Reds fanfic

[WotanArgead]

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.

Sorry, died ask this question - what is the fate of the formation approach? What's up with such concepts as the "Asiatic mode of production"? What do with the history of philosophy?

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

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.

Interesting. I take it the CLP won't be completely tankie bonkers though.

I'm guessing Liberation will ultimately be more popular though?

It looks like I was correct in assuming that Liberation will be like OTL libertarians: advocates for decentralization and more social freedom, and at the same time hyper-militarists.

 

[Bulldoggus]

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.

It looks like I was correct in assuming that Liberation will be like OTL libertarians: advocates for decentralization and more social freedom, and at the same time hyper-militarists.

I thought right-libertarians are anti-war.

 

[WotanArgead]

I thought right-libertarians are anti-war.

As far as I remember - not all left militarized - for example, Soviet Left libertarians.

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

I thought right-libertarians are anti-war.

They claim to be, but at the same time they advocate strong military spending.

 

[Libertad]

I think this recent development about UASR political parties are more realistic than about the SEU's coming into power by 1978. There is that loose two-party system where the CLP and Liberation always alternates and yes, they are the successors of the old Communist Party. In a sense, there is still a Communist party-state but it's far loose compared to the pre-1948 model.

Is the SEU take-over still cannon or no longer? The SEU may be a senior party in government or not in launching the Green Revolution. I am assuming that Angela Davis will still become Premier?

 

[Redshank Galloglass]

I think this recent development about UASR political parties are more realistic than about the SEU's coming into power by 1978. There is that loose two-party system where the CLP and Liberation always alternates and yes, they are the successors of the old Communist Party. In a sense, there is still a Communist party-state but it's far loose compared to the pre-1948 model.

Is the SEU take-over still cannon or no longer? The SEU may be a senior party in government or not in launching the Green Revolution. I am assuming that Angela Davis will still become Premier?

I mean, I'd assume the SEU takeover is still canon but with help from Liberation.

 

[Libertad]

Then how the heck it can slide down to its New Ager post-scarcity hippie crankie UFO subculture free energy suppression anti-war libertarian communism stuff?

Well, that's Cold War stuff and we might not know yet.

 

[tuxer]

I think this recent development about UASR political parties are more realistic than about the SEU's coming into power by 1978. There is that loose two-party system where the CLP and Liberation always alternates and yes, they are the successors of the old Communist Party. In a sense, there is still a Communist party-state but it's far loose compared to the pre-1948 model.

Is the SEU take-over still cannon or no longer? The SEU may be a senior party in government or not in launching the Green Revolution. I am assuming that Angela Davis will still become Premier?

Shouldn't it be a three-party system?

I presume the DFLP would still play a major role in UASRian politics, and might come to power numerous times until the rise of the SEU.

 

[Libertad]

Nah. Jello made it clear. If the DFLP comes close to power, then the CLP and Liberation will form a grand coalition. It's sort of an inverse Italian historic compromise that never came into being OTL but came into being ITTL in an inverse way, except the state of emergency is being a party outside the successors of old Workers' Party coming to power.

The DFLP is forever a junior party if it gets to government but it's possible to see a DFLP premier but with a Central Committee full of Communists, especially in core positions related to state power like finance, planning, defense.

It's probably way different in state-level politics though. There may be a greater leeway, but the CLP and Liberation are dominant players everywhere in the Union.

 

[Alexander the Average]

Shouldn't it be a three-party system?

I presume the DFLP would still play a major role in UASRian politics, and might come to power numerous times until the rise of the SEU.

I think its described as two main parties, with the smaller parties, like the DFLP and DRP jockeying for influence between them.

 

[Miss Teri]

Then how the heck it can slide down to its New Ager post-scarcity hippie crankie UFO subculture free energy suppression anti-war libertarian communism stuff?

Well, that's Cold War stuff and we might not know yet.

