What would be the capitalist counterpart to posadism?
American futurism from the could've been ideology thread but take the Fallout vibes even further by bringing in bottle caps.
Basilisk-worship? Whoever creates the machine-god first will effectively win at capitalism as it uses its superhuman intelligence to create an endless supply of technological breakthroughs. You cannot afford for someone else to create it.
I honestly believe that the Lesswrong culture could have done better if they had just embraced their nature as a religion in disguise.
Warlock Pact Concept.png
 
Militant Egoism
Militant-Egoism: An Ideology that gained popularity in the late 1880's as a counter to the momentum of Marxism. Egoism is the belief that man is ultimately a creature that places self-interest above anything else. Proponents of Egoism argue that it is not only Moral, but Natural to place self above all things. Anything that brings self gratification is ultimately right. Militant- Egoism rose from the chaos of WW1. Spread through the trenches by simply by conversing among each other, the ideology Spread through Europe like a tidal wave. Militant-Egoism seeks to topple every government across the globe, stating that a state of pure Anarchy is mankind's natural state of existence. As such, until such a moment that is accomplished, the ideology is thus spread at the end of a gun.
 
Nihilistic-Primitivism
Nihilistic-Primitivism: Originating from the technology induced horrors of the first world war, Nihilistic-Primitivism teaches that life does not in of itself have any meaning, all our actions are based solely in artificially warped expressions of natural instincts. As such meaning or fulfillment can only be found by freeing oneself from man-made interests and desires, turning toward a more stone age or nomadic lifestyle, possessing the absolute minimum possessions. In doing so one can bring yourself closer to our ancestor's who only desired that which was necessary to live into the next day.
 
Center Nationalism: It's nationalist and we believe our nation is the best, so we should be isolationist and not deal with those foreign nations
 
Social Monarchism
(This is an actual ideology I have on a TL of mine)
Social Monarchism
Developed in the late 19th century by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, the Baron Lenin, a professor in the Saint Petersburg Imperial University, government official and journalist (as well as close friend and protegé of Empress Eudoxia Antonova of Russia, being a main enforcer of her personal branch of the Okrana), Social Monarch is, for the lack of a better explanation, a branch of Communism with the undisputable flavoring of Russian Despotism.

First expressed by Lenin on his 1899 manifesto "The Monarchy and the People", in which he explained the ideology, Social-Monarchims believes that the only person capable of protecting the "proletariat" from the "Bourgeoisie" is the Monarch, a belief created by both his experiences in the Imperial Court, the Russian belief on "Papa Tsar" and Russian Autocracy, and even Inca Economy (who lacked a substantial market economy), and that for that reason all power should lies on his hands, as he is also the one most trained to "bear the burden of ruling and protecting"

Critics of the ideology say that it is basically absolute monarchy but in an even greater level (as it also is not keen on a powerful nobility, believing that is better to have a bureaucracy centered on the monarch and that all wealth in the state should be on the hands of the state, not on the hands of nobles or bourgeois), and most socialists, communists and anarchists consider it to be a utter and vile twisting of Marx's works.

Religion is considered to not be nescessary in Social Monarchism, but also is not shunned (as the Russian Tsars and most of other monarchies who practice it, like the Brazilian Emperors, tend to be a pious, if not extremist, bunch)
 
:)QUOTE="Peppe, post: 20929460, member: 106098"]
(This is an actual ideology I have on a TL of mine)
Social Monarchism
Developed in the late 19th century by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, the Baron Lenin, a professor in the Saint Petersburg Imperial University, government official and journalist (as well as close friend and protegé of Empress Eudoxia Antonova of Russia, being a main enforcer of her personal branch of the Okrana), Social Monarch is, for the lack of a better explanation, a branch of Communism with the undisputable flavoring of Russian Despotism.

