Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:13 PM
willbell willbell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Timeline 001
Posts: 1000 or more
Entirely Original Alternate Ideologies?

I am thinking about this because of the fact that I am thinking about the present in my timeline that happens to have a PoD in antiquity.
I am thinking not something specialized like 'Neo-Stalinism' or a popular version of 'Anarcho-Syndicalism'. I am thinking at the scale of liberalism, libertarianism, communism, or capitalism, a tall bill, but I could use any ideas anyone might have.
__________________
Roma delenda est

Team Carthage!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:14 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Centauri Commonwealth
Posts: 1000 or more
I am trying, believe me. My efforts with Rationalism are only going so well though, and have a while yet until they mature to something unique.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:22 PM
Thande Thande is offline
Professor Archibald Addlewood
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: An AndyC Timeline (formerly OTL)
Posts: 1000 or more
I don't think there can be such a thing, because I think OTL has pretty much explored the phase state of possible ideological concepts; the only question is which ones became pseudoreligions that set the world alight (communism, fascism, etc) and which ones failed to inspire and lay mouldering on a shelf or in an irrelevant group of 300 nutters (syndicalism, social credit, etc.)

I hope that doesn't make me sound like that guy in 1900 who said that everything that can be invented has been invented.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:31 PM
Prime Minister Prime Minister is offline
I'm not Harper
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Abbotsford, British Columbia Canada
Posts: 756
Send a message via MSN to Prime Minister Send a message via Skype™ to Prime Minister
I more or less agree with Thade on this. I'm having the same issue with one of my TLs and no matter how much research or thought I put into it the only conclusion I can come too is tweaking some ideologies and/or renaming them. I think we've pretty much thought of them all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by My Friend Kassandra
chocolate is the currency of friendship
Maple Leaf Forever - A Canada TL

A World of Heroes - A Meta-Human TL
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:36 PM
Zuvarq Zuvarq is offline
Pinche pendejo gŁey
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
The only totally alternate ideologies you could make would be either super-specialized, or really radical/irrational and cause a state to collapse within two years if in power and would have a very hard time getting into power.

National Assimilationism: Marriage between two members of a single ethnic group is prohibited, unless they are both of the majority/plurality group. State atheism is espoused, and religious syncretism is encourages as an alternative, but the state religion is whatever religion is the majority/plurality. Borders are completely open but all new arrivals are second-class citizens. Slavery is legal but not passed down generation to generation. The nation is ruled by a council, two Presidents, and a supreme court. The two Presidents must be of opposing views and of different heritages. Any party in the council may only have a plurality, not a majority. The Supreme Court has several justices and victims may not be judged by a justice of their own ethnic group. Monolingualism is illegal.

Techno-Professionalism: Pre-21st century: Rule by scientists, economists, etc., in a council split into several departments. Basically technocracy. Post-21st century: Ruled by the council of professionals, with the executive leader being an artificial intelligence.

Neo-Feudalism: Whenever a political disagreement arises, create a new political subdivision for each group involved. The whole nation is ruled by an elected monarch, with a council composed of all the leaders of the top-level subdivisions of the country.
__________________
Collaborative Earthlike World (thread - wiki)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:39 PM
willbell willbell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Timeline 001
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thande View Post
I hope that doesn't make me sound like that guy in 1900 who said that everything that can be invented has been invented.
I don't explore the post-1900 that often so I wouldn't know.
I think you might be right, the only idea I have came up with is that national religion in Greece does not believe that the Greek race (although expanded a bit over time) are of the same species as 'barbaros'. Which is similar to the victorian era racial attitudes of England to Africans, Orientals, and Amerindians.
I really should research OTL ideologies (especially ones that didn't become popular).
__________________
Roma delenda est

Team Carthage!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:49 PM
Errnge Errnge is offline
You don't throw ranch
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1000 or more
The tricky thing about most ideologies is that most people don't know they have them. It's hard to break someone of a world view and to explain to them that it isn't simply the natural way things are (cough cough capitalism cough cough)

The human psychi is an infinite space, and I'm sure there are other ideologies out there to be evolved or created, but they all need a foundation on something earlier. I'd suggest looking at the dominant ideologies of the time period around your POD (stoicism, platonic thought, sophism) and try building things off of those
__________________
The Weighted Scales: A World of an Aborted Rome

Apparently it's the best Ancient TL of 2011. Oh Baby!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 5th, 2012, 10:56 PM
MarshalBraginsky MarshalBraginsky is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1000 or more
These ideologies are from one of my TLs that I am working on right now:

1) Pestelism/Radical Republicanism: An ideology that is centered on creating a republican state through the gradual de-autocratization of the empire which will adopt this ideology. It is named after Pavel Pestel, the Decembrist revolutionary who favored a fully fledged republican state in Russia.