Okay, she didn't say that. This statement:

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.

could just mean it just has a section with followers of that. Since it's a coalition of various libertarian, anarchist, environmentalist groups, that section probably isn't representative of the entire party.

 

[Libertad]

Okay, she didn't say that. This statement:

could just mean it just has a section with followers of that. Since it's a coalition of various libertarian, anarchist, environmentalist groups, that section probably isn't representative of the entire party.

Nah. I think we need a political party where some crankery can be represented outside the two major parties. And I am telling you. Those that I've mentioned regarding free energy, UFOs, Wifi radiation, suppression believers above are relatively tame compared to the Illuminati New World Order Satanist bullshit. The SEU fits. Those cranks can be a faction of the party. I assume that it's the "some crankery" that Jello mentioned, not to mention the New Age of Aquarius stuff. Those coalitions you've mentioned can easily be inside Liberation or even CLP since I am assuming that the Green Revolution made all of the major national parties go Green.

I am assuming that the CLP and Liberation managed to embrace most of the Second Cultural Revolution and integrate the demands of the protest movements to their platforms by 1980.

Jello also stated that the boundaries of anarchism, libertarian socialism and Marxism ITTL have blurred considerably. It's obvious to see that the two major parties are libertarian Marxist parties by standards of our world, with anarchist factions inside them, even the neoconservatives that only made them like that because of the stronger Marxist-Leninist embrace, especially of the Trotskyite variety. It's hard to imagine though, even Jello gave up thinking of the factions for now.

I love a Green party, but given the situation that Jello presented, I don't think the SEU can stay big-time if we have those two-big tent communist parties with a subtle backing of a state security apparatus that will infiltrate protest groups, probably even of the far-left even if they are not proscribed by the courts. That's going to be unacknowledged though. That's my assumption.

 

[Miss Teri]

Nah. I think we need a political party where some crankery can be represented outside the two major parties. And I am telling you. Those that I've mentioned regarding free energy, UFOs, Wifi radiation, suppression believers above are relatively tame compared to the Illuminati New World Order Satanist bullshit. The SEU fits. Those cranks can be a faction of the party. I assume that it's the "some crankery" that Jello mentioned, not to mention the New Age of Aquarius stuff. Those coalitions you've mentioned can easily be inside Liberation or even CLP since I am assuming that the Green Revolution made all of the major national parties go Green.

I am assuming that the CLP and Liberation managed to embrace most of the Second Cultural Revolution and integrate the demands of the protest movements to their platforms by 1980.

Jello also stated that the boundaries of anarchism, libertarian socialism and Marxism ITTL have blurred considerably. It's obvious to see that the two major parties are libertarian Marxist parties by standards of our world, with anarchist factions inside them, even the neoconservatives that only made them like that because of the stronger Marxist-Leninist embrace, especially of the Trotskyite variety. It's hard to imagine though, even Jello gave up thinking of the factions for now.

I love a Green party, but given the situation that Jello presented, I don't think the SEU can stay big-time if we have those two-big tent communist parties with a subtle backing of a state security apparatus that will infiltrate protest groups, probably even of the far-left even if they are not proscribed by the courts. That's going to be unacknowledged though. That's my assumption.

Here's what she said about the parties:

Things have evolved a bit.

From left to right, the modern American political groups:
Social Ecology Union (founded ~1970s, broad tent for greens, libertarian marxists and social anarchists)
Liberation (In Reds 1.0, they were the Socialists. Retconned to Communist Unity Party. Final version, they're Liberation. Post WPA splinter, founded as Liberation Communist Party. They're Left Communist world revolutionists with a strong libertine streak)
Communist Labor (Reds 1.0, they were the Progressive Labor Party. Post WPA splinter, they're "pure and simple" Marxists, more statist and centrist on social issues.)
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (Reds 101, the Left Democrats. They're often joined at the hip with the CLP. Less pure Marxism, more Christian socialism, left-wing nationalism, and localism)
Democratic-Republican Party (Name has stayed the same, but back story has evolved. They're a catchall for the progressive bourgeois, and they approach socialism from a Georgist, mutualist perspective. Markets and limited property relations.)
True Democrats: (The designated traitor party. The drain trap that catches everything that won't accomodate to the revolution, the mirror image of Western communist parties IOTL)

Other groups like the ANC, Jewish Labor Bund, American Indian Movement, etc., are factions/think tanks/civic organizations that operated within the Workers Party. Some, like the ANC in particular, become part of the nucleus that forms the SEU.

