Alternate Political Spectrums and Ideologies For the 20th Century

Teleology

Banned

Western Civilization (Dominant Paradigm: Futurism)

+ Up-Wing: Radically optimistic, see future as filled with opportunities, idealists, value luxury and willingness to take risks.

+ Down-Wing: Radically pessimistic, see future as filled with dangers, survivalists, value resilience and self-reliance

+ Linear: Moderately conservative, want to maintain the status quo, pragmatic, value stability and caution.

+ Centrists (for Centrifugalists): Radically centrist, want to optimize society, reformist, value efficiency and "clear-headedness".
 
So splitting the liberal position into socially and/versus economically liberal? The twentieth saw bits and pieces of what is today considered a liberal/libertarian agenda appropriated by a wide array of political sides. Frex, while most sane indivioduals would have preferred to live in West over East Germany, if you were a woman and valued your sexual freedom, the GDR was better for a long time (sex ed, access to family planning - not just abortion, the whole range, no stigmatisation or punishment of unwed motherhood or divorce, equal access to social services). Because that was one of the very few aspects of freedom the German Ciommunists embraced. Similarly, a lot of rather unpleasantly repressive right-wing regimes loved the idea of competitive market freedom (until it interfered with their goals, of course) and lots of market-critical left wingers embraced freedom of expression and personal choices with great passion while proponents of genuine free markets (especially genuinely free labour markets, mind) darkly wished for an option to stopn people saying these things, and penalise them for living their own way.

Make it happen differently. You probably can't have *Socialism a conservative cause even in its most partenalistic and Morrisian forms, but you can keep a genuinely socially and economically liberal position in play.
 
"Surrealists" (left) - They want to change every aspect of the society, and they believe in radical change. They see the status quo as something bad, and they argue that society should live through constant change.

"Realists" (right) - They want to keep the status quo as much as possible, but they are ready to change things, if it is necessary. But they won't do it in such a radical manner than the "Surrealists".

"Progressive" (up) - Progressive people can be found in both areas. Progressive realists stand for slow change, while progressive surrealists want a fast change. But both directions want a change.

"Regressive" (down) - The opposite of progressivism. They also want a change, but into past ideals and morals. While regressive realists are content with the status quo, and demand minor changes only, regressive surrealists want a return to past traditions.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I don't know. Humanity is an economic being, so the historical political spectrum that mostly evolved out of questions about how to manage the economy make a lot of sense.
 

Teleology

Banned
The idea that human nature is economic nature is very much part of the dominant meme of our own time.

Others would disagree; from the monarchies of old to the Fascists, who thought that man was not an economic animal but one who sought glory.
 

Teleology

Banned

The Republicans
: "professional america" (big and small business, the upper class, some white collar middle class)
The Democrats: "tommorow's americans" (some upperclass philanthropists, some white collar middle class, the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, immigrants)
The Conservatives: "mainstreet america" (dixiecrats, religious right, farmers, industrial unionists)

Depending on which wing of the Republicans is in charge in a given decade, the pro-business liberals or the pro-business conservatives, either the Conservatives or the Democrats serve as the "Second Party" in fact. The Democrats are more specifically progressive; the Repubicans couldn't purge their liberal wing and in fact other than Nixon some anti-elitist progressive conservatives joined the Democrats despite hating the ivory tower Harvard elite). Thus you have the two older, more traditionally powerful parties each being split between two-wings (pro biz libs and pro biz cons for Republicans, prog libs and prog cons for the Democrats); giving the new party some breathing space.

The Conservatives are traditionally the champions of nativist, nationalist, and moralistic causes (which white industrial unionists and farmers often agree with southern conservatives on) and their religious right has a much larger Catholic presence than in our world (due to the trade unions); with a notable schism in the Catholic voters that the liberal pro-business Republicans took advantage of by steering their party to a anti-abortion and anti-death-penalty stance, whereas the Conservatives are only anti-abortion and the Democrats only anti-death-penalty.
 