2) Muravievism: Similar to Pestelism, but favors the process from de-autocratization to a constitutional monarchy. Similar to constitutional monarchies of any enlightened empire but also in favor of incorporating existing territories within the Russian Empire.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old October 6th, 2012, 12:01 AM
Municipal Engines Municipal Engines is offline
Anglo-Celtic Franklin
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Interdimensional Drifter
Posts: 1000 or more
Regulated/Controlled Democracy (Democratic Dictatorship):

Inspired by the classical Roman idea of a Dictator, the state is a functioning democracy with a difference. An entirely separate body of shadow government drawn from qualified individuals who have passed certain psychological tests. These individuals would be, ideally, capable of stepping in and running the country in a largely ethical way, though completely unbeholden to the people, without desires to make their rule permanent. This separate body would decide to take the reigns (read: oust) from the democratic government if the country is "in crisis". It is mostly about keeping the country strong. A crisis would be if its economy is failing or weakening; the democratic process is keeping the government from functioning smoothly, well or at all; if the country's power and influence is diminishing to an "unacceptable" level. The body is essentially a meritocratic oligarchy run by (ideally) intelligent, capable people and headed by a semi-autocrat who holds more voting power in the council than his fellow oligarchs.

To keep the council from taking control whenever it likes, independent boards and commissions are in place to assess whether their reasons are just, if there truly is a crisis, if there is one but it is only temporary, or if the council members are even qualified enough. These boards are also regulated and hard to get into, with an utterly neutral and analytical mindset required to judge whether to switch over from democracy to oligarchy/autocracy without bias.

The council is given special emergency powers to enact once they rise to power in order to streamline the shift for them and enable them to make legislation without interference. There is a final check of a maximum of 20 years (or less or more, depending on the country) that the council can hold power before the country must change back to democracy. The army swears allegiance to the council (as they are the absolute representative of the state, while the democratic government is the representative of the people - the council and the state are one), but they are obligated to overthrow them if they do not reinstate democracy by the legal end of their rule.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old October 10th, 2012, 11:28 AM
Max Sinister Max Sinister is offline
Retired Myriad Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Chaos TL
Posts: 1000 or more
Still wondering about Technocracy.
__________________
Finished: Chaos TL - Genghis Khan dies in 1200
Timeline, Scenario, Stories!
Hitler's Med Strategy
Jaredia: A tilted Earth (NOW: 4000 BCE)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old October 10th, 2012, 03:03 PM
mikegold mikegold is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 879
What about some kind of Radical Feminism?

Here's my thinking. The great totalitarian ideologies of the 20th Century -Communism, Fascism, and Theocracy (which, obviously, is older), are all based on the natural superiority of an inherent human identifier. I.e.:

Communism extols the superiority of a class (working class, later peasants). In this sense it is the radical form of Socialism, which seeks a fair deal but not necessarily the violent dominance of the lower classes.

Fascism extols the superiority of a race, ethnicity, or nationality. In this sense it is the violent-radical form of Nationalism (and its liberal cousin, patriotism).

Theocracy extols the superiority of a religion. In this sense it is the radical form of a state religion.

Now, in terms of practical government, all three ideologies gravitate toward the rule of ideological leaders - party heads in Communism, Fascism, and some forms of Theocracy (i.e. Salafis).

Well, other than class, race/nationality, and religion, what is one identifier that almost all people have? Gender. And males are less likely to wish to violently seize power from women, due to the existing power structures in most society.

So, some sort of radical-violent feminism that promotes the superiority and natural dominance of women and the inferiority of men. Like Communism, it theoretically has a natural constituency of have-nots in all nations, though as with communism it will have more success in some populations than others.

If it starts early enough, and particularly if it becomes dominant in a major power, we could see women taking the lead in most anti-colonial movements and the governments of new nations, whether they fully partake of the radical ideology or not. (Just as many anti-colonial groups OTL had a leftist tinge, partly due to the example and patronage of the USSR).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old October 10th, 2012, 04:08 PM
TheKnightIrish TheKnightIrish is offline
President of A Glorious Union
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Middlesex (thats in England you ruddy colonials!)
Posts: 1000 or more
Kearnyism (an idea I am toying with for one of my TLs) - after the civil war there is a waive of thought that values the contribution of veterans more than others. Only those who have fought and sacrificed for their country ought to be worthy of public office as only they know the value of freedom and the cost of war. Draft dodgers and lawyers/attorneys need not apply. It is still a democratic movement which, without irony, believes some vote (and voters) are more valuable than others (i.e. veterans).