While the CLP and LCP are senior partners in each governing coalition, that doesn't necessarily mean that other parties won't have influence. It just simply means that they won't have carte blanche to fully pursue their agenda, and have to compromise. It also doesn't make them the major parties, they just happen to be two powerful parties, but the other parties still have some degree of influence.
I don't disagree with you on the SEU attracting New Age crankery, though. Just that it would probably be one of many factions that don't accept such lunacy.

 

[WotanArgead]

.....

I found some ideas on the formation approach - I think you can apply them to the American politics and the international socialist movement. In fact I found a position of this issue can be divided into several stages:
Genesis 1 - Win the left in the elections in the United States.
2 Reaction - A military coup MacArthur, the Second Civil War.
3 Revolyutsiya- end of the Civil War. The first socialist government.
4. Securing - World War II. Sinclarism.
5. Restoration - I expect the victory of the Left Democrats in the elections and the deterioration of relations with the USSR.
6. Early stage - victory of the Socialists in the elections, second Cultural Revolution. In the Soviet Union to be a thaw and the first steps into space, it is expected to improve relations.
7. Securing - No idea. Probably since the "Irish crisis".
8. New Restoration - Probably the Nixon presidency.
9. Fracture - "Green Revolution." Most likely, this phase continues today.

 

[Libertad]

Here's what she said about the parties:


While the CLP and LCP are senior partners in each governing coalition, that doesn't necessarily mean that other parties won't have influence. It just simply means that they won't have carte blanche to fully pursue their agenda, and have to compromise. It also doesn't make them the major parties, they just happen to be two powerful parties, but the other parties still have some degree of influence.
I don't disagree with you on the SEU attracting New Age crankery, though. Just that it would probably be one of many factions that don't accept such lunacy.

Yes I think the CLP and LCP are really powerful major parties. But yes, it doesn't mean that those parties can fully pursue their agenda and have to compromise with the lesser major parties. After all, both parties seems to want to eliminate the market socialist economy but cannot do it because defenders of the more bourgeois institutions remain in the political sphere. The DFLP will not tolerate it and it's noted that the CLP and the DFLP seems to be together most of the time. Not to mention that the decentralization of the LCP opened the space for the market to continue to exist. I think World War II strengthened the anti-market credentials of the two parties because the wartime economy definitely almost eliminated market activity. But it's a mythological nostalgia to the great anti-fascist crusade though it's true, you cannot just eliminate the market so easily.

In anyway, the presence of those two parties kept the UASR in a variation of a Communist party-state. It's already unique before 1948 but it's made more unique by this two party-system of sorts.

Anyway, I think the latest post made an evolution from that post you've mentioned. The SEU may nominally be a broad-tent group of those elements but I expect the SEU to have the most radical of those elements, with the crankery to make things worse.

As I said, the two Communist parties seems to be libertarian Marxist parties by our standards anyway, except with the CLP having a dose of Trotskyism in practice. And I assume that they will be Green parties in practice as well, with the Green Revolution, but they will have the more moderate Greens.

 

[WotanArgead]

The Romanian People's Republic after the fall of Ceausescu. If you want I can make Albania, Yugoslavia, and Mongolia. Much to ask - do not ignore what I eat after the descriptions of the parties, it can be very important.