Teleology

Banned
And to clarify, the first post was just one example, of a world where the dominant Western meme complex is Futurism.

I didn't intend that everyone's stuff would have to fit into that paradigm. My last proposal didn't, for instance.
 

Teleology

Banned
Weishauptism: The dominant opposition ideology of Western civilization in the 19th century and then in the world in the 20th. Weishauptism believed in freeing mankind from the tyranny of church and state, overthrowing these institutions and (in the case of Washington-Weishauptism and derivative forms) ruling the people through secret societies of those properly initiated into the secrets of mankind's divine nature.
 
I don't know. Humanity is an economic being, so the historical political spectrum that mostly evolved out of questions about how to manage the economy make a lot of sense.

Even if this were true beyond the trivial fact that we all need to eat - and it's certainly debatable - there are many different ways of looking at economics. In modern economic thought, we tend to privilege objective wealth and the concept of exchange and unquestioningly accept the idea of property. Even radical Communists do not disagree on that point nine times out of ten. A person who scavenged his needs and routinely gave away surplus, begging in lean times, would seem to us engaged in no economic activity worth mentioning. Lookesd at from a different perspective, he is engaged in fructifying extant resources and participating in exchange networks of mutual obligation, it's just not our way of looking at it. But even if we go far away from the realities of hunter-gatherer societies, there is an economic idea that is still extremely powerful, but largely unacknowledged in Western politics, the ideas of a moral economy. Neither the orthodox market capitalist position (far into the Social Democratic spectrum) nor orthodox Socialism accept it. Interestingly, it was Fascist states that last tried to put it into practice in some form. But it's there. It could well be formulated into a cohesive ideology.
 

Susano

Banned
I don't know. Humanity is an economic being, so the historical political spectrum that mostly evolved out of questions about how to manage the economy make a lot of sense.

Even OTL nowadays thats only really true in America. I complain about that now and then, in fact, how Americans view "left" and "right" only in terms of economics. Me, Id make social liberties the prime defining measure, and I think that is closer to how spectrums are drawn up here in Europe.
 
Even OTL nowadays thats only really true in America. I complain about that now and then, in fact, how Americans view "left" and "right" only in terms of economics. Me, Id make social liberties the prime defining measure, and I think that is closer to how spectrums are drawn up here in Europe.
Wait, what? I'm American and I have always viewed social policy as the defining characteristic of left and righthood.
 
Even OTL nowadays thats only really true in America. I complain about that now and then, in fact, how Americans view "left" and "right" only in terms of economics. Me, Id make social liberties the prime defining measure, and I think that is closer to how spectrums are drawn up here in Europe.

Actually, as an American, my conception is too many people in the U.S. foolishly define left versus right as primarily social, not economic. As a result the left spends too much time on issues like abortion and identify politics, and no one really addresses economic inequality and the lack of worker rights in the U.S.

Really though, the "left" is generally considered, outside of the U.S., to be comprised of Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and Anarchists. Besides being anti capitalist (at least historically/rhetorically), what else binds these groups together?
 
Democratic Party: "Working America" (Urbanites, Union members, ethnic and religious minorities, working class and lower middle class Americans, liberal intellectuals, social conservatives)
Republican Party: "Professional America" (Suburbanites, White collar workers, WASPs, upper and upper middle class Americans, professionals, social liberals)
American Party: "Angry America" (Rural Americans, low-wage laborers, WASPs, lower and lower middle class Americans, social conservatives, farmers)

The Civil Rights movement plays out so that both major political parties unite to oppose southern backlash, rather than the Republicans feeding on it, leading to the development of the 'American Party', a right-wing populist movement dominant in the South and in some parts of the midwest amongst working class voters.