First expressed by Lenin on his 1899 manifesto "The Monarchy and the People", in which he explained the ideology, Social-Monarchims believes that the only person capable of protecting the "proletariat" from the "Bourgeoisie" is the Monarch, a belief created by both his experiences in the Imperial Court, the Russian belief on "Papa Tsar" and Russian Autocracy, and even Inca Economy (who lacked a substantial market economy), and that for that reason all power should lies on his hands, as he is also the one most trained to "bear the burden of ruling and protecting"

Critics of the ideology say that it is basically absolute monarchy but in an even greater level (as it also is not keen on a powerful nobility, believing that is better to have a bureaucracy centered on the monarch and that all wealth in the state should be on the hands of the state, not on the hands of nobles or bourgeois), and most socialists, communists and anarchists consider it to be a utter and vile twisting of Marx's works.

Religion is considered to not be nescessary in Social Monarchism, but also is not shunned (as the Russian Tsars and most of other monarchies who practice it, like the Brazilian Emperors, tend to be a pious, if not extremist, bunch)
[/QUOTE]
As someone who finds the post-1900's "Mladorossi" concept rather intriguing, I wholeheartedly approve
 
Dark Forest Doxing: An Inversion Of Posadism
What would be the capitalist counterpart to posadism?
For an inversion of 'we need to attract aliens because they'll be good communists like us', 'we need to not draw the attentions of aliens because they'll be imperialistic exploiters like us'...

Dark Forest Doxing

Imagine if instead of nuclear missiles, the North Koreans spent their money on building a radio telescope array to dwarf arecibo, gotten Kim Jong-un to record a message warning that this planet had an exponentially expanding, unstoppable-to-them faction of imperialistic capitalist americans bent on universal domination who must be RKKVed now in self-defense, while they're still only inhabiting a single planet so that remains an option and sol's location relative to multiple neighboring stars to allow the signal to be tracked, then threatened to broadcast it indiscriminately into space if attacked as a MAD deterrence.

Bonus, this whole stupid idea is a semi-real ideology as demonstrated in a /sci/ thread where a bunch of /pol/acks showed up to request some /sci/ anons do the math for 'sol's location relative to multiple neighboring stars to allow the signal to be tracked' so they could blackmail (((society))) into giving them an ethnostate in exchange for not SWATing (((them))) with an alien invasion. The response consisted mostly of variations on 'you've been reading too much Liu Cixin', 'you couldn't get your hands on a transmitter powerful enough for the signal to not degrade into incomprehensible static before reaching another star' and 'no'.
 
Last edited:
Brutism
Brutism: Inspired by the Assassination of Julius Casear, the ideology teaches that it is the right and duty of the people to dispose of tyrants and despots, regardless of how they have used their power. It also places emphasis on limiting the overall power of the military, maintaining only the bare minimum necessary to defend the borders of the nation and its people, from both armies and foreign occupation. This ideology was formed in Germany in the years following the defeat of the Nazi regime, and placed emphasis on the idea of freeing the German people from the "military tyranny" of the west, and the despotism of the east.
 
Does invented ideologies for future timelines as well as honest predictions of future ideologies go here or is there a thread for that?
 
Does invented ideologies for future timelines as well as honest predictions of future ideologies go here or is there a thread for that?
I think technically there's a thread for predicted ideologies but I'm pretty sure it's dead. For the sake of simplicity I don't think there's any difference categorically between fictional ideologies for divergent timelines and ones for future history.
 
Many ideologies, including National Constructivism, Civicism, and Dynamism
Then I'll start with a few

National Constructivism: A rejection of neorealism , national constructivists state that instead of international relations being innate and states must thus compete and either be dominated or seek the protection of other states, are instead constructed by the nations and cultures that spawned them, and so is in its best interest to protect and further that culture without stepping on any other country's toes. You may win a war one day then lose one the next, and then your country is destroyed. Instead, states must cooperate in protecting each other while letting countries exercise their culture as their wish. In addition, since this is a future where pure democracy is considered a failure, democracy must be somewhat limited in order to prevent division in culture, especially two-party systems.

In practice, national constructivist countries will enter into a military alliance while respecting economic and information (censorship) limitations by that country, to prevent dominating relationships. For example, China will deal with states it may otherwise consider unsavory like Iran, without attempting to economically or culturally dominate that country with its might. Mutual alliance and live and let live, so we don't destroy each other, aren't destroyed by other states, and don't destroy ourselves by democratic division.

