Reds fanfic
- Thread starter E. Burke
- Start date
Redshank Galloglass
Banned
Here's basically what the political parties of the UASR are.
Democratic-Republican Party: farthest "right" in the UASR. Mutualist Anarchists that believe in markets instead of the simulated syndicalism market in the UASR.
Communist-Labor Party: center-right in the UASR: militarist "neoconservative" tankies that believe in a heavily centralized government, nationalism, and regressive cultural values. Incredibly unpopular in the UASR for most of its history.
Democratic Farmer-Labor Party: center-left in the UASR, Christian socialists, favor worker syndicates but slightly backward socially.
Liberation Communist Party: Left in the UASR, ITTL "Libertarians" Marxist LeftComs that believe in a decentralized state and more social freedom, but a stronger military to combat the reactionaries.
Social Ecology Union: Radical Left in the UASR: basically Green Anarchists.
Bulldoggus
Banned
@Deleon's Crew So, basically
Dem-Rep- Ron Paul, but social democrat.
Com-Lab- (my boy) Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but communist
D-F-L- Hubert Humphrey, but communist
LibCom- George McGovern, but communist
SEU- Jill Stein, but REALLY communist
Dem-Rep- Ron Paul, but social democrat.
Com-Lab- (my boy) Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but communist
D-F-L- Hubert Humphrey, but communist
LibCom- George McGovern, but communist
SEU- Jill Stein, but REALLY communist
Redshank Galloglass
Banned
Sorta.
DemRep- yes. That's been confirmed as canon.
ComLabor- maybe. I think a more fitting CLP candidate would be Mad Dog Mattis.
D-F-L: probably a southern good old boy. Bill Clinton, maybe.
LibCom- probably an ex-military man. Jack Reed would be my guess.
SEU: spot on.
Redshank Galloglass
Banned
Stalinists in the relatively LeftCom UASR? Why would they not be unpopular?
Even during the first years of the UASR there's been a massive anti-authoritarian movement.
As for "incompetence" I don't think anybody living in TTL who know the history of the USSR will see the CLP as competent individuals.
Bulldoggus
Banned
As in the senator from Rhodie? I didn't realize he was a military man.
My original idea was McCain.
I don't know, I don't interpret this
to imply that the CLP is marginalised or unpopular. Especially not if they're "joined at the hip" with the DFLP. Several older posts along the way (how canon they remain is disputable though) imply that they've formed the government (as a minority or in coalition with the DFLP) several times.
to imply that the CLP is marginalised or unpopular. Especially not if they're "joined at the hip" with the DFLP. Several older posts along the way (how canon they remain is disputable though) imply that they've formed the government (as a minority or in coalition with the DFLP) several times.
Redshank Galloglass
Banned
Yeah, Jack Reed was in the 82nd Airborne.
Yeah, McCain sounds better than Mad Dog honestly. TBH, Mattis isn't nearly as much of a warmonger as most of the OTL Republicans, he might just be a Liberation Communist Party official with a more aggressive foreign policy.
TTL the CLP might have a lot of OTL republicans in it.
Those bastards changed Manchester's name?
I mean, granted, it's easy to get it compared to the one in England, and that's not ideal for anyone.
Now this is unforgivable!
Redshank Galloglass
Banned
I don't interpret being joined at the hip with the DFLP as being particularly popular. We don't even know if it's the DFLP vote that carries them.
I could see them being more popular in more militaristic times but I still can't see their relatively autarkic and centralized polices as being popular, especially when
1. It's been confirmed that the UASR leans towards Left-Communism for some time now, and
2. The DFLP probably takes a lot of the credit for the CLP being put in power.
How long ago was that even posted? Is that even considered canon now? Jello did say she was doing revisions, and I did hear from some the the DFLP is considered left of the CLP...
Perhaps it's best if she informs us.
Redshank Galloglass
Banned
TBH I wouldn't actually mind Jack Reed running for prez. He seems to be less of a dick than Obama, or Chuck Schumer.
The CLP is neither unpopular nor incompetent. And by and large, no party expresses in practice a 100 percent purity towards their basic doctrinal tendencies.
These are mostly the kinds of things you'll see in the next thread, post WW2, but the UASR is a fairly dynamic multiparty system with shifting alliances, and parties taking pragmatic stances that occasionally seem dissonant with core ideological commitments.
