured. A nation like this sees many other nations as inferior and as ripe for conquest to bring in a glut of slaves-more so if there are no nukes in this world. Think Nazi Germany or the worst excesses of Mao Zedong's China.
Total militarism
Double post to separate reply from ideology post.
Total militarism
Taking army-with-a-state literally, under total militarism there is no distinction between army and state. Law is enforced by military police and sentences are handed down by military judges. Educational system, healthcare, industry, agriculture you name it just another branch of armed forces. All citizens wear uniforms and live in barracks.
I'm not making individualist variations because I imagine this ideology as inherently collectivistic.
Collectivist good guys
Despite being organized along military lines, some form of democracy still exists under the system. The culture is somewhat harsh and conformist, but usually not too extremely so. Military run schools are strict, but students being outright tortured is rare and frowned upon.
Collectivist bad guys
Government is run by the supreme commander, who rules with an iron fist. Military run schools are a horrible places where students are treated with cruelty by both the staff and their fellow students. People who grow up in this system embrace a brutal and cut-throat society. There is a strict hierarchy and blind obedience is expected.
Total militarism
Taking army-with-a-state literally, under total militarism there is no distinction between army and state. Law is enforced by military police and sentences are handed down by military judges. Educational system, healthcare, industry, agriculture you name it just another branch of armed forces. All citizens wear uniforms and live in barracks.
I'm not making individualist variations because I imagine this ideology as inherently collectivistic.
Collectivist good guys
Despite being organized along military lines, some form of democracy still exists under the system. The culture is somewhat harsh and conformist, but usually not too extremely so. Military run schools are strict, but students being outright tortured is rare and frowned upon.
Collectivist bad guys
Government is run by the supreme commander, who rules with an iron fist. Military run schools are a horrible places where students are treated with cruelty by both the staff and their fellow students. People who grow up in this system embrace a brutal and cut-throat society. There is a strict hierarchy and blind obedience is expected.
Last edited:
Engineerism
Engineerism, also STEMism by some annoying academics
You know, its kinda strange that of the famous bad political figures of the 20th century you can nary find an engineer or drop out engineer among them just failed artists, failed priests, former school teachers, failed lawyers, etc. Clearly these non-hard science disciplines only served to rot their brains and render them utterly unable to engage in personally great works. Why won't one feel alienated when they haven't felt the pure euphoria of solving a complicated direct or abstract problem of reality?.
Of course the fact that these problematic creatures were below mediocre or outright failures also spake volumes about them. Clearly creatures of spite, as such the engineers decided that not only will they take over only the most impressive among them in their deeds and developments will be allowed into the highest echilons of power and their concerns about not being able to engage in the work of their love or be burdened by the great weight of responsibility of the state by being recognized even officially as rubber stamps with a role more centred on serving as a sieve and representative than as the giver of law, tho they could do the latter as well if they all agreed on a position.
And of course this isn't just how the higher ups ar decided but everyone along the hierarchy. The greater your proficiency in Engineering, the higher up you rise and you are always encouraged to take time off political work to focus on Engineering work and let someone from lower down the hierarchy to get some experience in ur role.
Aside from this the organization of a state run by Engineers quickly came to more and more mirror that of the work site with major variations, of course.
But of course, Engineers might be mighty impressive but an Engineering revolution has nierry the numbers nor chance to take over the country when not even every Engineer yet supports them and many other STEM fields have a similarly clean record (tho, health workers and especially theorists were looked at with suspicion) so they joined hands with other proficient in the applied hard sciences with the exact same treatment and opportunities as Engineers.
As for those of the other disciplines? Well, they were kicked out as much as possible from gaining power with restrictions even put on their immediate living offspring and their children to keep the corruption of the arts and soft sciences at Bay and those most inflicted, under great scrutiny. And as has arguably already been happening, the teachings and practices of the non-STEM disciplines are further forced to conform to the Engineering standard.
You know, its kinda strange that of the famous bad political figures of the 20th century you can nary find an engineer or drop out engineer among them just failed artists, failed priests, former school teachers, failed lawyers, etc. Clearly these non-hard science disciplines only served to rot their brains and render them utterly unable to engage in personally great works. Why won't one feel alienated when they haven't felt the pure euphoria of solving a complicated direct or abstract problem of reality?.