Civicism: Originating in America, civicism states that the only culture that should exist is civil behavior, although beyond that leaves culture alone. This will allow nations to interact with each other without states as intermediaries, and will thus, in theory, increase freedom and economic efficiency. When all the cultures of the world are compatible, a world federation of countries can unite and do Star Trek stuff.

In practice, civicist states will adopt unified laws, either as stated in a manifesto or jointly decided upon by an international body, in order to mold their cultures to be more like each other (in how they interact with each other, things like language and religion are generally left alone except where they conflict with law). They will then slowly unite with each other economically, militarily, politically. They will also attempt to spread these laws to other states. Given that they are dedicated to conquering the world and, in the eyes of the nations of the world, eradicating their culture, they are very much looked down on. The irony of a revolutionary internationalist ideology superficially similar to communism has originated in America is not lost on anyone, but Lenin the Soviet Union is about as relevant to people of the future as Robespierre and revolutionary France are to us.

Dynamism: Dynamism wishes for greater autonomy from and decentralization of the state, and views the state as an aggregate of local constituents, and so strengthening these will overall strengthen the state. Where a more unitary state will be too busy attempting to force its citizens to do its bidding, a dynamic state will be united by constituents that voluntarily ally in dealing with foreigners.

In practice, dynamism ranges from simply recognizing autonomy in federations, to the "state" being merely a constitutions of limited commitments that all constituents have agreed upon. In very dynamic countries, either being the cause of that dynamism or being caused by that dynamism, weapons ownership is nearly universal, and so governance can only be by unanimous consent, and local (sometimes very local, rural towns or even neighborhoods) constituents are more able to achieve consensus. Constituents may be member states, republics, kingdoms, tribes, cities, towns, or neighborhoods.

Gynmegandrism (need better name, I'm not very creative): Drawing from the simple observation that a higher proportion of men to women leads to greater amounts of crime and civil conflict, and that the natural birthrate is slightly higher for male children than female children, gynmegandrism seeks to artificially control the ratio through in vitro fertilization. If the ratio is not corrected in the hospital, adherents argue, it will be corrected on the battlefield, as it has been throughout all of history. They point to long periods of peace as times of increasing frustration and violence among men, which are then culled in war, followed by periods of strong social stability in the aftermath. Women can share a man, however uncomfortably, but men cannot share a woman without wanting to kill each other, biologically. To them, the alternative to gynmegandrism is war. The exact optimal ratio is debated, but five women per four men is suggested.

In practice, in countries that implement gynmegandrism men are very calm, sometimes this also leads to lower crime rates, but also sometimes to less creativity in art and science. These countries tend to be quite socially conservative, although not really patriarchal, as they seem to not need it. Open polygamy is uncommon, but in these countries married men having mistresses is considered completely normal, and they have a duty to keep it secret. Male homosexuality is generally frowned upon, especially by the women who are thus locked out, while female homosexuality is seen as completely normal. Female agitation in the form of crime and such does happen, but adherents argue that if the ratio was the opposite it would be infinitely worse.

Will try to think of some more
 
Then I'll start with a few

National Constructivism: A rejection of neorealism , national constructivists state that instead of international relations being innate and states must thus compete and either be dominated or seek the protection of other states, are instead constructed by the nations and cultures that spawned them, and so is in its best interest to protect and further that culture without stepping on any other country's toes. You may win a war one day then lose one the next, and then your country is destroyed. Instead, states must cooperate in protecting each other while letting countries exercise their culture as their wish. In addition, since this is a future where pure democracy is considered a failure, democracy must be somewhat limited in order to prevent division in culture, especially two-party systems.

In practice, national constructivist countries will enter into a military alliance while respecting economic and information (censorship) limitations by that country, to prevent dominating relationships. For example, China will deal with states it may otherwise consider unsavory like Iran, without attempting to economically or culturally dominate that country with its might. Mutual alliance and live and let live, so we don't destroy each other, aren't destroyed by other states, and don't destroy ourselves by democratic division.