This movement, if it persists over time, will led to a gradual militarisation of society's public life. I haven't decided whether this will be benign or not. It will lead to the equivalent of more President Washingtons, Taylors, Grants, Eisenhowers and even Roosevelts (Lt-Colonel of the Roughriders) and fewer draft dodgers and lawyers like Cleveland (paid for a substitute in the civil war) and Clinton.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old October 10th, 2012, 04:14 PM
BELFAST BELFAST is offline
Irish Confederate
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1000 or more
society run marketing and focus groups.
all rules of society based on the result form Market surveys and focus groups.

oops or is that what we already have.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old October 10th, 2012, 04:24 PM
Luath Luath is online now
I like Trains
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CF 105 III cockpit
Posts: 557
I've been having an idea to develop an ideology around..............................Postmen.

All right its not that funny. I don't just mean ideology that Postmen subscribe to I mean genuinely based on what ever values Postmen aspire to.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old October 10th, 2012, 04:25 PM
Thande Thande is offline
Professor Archibald Addlewood
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: An AndyC Timeline (formerly OTL)
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luath View Post
I've been having an idea to develop and ideology around..............................Postmen.

All right its not that funny. I don't just mean ideology that Postmen subscribe to I mean genuinely based on what ever values Postmen aspire to.
Neither rain nor snow nor gloom of night?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old October 10th, 2012, 04:29 PM
Luath Luath is online now
I like Trains
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CF 105 III cockpit
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Municipal Engines View Post
Regulated/Controlled Democracy (Democratic Dictatorship):

Inspired by the classical Roman idea of a Dictator, the state is a functioning democracy with a difference. An entirely separate body of shadow government drawn from qualified individuals who have passed certain psychological tests. These individuals would be, ideally, capable of stepping in and running the country in a largely ethical way, though completely unbeholden to the people, without desires to make their rule permanent. This separate body would decide to take the reigns (read: oust) from the democratic government if the country is "in crisis". It is mostly about keeping the country strong. A crisis would be if its economy is failing or weakening; the democratic process is keeping the government from functioning smoothly, well or at all; if the country's power and influence is diminishing to an "unacceptable" level. The body is essentially a meritocratic oligarchy run by (ideally) intelligent, capable people and headed by a semi-autocrat who holds more voting power in the council than his fellow oligarchs.

To keep the council from taking control whenever it likes, independent boards and commissions are in place to assess whether their reasons are just, if there truly is a crisis, if there is one but it is only temporary, or if the council members are even qualified enough. These boards are also regulated and hard to get into, with an utterly neutral and analytical mindset required to judge whether to switch over from democracy to oligarchy/autocracy without bias.

The council is given special emergency powers to enact once they rise to power in order to streamline the shift for them and enable them to make legislation without interference. There is a final check of a maximum of 20 years (or less or more, depending on the country) that the council can hold power before the country must change back to democracy. The army swears allegiance to the council (as they are the absolute representative of the state, while the democratic government is the representative of the people - the council and the state are one), but they are obligated to overthrow them if they do not reinstate democracy by the legal end of their rule.
M.E I would pay to read that TL
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old October 10th, 2012, 10:27 PM
Socrates Socrates is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1000 or more
What about an ideology that praised the middle class as the most important class, rather than the aristocracy or the proletariat, due to it being the guarantor of democracy?

Another idea is a belief in a government system based on that of the presbyterian church, where you have a pyramid of an electoral system, with each group electing the people just above them, and them electing the people above them in turn etc.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old October 10th, 2012, 11:08 PM
willbell willbell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Timeline 001
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates View Post
What about an ideology that praised the middle class as the most important class, rather than the aristocracy or the proletariat, due to it being the guarantor of democracy?

Another idea is a belief in a government system based on that of the presbyterian church, where you have a pyramid of an electoral system, with each group electing the people just above them, and them electing the people above them in turn etc.
I like both of these ideas.
__________________
Roma delenda est

Team Carthage!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old October 11th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Falastur Falastur is offline
Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hitchin, Herts
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thande View Post
I don't think there can be such a thing, because I think OTL has pretty much explored the phase state of possible ideological concepts; the only question is which ones became pseudoreligions that set the world alight (communism, fascism, etc) and which ones failed to inspire and lay mouldering on a shelf or in an irrelevant group of 300 nutters (syndicalism, social credit, etc.)

