Not sure if another member of the ruling dynasty who is also a high-ranking military official really counts as a "more open-minded voice". Also, seeing as this entry mentions "recent advances in communications technology" and a middle-class presence in the "core worlds", surely Chana could find someone just as eloquent and politically opinionated as Marcella who also happens to be, y'know, a civilian?After talking to Prince Brandon, I sought a more open-minded voice willing to pursue reforms to revive and rejuvenate the Empire and found it in Crown Princess Marcella Danielle Musk, heir to the Empire, currently commanding the Imperial 2nd Fleet.
Well, the other person interviewed is literally an "everything is alright and nothing needs to change as the system works" hardliner/conservative.Not sure if another member of the ruling dynasty who is also a high-ranking military official really counts as a "more open-minded voice".
I kind of want to know in what world would these nations sustain themselves and not a)collapse in political violence or b) get invaded by another nation?Nice job with the Musk entry. Sounds chillingly plausible.
I've been thinking lately about a pair of potential ideologies that I might write about someday. I do not at all endorse these ideologies, and would strongly condemn implementing them in the real world. In fictional settings, however, they might be worth exploring. You all are welcome to use them however you like:
The first, which I'm tentatively calling Intoxicationism is a movement that outright worships alcohol and other recreational drugs, and believe that these substances are so benefitial that they should be forced on the population. Once they get in power, being sober, or even appearing to be sober, at any time, becomes a felony. This obviously has enormous consequences for drivers, pilots, police, soldiers, nuclear reactor operators, education and a host of other professions. The party doctrine is that drugs bring one closer to the divine, transcendent self, while sobriety keeps the soul chained to the profane material world.
The second one I will call Compassionate Primitivism. In this school of thought, it is humanity's moral duty to turn back the clock to a time when our species was not yet the tyrant of the world, but instead was just another animal. They are well aware of the catastrophic loss of life that could result from implementing this transformation too quickly or without the right preparations. Therefore, they recommend a gradual and careful transition, spread over the course of 1000 to 10,000 years. The newest technologies will be outlawed first, followed by the next newest, with plenty of government support throught the process to make sure that everyone is well fed and looked after.
They probably wouldn't last long, but even after the regimes collapsed, they could still have a lasting impact on the culture, which would be interesting to explore.I kind of want to know in what world would these nations sustain themselves and not a)collapse in political violence or b) get invaded by another nation?
Would it be possible to put the index into this post, to make it easier to find?Cool, I voted for this on the poll in ASB. I think it would be interesting to see different types of governments not really seen in OTL, such as technocracy or meritocracy. I'm also interested to see if any of your governments live up to the ideals they aspire too or fall short like many in OTL have.
A jockocracy sounds like it would be a born after overthrowing an insane technocratic government that was doing all sorts of inhumane things to build a "utopia." Something like brave new world or Earthly Paradise, or a Winter Night's Dream. Tales from the 27th century being the end result. So ideologically they'd highly value basic humanity in mind. Jockocracy is merely a colloquial phraseHere are some ideas, in case anyone is looking for a topic for the next episode:
The people have had enough. After series of brutal leaders who embodied all the worst stereotypes of nerds, the people rose up and ousted their geeky oppressors, and in the process became hostile toward all things quirky and intellectual. Thus the Jockocracy was born, but don't let them hear you call it that. While their enemies, the nerds, would call them jocks, they see themselves as just normal people, who would be able to live normal lives if the nerds weren't always ruining things with their insidious plans. So, what would such a state look like? Here are some policies I think a group would be likely to adopt if one of their top priorities was to abolish nerdiness:
- Democracy: The state would most likely be a democracy of sorts, or at least would pretend to be one. However, even if they did have a genuine multiparty democracy, the state would not hesitate to ban parties that they considered too extreme. If the ruling party lacks self-restraint, then this practice of banning extremists could devolve into banning everyone who isn't the ruling party. So a de facto dictatorship could emerge. If not, expect some sort of run-of-the-mill parliamentary or presidential republic, perhaps with a slight preference for a parliamentary system, since the state has a dark history of eccentric dictators, and a presidential system might be seen as too vulnerable to exploitation by another such madman. If the country has a history of constitutional monarchy, and the reputation of the ruling dynasty is not too tarnished, then the monarchy will be retained, but with severe limits on their power. If it has been more than a couple of generations since the monarchy was in power, or if the monarchy actively collaborated with the previous dictatorship, then it will most certainly be abolished.