Romanian Front (Frontul românesc)
Founded: 1983
Ideology: Social conservatism, populism, Stalinism.
Political position: far-right (RPR), center-left (International)
International Affiliation: The isolationists.
Official Color: Red, Yellow, Blue (Romanian national colours)
Youth Wing: Romanian Young Guard (Română Cuplu Garda)
Party Newspaper: România Mare

Capital Punishment: supports using death penalty against rapists, pedophiles, human traffickers and counterrevolutionaries
Civil Defense: supports increased regional autonomy regarding civil defense programs
Cultural Stance: universally opposed to the values of the Cultural Leap as "hedonistic" and "antinational". The Soviet Values also supports granting a greater status to the Ortodox Churches and supports criminalization of homosexuality, opposes abortion and contraceptives
Defense: Centralized conscript army.
Drug Policy: universally opposed to any softening regarding drugs
Economy: Centralized state planning.
Education: supports increased local control over educational policy, in order to remove "satanic" and "counterrevolutionary" values
Environment: the Front considers efforts to limits climate change and ecological devastation to be harmful to the communities' economic well-being
Foreign Aid: supports using foreign aid to build strong alliances that benefit the people of the RPR
Foreign Alliances: supports strenghtening relationships with the UASR and the People's Republic of China
Health Policy: supports a fully state-controlled healthcare system
Immigration: middle-of-the road, leaning towards tight border control
Social Welfare: supports welfare at state level, controlled by the regional governments.
Taxation: balanced budget
Trade: State control of foreign trade.

National Liberal Party
Founded:1979
Ideology: liberal socialism
Political position: left-wing (RPR), (international)
International Affiliation: International Democrat Union
Official Color: Yellow and Blue
Youth Wing: National Liberal Youth (Tineretul Național Liberal)
Party Newspaper: România liberă

Political stances

Capital Punishment: Universally opposed
Civil Defense: the party supports a state-sponsored military training program for youth similar to the Civil Defense Initiative in the UASR.
Cultural Stance: strong support for the Cultural Leap movement, and strenghtening of civil liberties
Defense: Supports a multilateral international nuclear disarmament program
Drug Policy: middle-of-the road, supporting decriminalization of soft drugs
Economy: supports a mixed economy with independent workers' councils handling most economic affairs except essencial goods like heavy industry
Education: supports a state-sponsored educational program to preserve standarts, and opposes parochial schools
Environment: the Liberals have pushed for strong government regulations regarding enviroment degradation, but it's mostly a back-burner issue
Foreign Aid: the Liberals supports using foreign aid in order to foster democratic values in developing socialist states
Foreign Alliances: support of increased cooperation with the People's Republic of China to form a cordon sanitaire against the FBU-aligned India
Health Policy: support a government-sponsored free healthcare system
Immigration: the Liberals have favored highly permissive immigration policy, including offering asylum to anyone from war torn or oppressive regimes.
Social Welfare: supports transfering social programs from the central government to the provincional governments
Taxation: the Kadets are opposed to income taxes on individuals, and support progressive production taxation on workers' councils
Trade: supports an autarkic economic policy

Party Socialist Alliance (Partidul Alianța Socialistă)
Founded: 1979
Ideology: Council communism, International Socialism.
Political position: left (PRP), Far-left (International)
International Affiliation: Communist International
Official Color: Red, White.
Youth Wing: Romanian Socialist Youth (Tineretul Socialiste român)
Party Newspaper: Zori roșu

Political stances

Capital Punishment: the Socialists continues to support using the death penalty against counterrevolutionary crimes and opposes efforts of provincial governments to abolish it
Civil Defense: supports a strong, state-sponsored military training program for minors
Cultural Stance: strongly supports the Cultural Leap's values
Defense: supports that each state-member keep a standing army and its plataform supports preversing the Soviet Union's military strenght
Drug Policy: supports decriminalization of soft drugs, combined with programs to combat addiction
Economy: universally opposes any government role in the economy, which is to be run by workers' councils
Education: increased support for regional control of schools and universities
Environment: mostly a back-burner issue for the SA.
Foreign Aid: supports using foreign aid to built strong alliances that benefit the people of the Soviet Union
Foreign Alliances: supports tighter military relations with China and the UASR
Health Policy: supports a workers' councils-run health system
Immigration: generally favoring open borders
Social Welfare: the architects of the modern welfare state, from child support subsidies, universal healthcare and public ownership of housing programs
Taxation: supports replacing taxes with production quotas, with substancial material to be requisitioned by the state to sustain the military
Trade: The SA is regarded as the party of free trade, although it favors communist states over capitalist ones