The Democrats have largely kept their working class base and still capture most of the Catholic vote. The party is about evenly split between hawkish, social conservative Democrats and between dovish, social liberals, but both wings of the party agree more broadly on center-left economics and establishing a larger welfare state. The current President of the United States, Al Gore, is somewhere between the social conservative hawks and the social liberal doves.

The Republicans shirked away from capitalizing on racial backlash in the sixties, and as a result, preserved most of their coalition from that era. As a result, there is a significant liberal wing within the party (at least on social issues) and quite a few midwestern doves remain, as well. The last Republican President, Clint Eastwood, combined social liberalism of New England Republicans with the center-right politics of his native California.

The American Party was formed out of George Wallace's Presidential bid in 1968, and broadly defined, it is a right-wing populist party. Isolationist, protectionist, vaguely racist, and xenophobic, the American Party plays the role of kingmaker in Washington, though more often than not it does so in favor of the Republican Party, much to the chagrin of its rank-and-file. The American Party has been declining substantially in recent years, and with the die off of the baby boomers, it'll probably be gone completely. It's latest Presidential nominee was Ron Paul of Texas.
 

Susano

Banned
Actually, as an American, my conception is too many people in the U.S. foolishly define left versus right as primarily social, not economic. As a result the left spends too much time on issues like abortion and identify politics, and no one really addresses economic inequality and the lack of worker rights in the U.S.

Really though, the "left" is generally considered, outside of the U.S., to be comprised of Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and Anarchists. Besides being anti capitalist (at least historically/rhetorically), what else binds these groups together?

Left also includes Greens, and while this can greatly vary some Green can be pretty pro-market,provided teh right ecologcial regulations are in place. OTOH, quite many fascist regimes have been regulating the economy, but that doesnt make them leftwing. And then there are the Christian Socials (the original ones, not the CSU) - leftwing economics and pro welfare but right wing on social freedoms, and they are considered to be rightwing (though, OTOH, thats called Christian Left in the USA and considered to be left wing. Funny, in a way). Really, the only outlier on the left side I would say are the Communists - the rest is pro social freedoms.
 

Teleology

Banned
A comeback of technocracy as a political system, spurred by the development of computers and "systemist" management theories perhaps?

Ah, Technocracy...

X axis: A spectrum ranging from policy decisions being directly made by experts (governance by scientists; with variations between those who want to keep the peer system of the academic world and those who would want to do away with it and establish some other sort of system) to elected officials making appointments to non-elected positions from a pool of candidates who pass a meritocratic examination system; with "even elected officials should have to pass meritocratic exams to become candidates" and "we should just elect the scientists, instead of just trying to elect better educated and more professional politicians". Besides the values of democracy, the big debate here is whether or not having the experts directly running things is a waste of their abilities on management, and whether such a thing as an expert bureaucrat (passing a meritocratic examination system) exists and serves a useful function.

Y axis: A spectrum ranging from "right wing" scientific management of labor to "left wing" anti-laborism (the idea that automation should be used to give people more and more free time, and that increased education to put them in more skilled positions and increased composition to make up for less work hours need to come with the increasing technological advances in industry and agriculture). The Left and Right spectrum is further complicated by those who believe in keeping price economics and those in favor of a utilitarian system of resource-allocation economics; of which there are supporters and detractors among both the scientific management Rightists and the anti-labor Leftists.
 

Teleology

Banned
Left also includes Greens, and while this can greatly vary some Green can be pretty pro-market,provided teh right ecologcial regulations are in place. OTOH, quite many fascist regimes have been regulating the economy, but that doesnt make them leftwing. And then there are the Christian Socials (the original ones, not the CSU) - leftwing economics and pro welfare but right wing on social freedoms, and they are considered to be rightwing (though, OTOH, thats called Christian Left in the USA and considered to be left wing. Funny, in a way). Really, the only outlier on the left side I would say are the Communists - the rest is pro social freedoms.

From the start the American Right and Left, even before it existed as such, has had a mix of economic and social policy disagreements on both side.