- Economy: The nation would almost certainly practice some form of capitalism, unless it already had an entrenched tradition of socialism or some other economic system. Private property would exist, and would possibly be idolized as a core value. However, they would not be libertarians. There would be limits on the amount of wealth a person or corporation can accumulate, there would be an adequate minimum wage, and efforts would be made to break up monopolies. There would be a strong social safety net, providing free services like healthcare, education, transportation, food stamps, and so on. Government propaganda would frequently boast about these services in a paternalistic way, citing them as proof of the loving community of people, who happily receive the blessings of their father, the state, and in return, they do as they are told. In a more benign variant of this society, the services live up to the propaganda for the most part, and available to everyone, without any sinister strings attached. As a result, there is little to no poverty, and the people are mostly content. In a bleaker version, the services might be underfunded or low quality or restricted to a small aristocracy or all of the above.
- Technology: The state would not be completely opposed to technological innovation, but they would prefer for that innovation to be firmly grounded in the practical concerns of the people. Any fields of research unable to quickly produce tangible, beneficial results would at best have their funding cut, and at worst be arrested for frivolous intellectualism. As a result of their disdain for "pure" sciences, the nation might lag behind other states in technology a bit, but the propaganda department would put a spin on this by saying it allows them to learn from other nation's mistakes.
- Education: The state would promote a well-rounded education to prevent students from getting too passionate or too knowledgeable about any one area. School administrators would discipline students and teachers who got too passionate, and transfer them to classes where they could conduct themselves in a more stoic matter.
- Arts: Artists would not be treated well. Some arts, like poetry and table-top role-playing games, might get banned entirely due to their strong association with the previous regime, or their propensity to turn people into quirky countercultural dissidents. The arts that are allowed would be those that are not seen as inherently nerdy, such as film, television, certain sports, certain kinds of music and video games, and so forth, but even these would have to be carefully screened by the state before going public. In order to be broadcast, all art would have to reflect the values of the state.
- Religion: "Traditional Religions" would be promoted, while religions that are seen as "new" or "weird" would be suppressed. Atheism and irreligion would also be the subject of persecution. In a more extreme variety of this scenario, all faiths except the dominant one would be declared illegal.
- Military: The military officers would probably be some of the most devout followers of the ruling ideology. They likely had a hand in overthrowing the previous government, and they are one of the key pillars of support for the current regime. There would likely be a draft of some sort, as the state sees the military as a way to forge young people into patriotic, selfless men and women. However, the state would recognize the potential of the draft to dilute an otherwise loyal military with all kinds of potential dissenters and freethinkers. To combat this, soldiers would be extensively scrutinized for any signs of rebelliousness, and only the most zealous would be given any opportunities for promotion.
- Criminal Justice: The justice system would be based around "an eye for an eye" and other such aphorisms. The state would condemn any kind of research-based approach that aims to find the most "effective" punishment, and would insist on sticking with the punishments that "you know in your heart feel right" regardless of what the evidence says.
My second idea is more of a typical dystopia:
The Cult of Blood
This brutish government has an obsession with fighting and killing. They view bloodshed as an end in itself, and violence as the greatest height to which any person can rise. Unsurprisingly, they support things like warfare, gladiatorial combat, torture, and mass executions. They have much in common with fascist and egoist ideologies, in that they have little regard for individual rights. However, they are distinct from both these movements. The Cult of Blood parts ways with fascism when it comes to authority. While traditional fascists tend to view the cult of personality leading the all-powerful state as the ideal form of government, the Cult of Blood is wary of one-man-rule, and instead advocates an oligarchic system where power is shared among a large ruling class of devout party members. They differ from egoism, in that they do not recommend each person look out for only themselves. Instead, they advocate a sort of altruistic morality, albeit a twisted one, in which party members cooperate to maintain the status quo and cause as much mayhem as possible without leading to total societal collapse. Aspiring dictators are seen as a threat to the status quo, and tend to be quickly assassinated or imprisoned. Reformists, who suggest that maybe we shouldn't have a society devoted to killing and torturing, are similarly silenced. When it comes to foreign policy, the Cult of Blood does not pick fights with stronger nations, or even weaker ones that are under the protection of great powers. As much as they would like carve a path of destruction across the world, the leaders of the Cult know that if they provoke someone too powerful, they could end up losing everything they have built. The Cult of Blood does not make alliances either, partly because they view all other states as degenerate weaklings, but also because everyone else is too disgusted by them to so much as look them in the eye. While the state is certainly homicidal and at times genocidal, they never go so far as to suggest omnicide, the obliteration of all life. Their goal is not total destruction, but continued suffering, and for suffering to continue, there must be life.
Edit: Added a bit about the foriegn policy of the Cult of Blood.