Social-Syndicalist Party (Partidul sindicaliste sociale)
Founded:1976
Ideology: libertarian socialism, syndicalism
Political position: left (PRP), far-left (international)
International Affiliation: Communist International
Official Color: Black, green.
Youth Wing: Left Front of Youth (Stânga Frontul Tineretului)
Party Newspaper: libertatea de voce

Capital Punishment: universally opposed
Civil Defense: the Syndicalists consider civil defense programs as overtly militaristic and barbaric
Cultural Stance: strong supporter of the Cultural Leap's values, the Syndicalists is the hotbed of feminist, queer and racial and religious minorities' identity politics
Defense: universally opposed to state-controlled military, the SSP believe in a militia-based defense
Drug Policy: total decriminalization of all drugs, combined with civilian-run programs to combat addiction
Economy: universally opposed to any government role in the economy, which is to be run by workers' councils
Education: support for increased regional control of education
Environment: the Syndicalists support the creation of a workers' council-run committee to develop public policy in order to combat enviromental degradation
Foreign Aid: the SSP often support cutting foreign aid in order to trim the government budget
Foreign Alliances: support greater autonomy for the state-members regarding international affairs
Health Policy: support a council workers'-run (private) universal healthcare system
Immigration: generally restrictive immigration policy
Social Welfare: the party supports public programs in order to combat homelessness and hunger at home
Taxation: universally opposed
Trade: supports greater autonomy in regional trading praticses

PS - I still want to discuss ITL version of Siberia (especially the second part, because the action takes place in this very Siberia). Generally, you can see all the games anyway connected with Russia, as an image of the American consciousness to change.
Here, anyone familiar with role-playing games in addition to the Fallout and Japanese RPGs (I am not familiar them)?

 

[Miss Teri]

Yes I think the CLP and LCP are really powerful major parties. But yes, it doesn't mean that those parties can fully pursue their agenda and have to compromise with the lesser major parties. After all, both parties seems to want to eliminate the market socialist economy but cannot do it because defenders of the more bourgeois institutions remain in the political sphere. The DFLP will not tolerate it and it's noted that the CLP and the DFLP seems to be together most of the time. Not to mention that the decentralization of the LCP opened the space for the market to continue to exist. I think World War II strengthened the anti-market credentials of the two parties because the wartime economy definitely almost eliminated market activity. But it's a mythological nostalgia to the great anti-fascist crusade though it's true, you cannot just eliminate the market so easily.

In anyway, the presence of those two parties kept the UASR in a variation of a Communist party-state. It's already unique before 1948 but it's made more unique by this two party-system of sorts.

Anyway, I think the latest post made an evolution from that post you've mentioned. The SEU may nominally be a broad-tent group of those elements but I expect the SEU to have the most radical of those elements, with the crankery to make things worse.

As I said, the two Communist parties seems to be libertarian Marxist parties by our standards anyway, except with the CLP having a dose of Trotskyism in practice. And I assume that they will be Green parties in practice as well, with the Green Revolution, but they will have the more moderate Greens.

I think you and I really diverge on what we came away with on what Jello said. What I summarized from that was "There are multiple parties, two of which are more powerful by virtue of being the successors of the original Worker's Party, which founded the UASR, whose pure agendas have been diluted due to years of realpolitik and coalition. There are still fringes in many cases (like the SEU), but those are just the fringes, and more moderate elements tend to prevail." What I'm getting from your interpretation is "There are two main parties, which consist the bulk of Congressional alliances (i.e. Libertarian, Marxists, anarchists), and the remaining parties, like the SEU and the DFLP, are minor radical parties." If I'm wrong, just tell me, but that's what I'm getting from your writing.

