At least it would be a less blatantly dystopian technocracy than usual (which basically amounts to census suffrage based on academic qualifications, or no form of suffrage at all because everything is decided by committees of self-appointed "experts").
What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
Yes, exploring certain non-liberal modes of govt as “other” or at least less worse than fascism/Stalinism/Islamism, with at least interesting to visit - and sharing some elements with liberal democracies and enlightenment thought
Last edited:
I also feel like the only types of states allowed to be successful after 1900 are British/American style democracies that embrace neoliberal free market capitalism. People seem determined to make any other political or economic system fail, while ignoring the huge failings of our current systems.
You forgot the part where if the alternative systems fail it's because all the Anglo-American style nations decide that they are going to screw them in every way possible and brutally embargo - sorry, I mean "impose sanctions" - in the hope that it will cause a revolution in the name of saving the wounded economy.
Despite which history will try to convince us that if they fell it was exclusively because of their own stupidity and incompetence, not because they were harassed to the point of exhaustion.
__________________
Remembering another trope, a common one is that the representation of the country, even if it does the same thing, varies greatly depending on the point of view.
To use Germany as an example: if they are the antagonist, they are Nazis in Imperial uniform. But if they are the protagonist... they are Nazis with a good PR team, in the sense that the story will try to portray all their atrocities as something good and positive that couldn't be more justified.
That's stupid. Nazis are Nazis and evil, no matter what. If you want Germany as a protagonist use a Weimar Germany. Or have them behave like they did in WW1, where they did bad things, but the Entente did the exact same stuff in Greece in 1917-1918 and Alsace Lorraine and East Prussia in 1914-1915. WW1 was a mixed record for everyone in terms of atrocities.
Well, to be fair, here I was using Germany and the Nazis as an example. But the trope is more general.
Maybe I should have used another description that I saw in another thread that reflects what I meant with this trope. Paraphrasing;
"When THEY (the designated antagonist country) commit some atrocity, it is irrefutable proof of how evil they are and how imperative it is to destroy them ASAP.
When WE (The protagonist country of the TL) commit an equal or even worse atrocity, we clearly had a very good reason and were in fact compassionate for not being even more evil."
Also because they dont take into account "material conditions" and economics because why would the citizens support a system that doesnt make them more wealthy(or in charge of "the means of production" in its socialist variety) because of course nothing matters to people except their bank accounts
I've seen that being used particularly with the likes of Look to the West, though having not read that series yet I cant tell wheter they actually deserve that criticism
Of course, because as everyone knows, people will start mass rebellions and try to overthrow the government as soon as it seems to come between them and hypothetical financial gains. It doesn't matter that the cost-benefit ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the system as it is: people will still rebel, or tolerate and support any atrocity, on the grounds that they could hypothetically earn two dollars or less by doing so.
I agree in your comment on Look to the West
Planet of Hats
Donor
The Bantu always migrate.
I'd love to see a TL where the Bantu stay put and we get Nilotic or Cushitic migrations across most of central and southern Africa instead. Spread that Ethiopian crop package around. Teff bread, coffee and ensete for all.
I'd love to see a TL where the Bantu stay put and we get Nilotic or Cushitic migrations across most of central and southern Africa instead. Spread that Ethiopian crop package around. Teff bread, coffee and ensete for all.
Not focused on that but in my timeline(Empress of Egypt) the Bantu expansion was butterflied away and instead the continent is divided among non-bantu great powers with Imperial Egypt and Aramaic playing the role that the islamic expansions and Arabic played IOTL culturally
A better future/better life is a great incentive for loyalty. A completely stagnant country tends to have a population that is more apathetic to government problems (such as a third power putting pressure on that government). Or even supporting an invasion. Now this all depends on a wide variety of conditions.
Another thing that always happens is that socialist countries must all turn out like the USSR and must always fail. A Red United States would not take the same path as the USSR, due to a very different history, culture, and cirsumstances, as well as being the most industrialized country in the world rather than a semi-feudal backwater. A Red Germany would look different from either of them. Socialist nations don't have to fail, and don't have to be a copy of the USSR.
I've seen a variation of that where Socialism always fails unless it's a Socialist America(like in Reds!) or Britain(Kaiserreich Edition)
I feel like socialism in the US or Germany could be fairly successful. Heck, it could even succeed in Russia imo. I'm not a socialist, but I feel like it could go fairly well. Of course, it could also go terribly.
And furthermore, in many cases these "Communist States of America" are exactly the same as their predecessor (that is, an aggressive, war-mongering, imperialist if not fascist regime, and of course built around racism and white supremacy) but with a layer of vaguely leftist rhetoric to make it seem like it's something totally different.
Plus of course they somehow cause a "red wave" in which right-wing dictatorial regimes aligned with the United States are replaced by left-wing dictatorial regimes aligned with Communist States... and the rest of the world will practically beg to trade with them because reasons.
Because Patton "Blood and Guts" is considered an hero, while Mac is considered "that idiot who lost the Philippines with his mistakes and almost turned the Korean War into a nuclear war."
"We fought the wrong enemy" Patton yeah
Though to be fair me and Mitry made a joke scenario once where MacArthur saved the US from a Fascist take over