I hope that doesn't make me sound like that guy in 1900 who said that everything that can be invented has been invented.
I have to disagree with you there, Thande. I think that there are massive Swiss cheese holes in the areas that humanity - even including all the way back to pre-ancient times - hasn't explored, it's simply hard for us to think of them because of the twin factors that philosophies tend to be a reaction to circumstances (and so it's hard to think up new philosophies that have absolutely nothing to do with the world as it is now, or has been in the past), and also that we are somewhat preconditioned from childhood to look at all philosophies from the perspective of that which we know - i.e. we examine them on the sliding scales of political and economic freedoms and assume that they can be fitted into our current left wing v right wing political standpoints.

It's probably true that, to a lesser or greater degree, we have explored virtually every type of universal democracy and centralised hereditary autocracy, but those are just some of the ways that society could go - it's just that many of the alternatives may require a very, very early POD. Consider some of the following (and I will admit that these took me some time to come up with, as I myself found myself just thinking of different democracies over and over again):

How about a situation where the military (and I'm thinking something closer to the Roman military than the present day) has control of all political and perhaps even economic institutions? Say, where a company controls a town, a regiment controls a county and so on, and so the Commander-in-Chief is considered head of the government. In fact, in some ways it's closer to Roman-era tribalism. In this philosophy, the merchant class would probably consider itself to exist primarily to equip its garrison and secondarily to feed and clothe civilians, and there would probably be a kind of blurry assumption that everyone was in some way a part of the military, they were just more reservists with professions than front-line troops. Also, the distinction between officers and rank-and-file would probably be pretty weak as this would likely form this society's version of social mobility - an aspiring soldier who does well would be likely to be given a leadership role after a while rather than being penalised against for not having joined at officer rank.

How about a society where a caste system exists, but rather than being a pyramid structure where those who work the land come last and those who own land come top, each caste is considered nominally equal, and being a merchant is just as important as being a politician? I'm picturing a world where the "governing caste" is a group of Greek-style philosophers who spend most of their lives in debates, asking questions about the nature of the world and of humanity, and whom debate in large gatherings and vote on resolutions for how the society will proceed - who to go to war against, what buildings to build, etc. It could even be that those who control the money are not those who control politics, so there is a caste of administrators who decide how much money can be spent on renovations, how much on salaries etc. It may not prove a very strong society, but it's an idea.

How about a form of state corporatism, where everyone is assumed to be the employee of the country, and wages are allocated from public funds according to what job you do and how long you have been in it? All money earned from sales would be paid to your local tax-collector who would then give you your "fair share" from it, regardless of how much you have actually sold (although underperforming I guess would be punished financially) and thus operating for profit simply is not considered as everyone assumes that it is right that extra money made be donated to the state for the betterment of everyone. The incentive to work hard would not be to build that nicer house and expand your farm, it would be to see your local town and further up, your capital city, grow bigger and more opulent, and from there the benefits would pass downward. Of course, more money in the state coffers would also mean bigger salaries for the workers.

Or finally, how about a society based on right of power? The kind of thing where anyone can challenge for a leadership role if he can do something like best the incumbent in a fight, or prove he has more followers, or manipulate away the incumbent's power base, or become wealthier or something. Sure, it would be a highly volatile and unstable society, but such unstable societies have been known to develop in large powers that are local hegemons and have no real competitors, as they rarely get punished for their wobbly control structures and moments of weakness, until it all comes crashing down in a monumental way. I guess in this scenario, those "born weak", or bested and therefore publicly humiliated etc, would be forced to do the menial work and I guess there would need to be a system of reputation and of peer acceptance to stop everyone just queueing up each day to fight for the right to rule and hope to just get lucky. I was going to suggest a kind of Sith Empire-style system, for anyone who knows the background of Star Wars, where basically if you could kill your superior then you legally could claim possession of all their belongings and titles/offices, but honestly I always thought that that system was nothing other than a perfect way to depopulate an entire society - there would need to be a rule stating that anyone who killed another person in a challenge was themselves killed or exiled to prevent one big massacre going on.

I'm aware that some of those ideas are not only sketchy but arguably poor ways for society to go, but I'm just trying to demonstrate here that there are plenty of ways of assigning power other than having democracies or monarchies controlling everything, and simply limiting how much of a say the average person gets.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old October 11th, 2012, 12:29 AM
Daztur Daztur is online now
Seoulite
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 496
I think there's a good bit of ideological space that hasn't been explored within right-wing communitarianism. Economic liberalism has sunk such deep roots within the modern right that a lot of people think that's basically what the definition of being right wing is and Fascism did a huge amount to discredit right-wing communitarianism due to it being so crazy. I think those two things shut the door to a lot of potential ideologies. You'd basically take some Catholic social teaching or High Toryism and run with those...

Similarly the libertarian end of leftism has mostly been dominated by anarchist which has historically been a pretty fringe ideology, it think there's ideological space on the left libertarian side of things for something a lot less radical than anarchism.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.