EDIT: Oh dear god, this is becoming quasi-religious, isn't it?

 

[Libertad]

Hahaha, interpreting Jello's verses and such and she's the God of this timeline? Yeah. Kinda. We are getting quasi-religious or legalist, something like those.

You are actually wrong in assuming what I mean. In fact, I agree with your interpretation. That's what I mean as well.

Let's take your interpretation and put my added explanations.

"There are multiple parties"

Yes. I assume you mean that the UASR is a multiparty system. Of course I agree with you. You got confused when I mentioned the Communist party-state because you assume that I mean it in a strict sense separate from a technical definition of a multiparty system. Wrong. You are mistaken.

But ok, let's agree on this.

"two of which are more powerful by virtue of being the successors of the original Worker's Party, which founded the UASR, whose pure agendas have been diluted due to years of realpolitik and coalition."

This is where I put what I mean when I said that there's a variation of a Communist party-state, except that we are talking of two Communist parties as senior parties in government alternating power since 1948. It's not a single Communist party-state, but it's a dual Communist party-state. There are two parties, not a single one.

But it's a Communist party-state.

"There are still fringes in many cases (like the SEU), but those are just the fringes, and more moderate elements tend to prevail."

Sure, that's why we have the center-left LCP and the center-right CLP. I cannot disagree with you on this.

Now let's head to your interpretation of my statement.

"There are two main parties...."

I think this is where the problem starts. You mean the difference of "multiple parties" and "two main parties" as in that there are multiple major parties for your case because they are well-organized with national constituencies and seats in legislatures but I am saying that there are only two major parties in my case, the LCP and CLP.

Are you American? I think this is where the political backgrounds of our respective countries enter. You live in a country with a two-party dictatorship and the definition of becoming a major party for a third party will mean gaining some representation in the U.S. Congress isn't it?

I don't subscribe to the definition. I live in a country with multiple political parties but I mean the word "major" and "minor" not in presence or absence of representation in national legislature but the degree of the size of their always present representation.

I meant the word "two major parties" in a sense that the CLP and LCP always have the largest bulk of seats in Congress and has the disproportionate advantage in their number of seats. Other parties have their own multiple numbers of seats, but what makes them not major but also not minor is that they are far lower in number compared to the two big ones.

"which consist the bulk of Congressional alliances (i.e. Libertarian, Marxists, anarchists), and the remaining parties, like the SEU and the DFLP, are minor radical parties."

You are right in this one. You have a separate distinction for those three categories: Libertarian, Marxist, anarchist...but I don't. Their boundaries have blurred ITTL. Congressional alliances in a sense of coalitions between CLP and DFLP and then Liberation with the cross-benchers from the moderate wing of the SEU, DRP through its mutualist component and the ALL. I think that's the default division.

This is where the moderate elements tend to prevail statement of yours enter. I did not deny the power of the lesser parties, but I am not making them major parties because my definition of "major" differ from yours.

 

[Miss Teri]

Are you American? I think this is where the political backgrounds of our respective countries enter. You live in a country with a two-party dictatorship and the definition of becoming a major party for a third party will mean gaining some representation in the U.S. Congress isn't it?

I don't subscribe to the definition. I live in a country with multiple political parties but I mean the word "major" and "minor" not in presence or absence of representation in national legislature but the degree of the size of their always present representation.

Okay, yeah, maybe that's where the problem was. You're right, we basically agree on the main points, it was probably the terminology that was throwing me off.

Yes, I am an American, and yes, I suppose when you said "major parties", I was thinking you meant like the Democratic and Republican Parties OTL, when you simply meant they had the most pull in Congress, which is what I was also thinking.

Yeah, so we basically agree. It was just a terminology issue.