Civicism: Originating in America, civicism states that the only culture that should exist is civil behavior, although beyond that leaves culture alone. This will allow nations to interact with each other without states as intermediaries, and will thus, in theory, increase freedom and economic efficiency. When all the cultures of the world are compatible, a world federation of countries can unite and do Star Trek stuff.

In practice, civicist states will adopt unified laws, either as stated in a manifesto or jointly decided upon by an international body, in order to mold their cultures to be more like each other (in how they interact with each other, things like language and religion are generally left alone except where they conflict with law). They will then slowly unite with each other economically, militarily, politically. They will also attempt to spread these laws to other states. Given that they are dedicated to conquering the world and, in the eyes of the nations of the world, eradicating their culture, they are very much looked down on. The irony of a revolutionary internationalist ideology superficially similar to communism has originated in America is not lost on anyone, but Lenin the Soviet Union is about as relevant to people of the future as Robespierre and revolutionary France are to us.

Dynamism: Dynamism wishes for greater autonomy from and decentralization of the state, and views the state as an aggregate of local constituents, and so strengthening these will overall strengthen the state. Where a more unitary state will be too busy attempting to force its citizens to do its bidding, a dynamic state will be united by constituents that voluntarily ally in dealing with foreigners.

In practice, dynamism ranges from simply recognizing autonomy in federations, to the "state" being merely a constitutions of limited commitments that all constituents have agreed upon. In very dynamic countries, either being the cause of that dynamism or being caused by that dynamism, weapons ownership is nearly universal, and so governance can only be by unanimous consent, and local (sometimes very local, rural towns or even neighborhoods) constituents are more able to achieve consensus. Constituents may be member states, republics, kingdoms, tribes, cities, towns, or neighborhoods.

Gynmegandrism (need better name, I'm not very creative): Drawing from the simple observation that a higher proportion of men to women leads to greater amounts of crime and civil conflict, and that the natural birthrate is slightly higher for male children than female children, gynmegandrism seeks to artificially control the ratio through in vitro fertilization. If the ratio is not corrected in the hospital, adherents argue, it will be corrected on the battlefield, as it has been throughout all of history. They point to long periods of peace as times of increasing frustration and violence among men, which are then culled in war, followed by periods of strong social stability in the aftermath. Women can share a man, however uncomfortably, but men cannot share a woman without wanting to kill each other, biologically. To them, the alternative to gynmegandrism is war. The exact optimal ratio is debated, but five women per four men is suggested.

In practice, in countries that implement gynmegandrism men are very calm, sometimes this also leads to lower crime rates, but also sometimes to less creativity in art and science. These countries tend to be quite socially conservative, although not really patriarchal, as they seem to not need it. Open polygamy is uncommon, but in these countries married men having mistresses is considered completely normal, and they have a duty to keep it secret. Male homosexuality is generally frowned upon, especially by the women who are thus locked out, while female homosexuality is seen as completely normal. Female agitation in the form of crime and such does happen, but adherents argue that if the ratio was the opposite it would be infinitely worse.

Will try to think of some more
Hey, aren't these from that one 23rd century scenario where China is a dynamist superpower?
 
Hey, aren't these from that one 23rd century scenario where China is a dynamist superpower?
The first one is indeed heavily inspired by Mathuen, with a few differences, in that it is more than a general mindset used to describe the feigned egalitarianism of the Asian powers in contrast to America and European powers who seem insufferably condescending to smaller powers, rather than a complete ideology with an internationale

Also I should mention, if there is anything odd about my writing, it's because English is not my native language.
 
Last edited:
...with anyone with enough conviction to use all six rounds and die for their beliefs having an absolutely massive boost to their vote (which they'd write down beforehand, obviously).
That's pretty brutal. At that point the state is just paying people to kill themselves. I suppose political parties could game the system by delegating that responsibility to folks who were already on their deathbed, thus giving the party extra votes. Even with this approach, it would still have an insidious effect on society. Would make a good setting for a horror film.
 
