WesWorld

NOTE: This is a thread for disscussing WW poltical theory, not real-world politics or real world situations.


We've never really touched on what politics means to WW and since we've come so far from the OTL Right Vs Left split just what ideologies exist in WW?

Does Marxism have any impact or could it have any impact?
Is a liberal capitalist free economy the majority here?
Where will politics go from here?
Is the East-West split purely about Imperialism or are their other politics involved?
Is there Fascism in WW?
Does democratic socialism exist in WW?
Who are the major poltical figures with world-wide support?
These are just some of the questions.

I'd like players thoughts on their countries as to what politics their nation has and what influences they have and maybe where they intend to go.
Afterall many nations don't even post election news and I think its an area to explore.

Oh, Marxism definitely exists: the Bolsheviks are a major player in Russia, the German Communist Party is a solid member of the Reichstag, the Union Party in the US has some strains of socialist/populist thought in it, etc.

Fascism seems a dying philosophy at the moment, with the fall of Mussolini in Italy and the collapse of the NSDAP in Germany after Hitler's suicide and the assassination of President Braun. Arguably, though, the rise of President Long in the US might be considered fascist, since his thought process is, economically, somewhat in line with the fascist model (though he's less inclined towards state control of economics and more towards using highly progressive income taxes to redistribute wealth).

The German left, the Social Democrats, are moving philosophically in the direction of democratic socialism. They don't have control of the Reichstag at the moment, but if they do gain control and have sufficient support they'd head in that direction. The US Union Party might also be considered a democratic socialist party, though they're really more populist than socialist.

Figures with world-wide support? Hmmmm. I don't know that the recent WW period is really conducive to this: most politics have seemed local, with few towering political figures.

I agree Marxism is a force. IIRC WW Russia is the one of the March revolution so is a Socialist nation and the Bolsheviks should be a part of their government somehow.

Bharat is a authocratic Monarchy but change should be coming soon. To achieve what Bharat has done they need to have an educated class and they must likely want some kind of direct representation. Maybe a slow change to a constitucional monarchy by the end of the 1940's.

I think the East-West split is right now about Imperialism. We are all here playing characters and the Europeans in the 1930's see themselves as the Big brothers of the Asian and African people, guiding them to the process. Of course at a snail pace.
Here in WW the change is faster that would have occured IOTL without a WW2 but still IMO the actitude exists. In character of course. I love the way Hood makes his case sometimes in character and brings the idea to life; Basically you get the feeling the British are saying that we want to live in peace but we are better than you. Kudos, I do like it.

I agree that it seems fascists is dead.

In regard to a world wide figure I have to go with the British Prime Minister and their diplomatic staff. In a very short time they have achieved many objectives and seem to be well respected by many nations with different agendas thru the World.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I'd like players thoughts on their countries as to what politics their nation has and what influences they have and maybe where they intend to go.

Ireland: Insofar as I'm playing Irish politics, the RoI is basically a British-styled parliamentary republic, as historical. Ireland seeks universal international neutrality - their treaty with Britain is the one exception to this. (Theory on that - as long as Britain is one of the greatest of the Great Powers, Britain can't let Ireland fall to a foreign invader. Thus Ireland profits from Britain's proximity, power, and most of all, friendliness.) Economically, I'm trying to build Ireland into a very modern information-based banking economy - a sort of island Switzerland, in other words. The government is, as historical, heavily influenced by the Catholic church.

Bulgaria: Basically a constitutional monarchy with a popular monarch. Tsar Boris was always fairly well liked, so far as I can tell, except amongst the extremists. Bulgaria has a fascist party and a communist party - the latter being currently illegal, with anticommunism laws in place. As time goes on, you'll doubtless see the struggle between the proponents of a strong monarchy and people who want a full republic - and what form that republic will take. So long as the Tsar remains popular, the monarchists and the constitutional republicans remain in control of the government, with the fascists in third place.

Chile: I haven't touched much on Chilean politics yet, but what you're going to see in the next few years is the rise of a minarchist movement - the government basically controlling the armed forces, police, and very little else. Chile additionally believes the League of Nations is merely a political forum for international discussion. Chile has fascist, socialist and communist parties, with the fascists currently more popular than the communists; but these parties are not in control of the government. This seems in line with what's happening in Argentina.