To put this in perspective, every single governing coalition until at least the year 2000 involved either Liberation or the CLP, and in nearly all cases they were the senior partner. There is an unspoken commitment to ensure that the scions of the old Workers' Party set the overton window, and on at least one occasion they have formed a grand coalition to discipline the DFLP for making alliances and policy that they felt compromised the integrity of the workers' republic.
They do have real, sincere political differences based on core commitments to Marxism, as well as more prosaic power conflicts. The CLP believes, with some justification, that Liberation's practice of free-wheeling councilism and libertinism have lead to making short-sighted policy that strengthened market and property relations. That in effect, Liberation's distrust of centralized state management, but inability to fundamentally abolish the value-form leads to a politics of worker self-exploitation. Syndicalism and councilism have in practice results in the maintenance of market relations, and thus alienation and exploitation continue under different forms.
Sometimes they're right. The state's involvement can sometimes create a more just situation. In the CLP's vision, no one gets left behind. They also are, on the other hand, forced to accept some level of bureaucratic deformation and inefficiency that comes with centralism, and a sometimes uncomfortable relationship towards state power. But they're also the Party that will, historically, abolish the death penalty for civilian crimes because sometimes only Nixon can go to China.
We're dealing with political factions in a socio-economic formation that has never existed in a mature form before, so I'm hesistant as an author and theoretician to make any one faction right. They all have their flaws. The True Democrats are consistent advocates for liberty...and a party riddled with every sort of reactionary. The DRP are right that at certain tech levels markets just work better. But they're also advancing policies that will enrich themselves and their core electorate at others' expense. The DFLP can be slaves to opinion polling on a lot of issues, and the ones that they aren't slaves to, like women's issues, minority rights, the family: they'll often be decidedly on the wrong side of history on them. The CLP's flaws have already been discussed more at length; Liberation has the same inherent problems that modern day right-libertarians have. They're simultaneously in-favor of decentralization and personal liberty...and yet are hyper-militarist and often cannot see the dissonance and perils caused by those values. The SEU are often filled with New Age Woo, and some crankery, and by present they will have fallen far from Bookchin's light, and the party in practice quickly lose touch with its radical roots and inadvertantly derail the transition towards higher stage communism.
These are mostly the kinds of things you'll see in the next thread, post WW2, but the UASR is a fairly dynamic multiparty system with shifting alliances, and parties taking pragmatic stances that occasionally seem dissonant with core ideological commitments.
To put this in perspective, every single governing coalition until at least the year 2000 involved either Liberation or the CLP, and in nearly all cases they were the senior partner. There is an unspoken commitment to ensure that the scions of the old Workers' Party set the overton window, and on at least one occasion they have formed a grand coalition to discipline the DFLP for making alliances and policy that they felt compromised the integrity of the workers' republic.
They do have real, sincere political differences based on core commitments to Marxism, as well as more prosaic power conflicts. The CLP believes, with some justification, that Liberation's practice of free-wheeling councilism and libertinism have lead to making short-sighted policy that strengthened market and property relations. That in effect, Liberation's distrust of centralized state management, but inability to fundamentally abolish the value-form leads to a politics of worker self-exploitation. Syndicalism and councilism have in practice results in the maintenance of market relations, and thus alienation and exploitation continue under different forms.
Sometimes they're right. The state's involvement can sometimes create a more just situation. In the CLP's vision, no one gets left behind. They also are, on the other hand, forced to accept some level of bureaucratic deformation and inefficiency that comes with centralism, and a sometimes uncomfortable relationship towards state power. But they're also the Party that will, historically, abolish the death penalty for civilian crimes because sometimes only Nixon can go to China.
We're dealing with political factions in a socio-economic formation that has never existed in a mature form before, so I'm hesistant as an author and theoretician to make any one faction right. They all have their flaws. The True Democrats are consistent advocates for liberty...and a party riddled with every sort of reactionary. The DRP are right that at certain tech levels markets just work better. But they're also advancing policies that will enrich themselves and their core electorate at others' expense. The DFLP can be slaves to opinion polling on a lot of issues, and the ones that they aren't slaves to, like women's issues, minority rights, the family: they'll often be decidedly on the wrong side of history on them. The CLP's flaws have already been discussed more at length; Liberation has the same inherent problems that modern day right-libertarians have. They're simultaneously in-favor of decentralization and personal liberty...and yet are hyper-militarist and often cannot see the dissonance and perils caused by those values. The SEU are often filled with New Age Woo, and some crankery, and by present they will have fallen far from Bookchin's light, and the party in practice quickly lose touch with its radical roots and inadvertantly derail the transition towards higher stage communism.