In a timeframe between 1945 and today, how can more of the world see the estabilishment of "semi-anarchist" underdog confederal republics ideologically aligned neither to liberal capitalism, nor to planned-economy socialism, instead preferring local, city and village level development, like the EZLN's insurgency in Chiapas (of Subcomandante Marcos fame) and Rojava? I'm aware that the conditions for estabilishing entities like these are indeed very specific, but i'd like to ask if any of you have ideas.
A suggestion: could a longer, more drawn-out Vietnam War result in the Degar/"Montagnard" tribes of central Vietnam, under the aegis of the FULRO , being convinced by geopolitically independent libertarian socialist ideology?
 

Windows95

Banned
Not really. Come August the Soviet ambassador to the UN will smugly reply, “And you used tanks in Paris.”
Start an earlier PKK movement that embraces Bookchin or make council communist parties evolve to libertarian socialism.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Maybe just a newly independent nation in the 1940s, ‘50s, or ‘60s decides to build up both its cash and its non-cash economy?
 

SpookyBoy

Banned
I think a big reason why you didn't see more places like this during the 20th century was due to the whole socialist movement being very much under the shadow of the USSR/Marxism-Leninism throughout the Cold War, so i think you'd have to make a lot of changes on that front.
 
Yeah. There’s the Soviet Union. Then there’s free helicopter rides and J Edgar.

It basically takes the humanist movement being inside the party, or a temporary alliance of national nomenklatura with reform, to stop the tankies being tankies.

And ain’t nothing gonna stop the USA throwing communists out of helicopters.
 
A suggestion: could a longer, more drawn-out Vietnam War result in the Degar/"Montagnard" tribes of central Vietnam, under the aegis of the FULRO , being convinced by geopolitically independent libertarian socialist ideology?
Montagnards are too demographically small for them to make a dent, and besides, Vietnam would be able to take it after a while. The Central Highlands are important to Vietnamese control over the country, and if the Montagnards/Degar (Thuong) in Vietnamese, tried to go all revolt, we'd place top priority on making the Highlands part of Vietnam again. Besides, the Montagnards aren't the only inhabitants up there...quite a few Vietnamese up there too.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Maybe as cliche as it sounds, Mexico.
I’m intrigued by the book title The Truth About Markets: Why Some Nations are Rich but Most Remain Poor.

Also something economist Joseph Stiglitz said about the East Asian Miracle (1960-1995), basically that you can’t let financial markets run wild and whipsaw the real economy.
 

Windows95

Banned
I’m intrigued by the book title The Truth About Markets: Why Some Nations are Rich but Most Remain Poor.

Also something economist Joseph Stiglitz said about the East Asian Miracle (1960-1995), basically that you can’t let financial markets run wild and whipsaw the real economy.
Why are you mentioning this book?
 
Not really. Come August the Soviet ambassador to the UN will smugly reply, “And you used tanks in Paris.”

I believe the Soviets, via their Communist proxies in France, actually opposed May '68, in quiet support of De Gaulle's anti-NATO stance.

So it might be a little awkward for the ambassador to suddenly declare himself in solidarity with the tendency Groucho and start lecturing the world on how it is forbidden to forbid.
 
I believe the Soviets, via their Communist proxies in France, actually opposed May '68, in quiet support of De Gaulle's anti-NATO stance.

For anything to go off the PCF unions are going to have to be on board.

So it might be a little awkward for the ambassador to suddenly declare himself in solidarity with the tendency Groucho and start lecturing the world on how it is forbidden to forbid.

Wrong context. They’re not going to suddenly support situationalism or Dubcek. It will be when the Soviet Union is criticised over Prague. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
 
Montagnards are too demographically small for them to make a dent, and besides, Vietnam would be able to take it after a while. The Central Highlands are important to Vietnamese control over the country, and if the Montagnards/Degar (Thuong) in Vietnamese, tried to go all revolt, we'd place top priority on making the Highlands part of Vietnam again. Besides, the Montagnards aren't the only inhabitants up there...quite a few Vietnamese up there too.
Your argument makes sense, but could the Degars continue as a neutral faction caught in the middle of a multi-faceted armed struggle if armed conflicts in Indochina continue to a sufficient degree?
For another possible scenario, if king Sihanouk of Cambodia is not overthrown by Lon Nol (to be in turn overrun by Pol Pot) and continues his "third path" tendencies in local Asian conflicts, could Cambodian funding and support for the FULRO continue?
 
The only way it’s possible is if no traditional state presents a threat, as centralised political organisations are simply far more effective in waging war. Seeing as no part of the planet has been left unclaimed by traditional states, I find that pretty ASB.
 
Your argument makes sense, but could the Degars continue as a neutral faction caught in the middle of a multi-faceted armed struggle if armed conflicts in Indochina continue to a sufficient degree?
For another possible scenario, if king Sihanouk of Cambodia is not overthrown by Lon Nol (to be in turn overrun by Pol Pot) and continues his "third path" tendencies in local Asian conflicts, could Cambodian funding and support for the FULRO continue?
Cambodian support for FULRO could continue, yes. Interestingly enough, Lon Nol was in charge of supplying FULRO back when he was Prime Minister of Cambodia, so it could be assumed that even if he overthrew Sihanouk as OTL, he might continue to supply FULRO. But Vietnam simply has the demographics to run them over. In addition, Vietnamese, whether anticommunist or communist, both found common cause in crushing the Thuong insurgents, who harried North and South alike. Eventually, we'd burn them to the ground- in 1962, there were approximately one million of them. In contrast, the North and the South had between them a million settlers to colonize the Central Highlands.

Vietnam basically is a mini-China. We breed too fast.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
And ain’t nothing gonna stop the USA throwing communists out of helicopters.
During the Vietnam War, my United States threw persons out of helicopters.

Yes, that’s true.

I’ve read that regarding the My Lai massacre that each level up the bureaucracy this report moved, the numbers were reduced. And no one ordered the employees to do this. Rather they did it on their own, as if the smooth functioning of the institution was the highest value.

From some very average jobs I’ve had, I’m guessing that a tact of “type of thing likely to come back and bite us in the ass” is more effective persuasion (still maybe only 50%), than any kind of direct moral appeal.
 
Last edited:
My aim here is to go no further than to solidly claim that anti-communism was a shared endeavour of nomenklatura societies (“Soviet style societies”) and western capitalism.

The best chances in the east have been when the nomenklatura was forced into alliance with workers around “reformism” or “humanism,” chiefly 56 in Poland Hungary Yugoslavia Italy and the Soviet Union and 68 in Czechoslovakia and Shanghai. For either the Central European Commonwealth of Workers Councils to succeed or for the Year of Human Socialism the tankies need to be on board. Gomulka shows us what you can do with a Central European army and the balls to order the Soviet fraternal force encircled. Imagine if Nagy had less timidity. Imagine if Dubcek planned to pacify Soviet intervention both ways at once (trust but verify). Imagine if Mikoyan won the party line debate in 56. There’s even a remote possibility in the VWP (southern) allying itself with the actual revolution.

In the west it is a lot simpler. Reactionaries or Fascists or Liberals will throw you out of a helicopter. This means either the state must be dysfunctional to the point where part of the army is captured by the revolution, or the army must mutiny. Guy Debord and Daniel Cohn-Bendit are, unless something very significant happens, going to fall from a great height. Perhaps poignantly a restorer of democracy and capitalism might reuse the same damn wall from 71.
 
Last edited:
Top