My nations run as constitutional monarchies. Belgium and the Netherlands are representational democracies and will likely stay that way. The Kongo is arranged with more autonoumous feudal states and limited representative democracy.

Ultimately, the group may be rebundled into a single Federalized state with the addition of Luxembourg. I've posted a couple of articles where a legislator in Luxembourg is pushing toward that. In that model the Dutch territorial possessions would rise to the same political level as the Dutch provinces.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Does Marxism have any impact or could it have any impact?
Is a liberal capitalist free economy the majority here?
Where will politics go from here?
Is the East-West split purely about Imperialism or are their other politics involved?
Is there Fascism in WW?
Does democratic socialism exist in WW?
Who are the major poltical figures with world-wide support?

Marxism
Marxisim in the Netherlands was discredited in 1918 when there was an abortive Coup. The Queen personally rallied support and the leader was arrested. This is as OTL.

Marxism in DEI is less than OTL due Russia not being a communist model. Marxist rebels were one of the revolts I reported, and "with us or against us" actions on the locals largely burned their bridges with the DEI populance.

I believe in the last Dutch elections they were down to a seat or two.

Liberal Capitalism / Social Democratism
Liberal Capitalism has been the general operating principle of the Dutch and is the goal of the conservatives and tolerated by the militaristic DMZSBD. The conservatives have managed be the deciding portion of the governing coalitions, and have maintained control of the Finance ministery for 12 years, and that minister is a former PM. For 4 years, under Eduard Land, a kinder, more regulatory, more supportive state existed. Those policies were strongly backed by the Queen, who (as) has long been a reformist in how colonial assets were governed, and state responsibility.

East-West
I've always regarded it as less about western imperialism, as using western imperialism as a populist rallying cry. Asian conquering Asian, good. Asian conquered by West "we'll save you from the evil west!".

Facism
Well, one of the speeches Herr Loeder ( Dutch PM and leader of the DMZSBD) gave was adapted from a speech by an Austrian corpral, and the party is routinely described as semi-fascist, militaristic, appearing in uniforms in rallies. Last years news included mandatory summer camps for kids...
However, the DMZSBD had to form a coalition, and kept the former Treasury and Foreign ministers, so the international face is about the same. Their ability to reshape the Dutch nation has been limited, not the least by the Queen detesting them. Events will dictate in they gain or loose power next election.

Major international figures
That is really hard to say. We don't fiddle with each others internal politics, so there is less mixing. So I can't name them, but I know their positions, and they pop up in treaties and negotiations.

Nordmarks King for Lithuania, Lord Halifax at this point, Atlantean King would have residual influence from Cleito and Boliva. Queen Purilin is influential in her area. Bahrat's queen is less prominant nowadays.

However Democracies tend to mean no prominant figure stays in power long. Long runs the US now..who?

Teddy Roosevelt would still be internationally known, and could command respect. The Dutch/Belgian/Kongo Queen Wilhelmina is probably not for most circles, she's no longer the young queen and it's been 30 years since she hosted the Hague conferences, and mostly workis behind the scenes. In some circles- high finance for one, she should still be well connected.

Russia is a Socialist Democracy, since the February Revolution, and power is held by a Socialist Revolutionary/Menshevik coalition. The Bolsheviks are in the Duma, but not in government.

France had a brush with Fascism at the time of the Palawan incident, but seems to have gotten over it.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Chile additionally believes the League of Nations is merely a political forum for international discussion.

I am a bit surprised by that, as the conclusion of the Bolivian war saw LON mediation and troops deployed.

Hrm. Might have to alter that stance a bit, but I recall Ithekro's statement during the Lithuania/Wilno debate being general annoyance that the League was immediately intervening in Wilno, whereas they spent "years" before anyone acted interested in Bolivia/Chile. I was thinking that annoyance could lead Chile to presume the LoN is more like LoNE, the League of Nations of Europe, and therefore becoming apathetic.

Still, I can change Chile's views on that.

Australia has a liberal capitalist economy, with large coorporations wielding considerable amounts of power (ie Murdoch).