Of course the fact that these problematic creatures were below mediocre or outright failures also spake volumes about them. Clearly creatures of spite, as such the engineers decided that not only will they take over only the most impressive among them in their deeds and developments will be allowed into the highest echilons of power and their concerns about not being able to engage in the work of their love or be burdened by the great weight of responsibility of the state by being recognized even officially as rubber stamps with a role more centred on serving as a sieve and representative than as the giver of law, tho they could do the latter as well if they all agreed on a position.
And of course this isn't just how the higher ups ar decided but everyone along the hierarchy. The greater your proficiency in Engineering, the higher up you rise and you are always encouraged to take time off political work to focus on Engineering work and let someone from lower down the hierarchy to get some experience in ur role.
Aside from this the organization of a state run by Engineers quickly came to more and more mirror that of the work site with major variations, of course.
But of course, Engineers might be mighty impressive but an Engineering revolution has nierry the numbers nor chance to take over the country when not even every Engineer yet supports them and many other STEM fields have a similarly clean record (tho, health workers and especially theorists were looked at with suspicion) so they joined hands with other proficient in the applied hard sciences with the exact same treatment and opportunities as Engineers.
As for those of the other disciplines? Well, they were kicked out as much as possible from gaining power with restrictions even put on their immediate living offspring and their children to keep the corruption of the arts and soft sciences at Bay and those most inflicted, under great scrutiny. And as has arguably already been happening, the teachings and practices of the non-STEM disciplines are further forced to conform to the Engineering standard.
Last edited:
Clearly they are destined to be the arch-rivals of the Folk Chaos movement I described earlier, which has a fanatical hatred for engineers and engineering.
Various ideologies
A few more short concepts:
- A state that allows any person or group to declare independence whenever. And the state is required to give the separatists enough farmland to feed themselves with. And they can even rejoin any time! Some crafty folks have perfected the art of borrowing money, seceding, rejoining with a new name and a blank slate, rinse and repeat, but it's hard to pull this off successfully.
- A fringe socialist movement for the 21st century that declares that going from capitalism to socialism is too hard, and so an intermediate step is needed: quasi-medieval theocracy! They reassure everyone that the theocracy won't be oppressive at all, it will be totally chill, and will teach everyone how to love each other, and stuff.
- A conspiratorial group who are plotting to overthrow the government, because... because they really enjoy overthrowing the government. That's like, they're only objective. They don't have any plans for sweeping policy changes, they aren't even interested in using political office to get rich, they just fetishize the very act of a coup d'etat. If they succeed at taking power, they will immediately start plotting to overthrow themselves, because that's just what they like to do.
Wouldn't people be even more stringent about what ideologies they adopted? When it's life or death, why would they make a country run by chefs or something?
Fair enough.
Tritheism:
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three completely separate gods. "The Holy Spirit" and "Mary, Mother of Jesus" have been merged into single person ever since the immaculate conception. Priesthood should be hereditary - Female Priests and Male Priests should be the parents of the next generation of priests. There should also be a world government ruled by a Holy Emperor and a Holy Empress, both equally regnant. Death to unbelievers and monotheist heretics 😇
Socialism with Atlantic Characteristics:
Long live the New Atlantis! Long live Chairman Zuckerberg thought!
Rapunzelism-Gothelism:
Matriarchy with a hair-themed national identity?
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three completely separate gods. "The Holy Spirit" and "Mary, Mother of Jesus" have been merged into single person ever since the immaculate conception. Priesthood should be hereditary - Female Priests and Male Priests should be the parents of the next generation of priests. There should also be a world government ruled by a Holy Emperor and a Holy Empress, both equally regnant. Death to unbelievers and monotheist heretics 😇
Socialism with Atlantic Characteristics:
Long live the New Atlantis! Long live Chairman Zuckerberg thought!
Rapunzelism-Gothelism:
Matriarchy with a hair-themed national identity?
Atlantean Socialism was the focus of a really old dystopian novel weirdly enough
Criminals, POW's, debtors who can't pay debts, homeless people, the children of slaves, plus any brought from other countries.
I'm pretty sure there's a character in one of the far cry games who is like this.