Bolivarism
Bolivarism: Taking its name from Simón Bolívar, Bolivarism is an ideology which presses the importance of "Pan-Latinoism." In essence it calls for the unity of the various Spanish speaking Latino people's across the American Continent. The ideology also calls for the reclaiming of territories from non-Spanish speaking nations(American-Southwest, Acre, Falklands, etc.). Bolivarism also places emphasis on the idea of defending the moral fiber of the Latino people from the false teachings of Protestantism and Mormonism.

In practice, bolivarism is quite fringe, only possessing legally recognized parties in Mexico, Panama, Colombia, and Bolivia. The issues rise from the resemblance to Fascism possessed by Bolivarism, leading to many outside observers viewing it an offshoot of Fascism. Other issues include the debate among various followers of this ideology which dialect of Spanish is the "correct" one, leading to a noted level of tension across the different local variants of Bolivarism. Confounding matters is the idea that such an ideology would encourage violence against those cultures and languages which may have a significant influence on those nations targeted by this ideology(The guarani language in Paraguay, the large ethnic Italian population in Argentina). In certain countries, such as the United States, the actions of extremist groups in Texas and California has seen Bolivarism become labeled as a terrorist movement, further hurting the ideologies ability to gain ground in many areas.
 
Bolivarism: Taking its name from Simón Bolívar, Bolivarism is an ideology which presses the importance of "Pan-Latinoism." In essence it calls for the unity of the various Spanish speaking Latino people's across the American Continent. The ideology also calls for the reclaiming of territories from non-Spanish speaking nations(American-Southwest, Acre, Falklands, etc.). Bolivarism also places emphasis on the idea of defending the moral fiber of the Latino people from the false teachings of Protestantism and Mormonism.

In practice, bolivarism is quite fringe, only possessing legally recognized parties in Mexico, Panama, Colombia, and Bolivia. The issues rise from the resemblance to Fascism possessed by Bolivarism, leading to many outside observers viewing it an offshoot of Fascism. Other issues include the debate among various followers of this ideology which dialect of Spanish is the "correct" one, leading to a noted level of tension across the different local variants of Bolivarism. Confounding matters is the idea that such an ideology would encourage violence against those cultures and languages which may have a significant influence on those nations targeted by this ideology(The guarani language in Paraguay, the large ethnic Italian population in Argentina). In certain countries, such as the United States, the actions of extremist groups in Texas and California has seen Bolivarism become labeled as a terrorist movement, further hurting the ideologies ability to gain ground in many areas.
Interesting! I could see something like this used as part of the philosophical roots of the ideology.
 
Paragonism, Adventurism, and the Fair Price System
Intriguing stuff, @Etruscan-enthusiast35 ! I'm curious about what kind of attitudes the Bolivarians might have on slavery, and on the caste system in general. And do they share Bolivar's view that "America is ungovernable"?

On a different note, here are some very short descriptions of ideologies that I've been thinking about. Let me know if there are any of them you'd like me to describe in more detail.
  • Paragonism: The nation should be a constitutional monarchy where the Sovereign Majesty is granted considerable power, but only on the condition that they act as a paragon of all the virtues at all times. There is a council for each of the virtues listed in the constitution, and each council can unilaterally depose the monarch whenever they catch the monarch engaging in a sinful act.
  • Adventurism: The belief that to be respectable member of society, you have to go on a "merry adventure" every now and then. Sounds harmless enough, except that these adventures can range from robbing a bank, to wire-tapping the CIA, to becoming a pirate and starting a protection racket on the high seas. Oh, and when the entire country decides to go on a "national adventure"? Yeah, that's it really gets wild.
  • Fair Price System: An economic system where nearly all government services are delegated to small, privately owned businesses. However, the elected government has the exclusive right to set the price for all goods and services, and shopkeepers are strictly forbidden by raising or lowering prices by even the tiniest amount. The legislature spends much of its time debating on what a fair price should be for a used tricycle in terms of cherry tomatoes, and so forth.
 
Top