Mexico is a Federal Republic with strong left leanings (much like OTL). The President (Lazaro Cardenas) is very popular with the general population due to his reforms, and pretty soon will do something even more popular that will move Mexico even further left (happened in OTL too). The defeat of the Cristeros has pushed Mexico even further left and the elction of Long will further influence this trend.

I worked some mostly historical Canadian political dynamics into some initial news I wrote up, but haven't really done anything since; MacKenzie King is pretty solid in his PM role since I....can't think of anyone worth replacing him with. I guess that could be a contrast to the US and Mexico moving left, but I doubt Canada's really influencing anything regardless.

Canada's pretty much following historical trends, just with a healthy desire for self-determination and self-defense. Even if I was inclined, I don't think I could do anything too radical (the Crown could still theoretically dismiss something like a Communist government, for example)

That is what you say, but we know that in reality, ShinRa Inc is running the show in Canada.

Wow I just noticed that Kirk mentioned the Atlantean King as an influencial figure. Perhaps prior to the 20's but the Cleito treaty was really his swan song in terms of influence. There will have to be a handover to his successor to the crown for the Monarchy to regain significant influence in world affairs let alone Atlantean affairs.

Argentina has the following parties;

The Conservative Party is led by Jose Marcos de Ballista a former lawyer, was the main opposition party for 20 years but closely linked with the war because of its links with the war and corruption before the war but it is the main middle class party. It won 34% of the vote in the last election but was denied power when the National Democratic Party refused to work with it and they could not hold off the larger National Democratic Party /United Workers Party coalition. This has alienated the middle classes who feel cheated and feel that business interests will not be looked after. The Conservative Party is built around the capitalist system, it believes in the free market and limited government intervention and is a reactionary party and very close to the Catholic Church (a powerful lobby force within the party) and believes in a minimal government controlling what is essential. It feels people’s politics is their choice and has an arrogant view that the Conservatives simply offer a better option than any left-wing party. Landowners too have flocked from the Democratic Union and make up the bulk of the reactionary element.

The United Workers Party is led Eduardo Garcia, a former steel worker from Cordoba and a high-ranking trade union leader. It is a classic social democrat party formed around the ideals of the European social democrat parties of the early 20th century. It was formed out of the original two left-wing workers parties. It main support lies within the expanding working class and servicemen during the war also voted in large numbers for it. In the last elections it polled 32% of the vote and is in power in coalition with the National Democratic Party. It wants to end restrictions on trade unions, increase pensions, improved public health care, a limited nationalisation scheme of big industries like oil and steel and improved housing. Its aims are purely centred around the working classes but these pledges have gained large scale electoral support as a backlash from the long reign of the Democratic Union. It is anti-Marxist and tries to move itself away from any far left influence with mixed results.

The National Democratic Party is led by retired naval officer Almirante Peron and was only formed in late 1935. The D’Silva scandal and the backlash of the war meant a large chuck of Democratic Union supporters turned away from their party from disillusionment and instead switched to a new party. Almirante Peron is not an astute politician and could be regarded as a stuffy religious conservative with much more in common with the Conservative Party (indeed he was a member of that party in his youth). He could claim a change from the scandal-burdened years of Democratic Union rule (although he actively took part in wartime discussions and was in favour of invading Paraguay) but his sounded hollow to most voters but when the noted lawyer and author of Argentina’s progressive labour laws, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, (now nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to successfully end the war) joined the new part and when the internationally-famous it built up a loyal voter base who wanted change but did not trust the left-wing United Workers Party or the stuffy Conservative Party. In the last election it attracted 16% of the vote. Policy-wise the National Democratic Party has much in common with the United Workers Party but it also favours the free market but is reactionary towards Marxists and could be seen to have tendencies to see the State as all-powerful. In the current coalition many middle class voters feel the government could become a left-wing dictatorship of the working classes. This keeps most middle class voters away and it is doubtful whether the party has a long-term future being mainly a protest party unless it can seriously challenged the Conservative Party.

The Democratic Union is led by Enrique Pastelle and was the sole party of power from 1921 until 1937. It has dominated the Chamber of Deputies and Senate but the years of corruption, political intimidation of the left, harsh anti-Marxist measures and the recent war have destroyed its voter base. Now its middle class voters looking for a party to support their increased standards of living vote Conservative and its share of the vote fell to just 12%. Now wracked with political backbiting and unclear policy aims for the moment the Democratic Union is all but finished as a political force for the foreseeable future.

