AH Run-downs, summaries and general gubbins

[I Saw A Red Sky]

I think honestly if you take Maoism in general as the baseline, parliamentary Maoism is wackier than most of the western maoist crowd, although Black Hammer might still have them beat. Although from what might be considered general normalcy, the Nepali are pretty reasonable.

Communists in countries where they participate in society and mass movements are gonna be more normal and less prone to weird subculture behavior and fringe cults than communists in countries where they’re 0.00001% of the population, just how it goes.

 

[Radac]

Political Parties of Texas in the early 20th century (1928)



1) El Partido Viejo

The Partido Viejo began through the conflict between the "Botas" (boots) - old-money political bosses such as President Raymond Martin and the "Guaraches" (sandals) - lower-class politicians such as Santos Benavides. But following the rise of the Popular Union, men such as Benavides began to abandon the conflict to forge their own path.

Enter Archie Parr. A native of Matagorda Island, Parr was an Anglo from a modest family. In his youth, Parr lived in Duval County and San Antonio - both regions with Hispanic majorities. Parr worked at a plantation with mostly Mexican labourers, and served the Liberty Party for a brief period before beginning to contest local elections against Liberty candidates - who were primarily Anglos and Frenchmen, despite the county's Mexican majority. Parr positioned himself as a 'patron' of the Hispanic lower-class, fighting against discrimination from the Tejanos and the whites alike, and attempted to appeal to those living south of the Rio Grande as well as immigrants in San Antonio and El Paso. Parr earned much success in his political candidacy, becoming a pan-Texas leader with the help of former Botas and Guaraches alike, who all disliked the rising Popular Union. Today, the PV is a moderately successful party, and has begun to emerge as a formidable rival of the Partido Liberal in Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and New Leon.


2) Partido Liberal

Speaking of which..

The Liberal Party was founded following the end of the Mexican Civil War and the overthrowal of Infante Carlos by Benito Juarez, by Jesus Carranza Neira. Carranza, a staunch supporter of Juarez's liberal revolution, founded the party to represent the many Mexicans living south of the Rio Grande who wished to reunify with their brethren in Mexico. The Liberals rose as the main political party in the Coahuila region, and continue to rule today, led by Carranza's son. The PL have traditionally avoided allying with any mainstream Texan parties, and instead have sometimes used violence to achieve their goals. Today, they stand as the main party south of the Rio Grande, especially in Coahuila, although the Partido Viejo's rise has begun to create competition.

3) The Liberty Party

The oldest and most esteemed party in Texas, the Liberty Party was founded by Sam Houston and Mirabeau LaMar in the 1840s, back when Texas had just earned its independence. The Liberty Party has ruled Texas through good times and bad, from the victory against Louisiana to the crushing losses suffered in the war against California. It has effectively become the dominant party in the whole country, but it is not without opposition.

Led by John Nance Garner, or "Jeannot le Nopal", the Liberty Party now attempts to broaden its horizons, appealing to Hispanics, Germans, and others while shunning its earlier image as a party of the elite in order to win over the votes of the common men.

4) The Popular Union

In the 1890s, the Popular Union was founded from a collection of disparate groups - the Mexican-Texan Club, the Farmers' Alliance, the remnants of the old German Casino-Verein and numerous labour unions. The union's strength came from Anglo and German farmers, who were greatly unhappy with the situation in the country following the wars with California and Louisiana. Mexican supporters of the party were, by and large, members of radical societies, especially those who opposed the Botas and were dissatisfied with the Guaraches. Afro-Texans were also prominent in their support for the Union, as the least racist party (although least in this sentence is of course, relative) and the most willing to oppose racial discrimination (though still unwilling).

Today, the Union is led by Henri Wurzbach, and seems to be enjoying more support throughout Texas following economic chaos and famine caused by dust storms. It is likely that the Union might usurp the Liberty Party in the next election, though not entirely opposed.

​

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Story idea: democratic socialist state (like has actually made democratic socialism work) tries to move onto full communism using computers and such to create a participatory economy to replace the somewhat market socialism it had previously, *but* it turns out that computers can't in fact compensate/replace a market.

 

[Mumby]

Story idea: democratic socialist state (like has actually made democratic socialism work) tries to move onto full communism using computers and such to create a participatory economy to replace the somewhat market socialism it had previously, *but* it turns out that computers can't in fact compensate/replace a market.

what's the story

 

[theev]

what's the story

a bunch of youths dig up and burn stafford beer like how the red guards did to ancient chinese emperors

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

what's the story

The slowing dawning realisation that a bunch of idealistic, good people can't actually accomplish their goals.

 

[theev]

The slowing dawning realisation that a bunch of idealistic, good people can't actually accomplish their goals.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a piece of media where aspects of left wing politics are portrayed as unrealistic

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a piece of media where aspects of left wing politics are portrayed as unrealistic

Touche.

 

[Steve Brinson]

 

[Aolbain]

It’s wacky in the sense that Nepal is now ran by a Maoist Government who still keeps the semblance of a Parliamentary Democracy, just if most of the political parties were various shades of Red.

No no, what's really wacky is that it's run by a Third Way Social Demopcratic-Shining Path Was Cool coalition.

 

[Major Crimson]

Is the lack of Hong Kong figures on this list a sign of the nature of the world? Do they have democracy?

This is from like three weeks ago but I still thought I'd reply. It's a consequence of the TL starting more as a weird thought experiment about British political parties that I decided to mash up with another TL idea for the world at large.