Even before "right" and "left" economics was clear (the non-interventionist, Jefferson, being anti-city/anti-financial-speculation; whereas the regulatory and tax-minded Hamilton was a friend to big business IIRC), both the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans had a mix of social stances too. Federalists favored the stable non-democratic Britain whereas the DR favored the republican but radical and unstable Jacobins.

To get to the modern spectrum, though, you have to keep in mind that the reason why Left isn't focused on the worker as in say Britain is because the unions have been oppressed and marginalized since American industrialization (whereas the unions were the primary force behind the Labour Party in Britain, right?). The American Left really begins, in my opinion, with the Progressive movement which were basically the American equivalent of Britain's Red Tories.

And Progressivism has been tied with a combination of economic and social issues, all combined together under the name of "social reform" from the start. Child labor laws, food purity laws, mixed in with suffrage for women, conservationism, and less savory attempts to solve society's problems with reason and science (such as falling prey to the pseudoscience of eugenics).

And, similarly, the grand anti-communist alliance between the religious right and the big business economics conservatives is a relatively recent phenomena; if you look prior to the Reagan coalition you have progressive conservatives or at least conservatives with progressive stances, who might have been against "liberal New England elitism" but not against welfare or regulation. Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, Nixon started the EPA, and would you classify LBJ as a liberal democrat or as a conservative democrat who was also a progressive?
 
Republican Party

The problem with the Republican Party of today is there are elements of all of those in it. Recent primarys been disagreements between one or more of those groups. Party conferences hope for agreement but, don't always get it.
 
LBJ

From the start the American Right and Left, even before it existed as such, has had a mix of economic and social policy disagreements on both side.

Even before "right" and "left" economics was clear (the non-interventionist, Jefferson, being anti-city/anti-financial-speculation; whereas the regulatory and tax-minded Hamilton was a friend to big business IIRC), both the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans had a mix of social stances too. Federalists favored the stable non-democratic Britain whereas the DR favored the republican but radical and unstable Jacobins.

To get to the modern spectrum, though, you have to keep in mind that the reason why Left isn't focused on the worker as in say Britain is because the unions have been oppressed and marginalized since American industrialization (whereas the unions were the primary force behind the Labour Party in Britain, right?). The American Left really begins, in my opinion, with the Progressive movement which were basically the American equivalent of Britain's Red Tories.

And Progressivism has been tied with a combination of economic and social issues, all combined together under the name of "social reform" from the start. Child labor laws, food purity laws, mixed in with suffrage for women, conservationism, and less savory attempts to solve society's problems with reason and science (such as falling prey to the pseudoscience of eugenics).

And, similarly, the grand anti-communist alliance between the religious right and the big business economics conservatives is a relatively recent phenomena; if you look prior to the Reagan coalition you have progressive conservatives or at least conservatives with progressive stances, who might have been against "liberal New England elitism" but not against welfare or regulation. Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex, Nixon started the EPA, and would you classify LBJ as a liberal democrat or as a conservative democrat who was also a progressive?
Lyndon Johnson was liberal on economic and social programs. Like a lot of people of his generation his ideas about international affairs were formed during the second world war. Alturnate second world war storys might want to apply the butterfly effect those who shaped forign policy for their generation.
 

Teleology

Banned
Lyndon Johnson was liberal on economic and social programs. Like a lot of people of his generation his ideas about international affairs were formed during the second world war. Alturnate second world war storys might want to apply the butterfly effect those who shaped forign policy for their generation.

With that in mind, I've got the idea of an alternate philosophical movement following WWII, which blames the evils of the Nazis on irrationality and involves a widely published and translated treatises on the unscientific nature of racism and a "rational" history of civilization.

Then you would have a sort of counter-enlightenment II to this enlightenment II of people who bring up the bloody deeds done by Jacobins and Soviets in their desire to enshrine "reason" above all else.
 
Top