The General Democratic Union is a splinter group of the Democratic Union led by the eminent Foreign Affairs Minister Alfredo Castagone (who was offered his old job back in the coalition Government but became Vice President) and in general has the same liberal capitalist free market principles but generally a bit more left-orientated than the Democratic Union. It only received a 3% share of the vote in the last election and like the National Democratic Party is a protest party with little future but they joined the coalition government to keep the reactionary Conservatives out of power.

The Marxist Party is legal but only has fringe support among trade union activists, young students, the left-wing intelligentsia and other disaffected groups. It is broadly similar to all Marxist parties but seems unconnected with foreign parties. Only gets around 3% of the vote.

It can be seen that the war has shifted Argentina from the right to somewhere left of centre. The war has been a major backlash and forced the people to decide what they want from the state and that they want better lives. The right parties so far cannot offer anything except wealth to the upper classes.



Britain
Well its much as OTL EXCEPT there is no depression, no political crisis, no major calls for global disarmament, therefore no National Government. Therefore the Conservatives, the "natural party of power" remain in long-term control under Chamberlain. The policies remain much like OTL, Tories never change and they are pushing the status-quo. To expand on what Peredor said, we want peace but also the Conservatives don't like change at heart and drag thier heels over Colonial matters. That said a younger generation is pushing through but most of the senior men are stuck in 1914. You've all mentioned Chamberlain and Halifax and they have great influence but in their minds they are still playing out a pre-1914 Imperial game whatever modern policies come out of their mouths. Until they die (2 years to go for Chamberlain) they keep a grip on the party. Whether Halifax can keep the party together under pressure from more radical younger members and the Labour Party expansion remains to be seen.

The Labour Party still holds all the left-wing ground, masses of working class support but the first-past-the-post election system prevents a majority. Now looking like the "natural party of opposition" and seems unlikely to reach power unless the Tories really fuck up (which without Munich, invasion of France etc seems very unlikely). I'd love to have a Labour gov't but I need to craft the reasons very carefully. Wihtout a serious communist threat, nor the Spanish civil war there is no split within the Labour Party and the left-wing intelligensia (OTL Communist) would in WW I feel be much more socialist. Men like Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) would fit in very well into this group but others like Philby and the other communist "moles" of the 1930s would need other loyalties. The Unions are the biggest supporter and lobbying power in the Labour Party. This alone hinders spreading appeal to the lower middle classes (an expanding group) but support is growing.

The Liberals hve been in decline since the 1910s. No need to mention them further, until they re-emerge as the Liberal Democrats after many guises in the 1980s.

Fascism, I've never mentioned Mosley or his blackshirts. They do not exist, he has no foreign role models to base his ideas around, he was a Labour MP at one point but left the party. He has some good ideas but most are not but he may lurk around the fringes of politics. Right-wing thugs exist but have no real political outlet while anti-semitism exists in Britain (as in most of Europe) but only at low levels. Afterall most Brits are quite quiet and reserved, people are more likely to say they are not anti-semitic but don't like them!

There is a British Marxist Party but only attracts the lunatic left and hard-core left-wingers but numbers are small compared to Labour supporters.

Quoted

Fascism, I've never mentioned Mosley or his blackshirts. They do not exist, he has no foreign role models to base his ideas around

Mr. Mosley clearly has a fellow Brit as role model...

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Wow I just noticed that Kirk mentioned the Atlantean King as an influencial figure. Perhaps prior to the 20's but the Cleito treaty was really his swan song in terms of influence. There will have to be a handover to his successor to the crown for the Monarchy to regain significant influence in world affairs let alone Atlantean affairs.

It's a weak category due to how this SIM runs. Perhgaps I should have put him with the also-rans.

There are a few figures that should be globally known, and who's opinions and statements on major matters would have a reasonable chance of making papers in other countries. Those that hosted major international conferences or were instrumental in the crafting of a major peace treaty would seem the best candidates.

. I'd think that if the Atlantean King came out with a speech on naval balances, it would get ink. If the PM of Luxembourg did, it wouldn't.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
That is what you say, but we know that in reality, ShinRa Inc is running the show in Canada.

One of the reasons HebCo irritated me so much, is because I've refused to do anything on those lines, actually.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Fascism, I've never mentioned Mosley or his blackshirts. They do not exist, he has no foreign role models to base his ideas around

There's always this fellow...

Correspondance care of Peter Vollmer :o

Mosely was an odd character, some might say a very frustrated genius given his track record in the Labour Party, but he was thrashing around trying to grab some populist stance. He might well of formed a WW party but it would not be the kind of blackshirt ethos we are used to seeing in the 1930s. It could be said that type of politics is alien to the British who have always stood aloof from the European politican trends.

With the failure of the Russian Revolution in WW and no communist-run countries is it possible we have overstated the Marxist influence in WW? We all have them but why would people join them in large numbers when there is no USSR to look up to, no Stalinist propaganda of smiling peasants, lines of tractors, workers cheerfully working etc to admire and aspire to. All Marxism in WW offers is a theory and if your unlucky a bullet in the back of the head. Certainly the lack of any coherent left-wing threat means there are no Fascist parties, they can't fight what doesn't exist and so in fact it seems WW is very stable, very old-world view. Nearly everyone here has formed a liberal capitalist free-market government or stuck to the older Monarchies. In actual fact WW is much less politically explosive and yet so much radical activity happens such as big power blocs and threats of wars and imperialism. Europe seems to be very conservative in its politics, the USA surprsingly less so despite the lack of the Great Depression, Latin America seems as confused between the right and left, its harder to say about Asia since few Satsuma members have aired their thoughts here but they seem to be more right-wing. There is also a surprising lack of military dictatorships in WW too.

It would seem the few dictatorships that have sprung up have managed to piss off the wrong countrys, Bolvia, Wilnow Republic ect. Peru currently seems to be heading that way also, even under Howards control.

I think there would have been a fair amount of Marxist influence. Keep in mind, while Russia isn't the Soviet Union at this time, there's still lots of labor vs capital skirmishing through the thirties. Keep in mind that Marxism was very popular in the industrialized West after WWI and into the 20s when Russia was in civil war, and that according to Marxist theory Russia wasn't ready for a Communist revolution anyway (too rural). Until the industrial working class achieves a level of pay, safety and work rules approximately equal to those of the 1950s, I expect the Marxists to remain a force. [I'm actually surprised they're not stronger in England, and historically they are powerful in France at this period.]

In some ways, the fact that the Bolsheviks haven't taken over in Russia is a good thing: in the more stable democracies it means that the authorities have little reason or ability to crack down on their home-grown Marxists because they're not, per se, a threat to the established order. Look at the Bolsheviks in Russia or the KPD in Germany: they're open members of the political system, contesting elections like other political parties, not fomenting violent overthrows of their governments (unlike the NSDAP, for example).


The US is less conservative than some other parts of WW because of the Dust Bowl and the lack of a charismatic foil to Huey Long. FDR, because of the lack of the Great Depression and having come to the White House a term early, isn't as highly regarded in WW as he is in OTL, and there aren't any other US leaders who have the gift of charisma as much as Long does. The Dust Bowl is causing large amounts of hardship in the rural center of the country, and FDR, in his second term, was more limited in his options to respond than he was during the same OTL period because the rest of the country was in better shape.

In persia the main dividing line isnt between left and right but rather between Constitionalis and Imperialist were the former are looking for something akin to the Roman Republic having the Shah as the first among equals while the imperialist are looking for a Neo-Sassanid absolute monarchy, the factions are fairly fluid when it comes to questions not directly infuencing the division of power.

Both factions are mid-right wing in most with the constituionalist prefering free market and the imperialists state capitalism as the best way of developing the country.

The religious opposition has largely been suppresed with the use of SAVAK. A popular story in Persia is this:

After having died a man is led by two angels to be judged by God how ask the man "Who is your God?" the man answers without hesitation "His imperial Majesty the Shah" God then asks the man "What is your Holy book?" again without hesitation the answer comes "His majesties The true revolution" after which the angels start beating the man, after awhile God stops them and and says "What is wrong with you? Do you not recognize your God?" the man answers " I do lord but those two look like SAVAK" (Slightly altered OTL Iranian story)