However ITTL it's perfectly possible that Hong Kong is somewhat autonomous but totally lacks representation in Parliament (which, of course, was the case IOTL despite Hong Kong making up ~10% of the UK's population at the time of handover). The UK is certainly more imperialist/chauvinistic than IOTL (the lack of a proper WW2 and the relative success of colonial federations in the West Indies, Central Africa, Malaysia ect mean the Commonwealth remains a somewhat powerful block) so refusing proper representation to Hong Kong is possible but probably inadvisable if you want to keep it from rising up and joining China.

If/when I come back to this to properly flesh it out into something, I'll probably give Hong Kong parties limited representation in Parliament.

 

[Catalunya]

A little rundown from a timeline I’ll one day In’Shaa’Allah get around to writing.

Political Parties of the Federal Republic of Germany (2029):

Government:

SPD: Vote for us or we’ll have tyranny like the rest of the world says Scholz, as he enters his fifth year of ruling by “emergency decree”

CDU: We must align with the French Junta and Nationalist Russia against the USSA and PRC because because uhhhh…

FDP: Please, privatize something daddy Scholz.

Opposition:

CSU-FW: *pokes German army with stick* c’mon do something

Left: The massacare of American social democrats did not happen, but they deserved it

Green: BOYCOTT MILITARIST FRANCE BOYCOTT NATIONALIST RUSSIA BOYCOTT IMPERIALIST CHINA BOYCOTT COMMUNIST AMERICA BOYCOTT GOVIST ENGLA- oh Labour won? Yay!

 

[Time Enough]

The forces of the Syrian Civil War as of 1991:

President of the Syrian Arab Republic:
1971-1980: Hafez al-Assad (National Progressive Front)†
1980-1983: Mustafa Tlass (National Progressive Front)†
1983-: Rifaat al-Assad (Arab Socialist Baathist Union)

“Like his brother or Tlass before him, Rifaat seemed to be more keen upon imposing a true sense of brutality upon the rebelling Mujahideen who he viewed as getting in his way of securing his vision for Syria, mainly which seemed to consist of securing a lasting partnership against the forces of Islamic Insurrection with Saddam Hussein.

With mild support from Hussein (who was more preoccupied with battling Iran if anything) Rifaat perused what could be best summarised as a war of extermination against the Syrian Mujahideen. Frequent use of Poison Gas, indiscriminate use of artillery in civilian centres, ethnic cleansing and frequent mass executions were often used by Government forces when dealing with Rebel Forces. Now with Iran and Iraq having declared peace, it seems Hussein is happy to help his corrupt and foolish ally beat the Mujahideen once and for all.

But Rifaat’s conduct has lead to some questioning if a new leadership should occur, preferably under a younger, less tainted leader...”

Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Syria:
1980-1981: Issam al-Attar (Muslim Brotherhood)
1981-1984: Saʽid Hawwa (Muslim Brotherhood)†
1984-: ʿAdnan ʿUqla (Syrian Mujahideen)

“The work of Sayyid Qutb continues strongly in Syria as the Syrian Mujahideen has claimed a stake on the landscape of the nation. After having two very elderly and unhealthy leaders, the Militant and Charismatic Islamic Populist Adnan Uqla has proven a unifying force for Militant Islamic forces in Syria.

It seems that there’s been a push to accept support from many of the Foreign Fighters from Afghanistan who are still seeking Jihad and trickling of support from Saudi Arabia seems to have helped lift the fighters spirits, even if Rifaat’s proclamation of Iraqi support has dampened this somewhat”.

Leaders of People’s Republic of Kurdistan:
1982-: Abdullah Öcalan (PKK)

“Abdullah Öcalan occupies a curious place in the modern mythology of the Left. A man who’s face occupies the posters, pamphlets and t-shirts of any self professed Marxist, his tenure-ship during the Syrian Civil War was originally about securing Syrian Kurdistan to use it as a staging ground for war with Turkey. But over time, the mission changed. Whilst establishing a Turkish Kurdish State was still one priority of many, establishing a Socialist Kurdish State anywhere became a priority as well.

With tacit support from the Soviets and Rifaat preoccupied elsewhere, the appearance of the People’s Republic of Kurdistan would become an element of the Syrian Conflict that leaves the West confused and anxious. Whilst Turkey insists on taking over the region for themselves, Soviet Airpower , Israeli support and discussions with NATO have left the PRK relatively untouched, helped by Öcalan’s recent push for ‘Perestroika’ and a change in ideals to a more Libertarian form of Socialism, if appearances of Murray Bookchin are anything to go by...”

Leader of the Israeli Mandate:
1984-: Dan Shomron (IDF)

“The legality of Israel’s presence in Syria is up to debate, is the Mandate another piece of Israel’s slowly expanding Empire of Settlers or is it genuinely an attempt to ensure a free and safe space for Syria’s Jewish population?

The answer seems to be somewhere in between, as whilst the Mandate has ensured that the Syrian Jewish population aren’t wiped out by the opposing forces in the Civil War, the slow evicting of Muslim Syrians under so called ‘Anti-Mujahideen’ legalisation has become more apparent in recent years.”

Leaders of the ‘Jordanian Mandate’:
1984-1989: Ahmad Obeidat (Independent)
1989: Riad al-Turk (Syrian Communist Party)†
1989-: Shafiq al-Fayadh (National Progressive Front)

“The brief history of the Jordanian Mandate is mainly remembered for it’s messy and spectacular end than for what it did. This of course is understandable, by the standards of the Syrian Conflict it was a fairly peaceful place, with Ahmad Obeidat ruling it as a autocratic vassal state of the Jordanian Government, though to present a kind face to the West, the Mandate would become home to many fleeing Secular, Democratic Opposition figures.

All this would unravel when Jordan experienced a financial crash as due to an Iraqi Banker embezzling billons of dollars from the economy, hastily left the nation. Uniting the Anti-Baathist Secular forces in the area, Riad al-Turk hoped to establish a Syrian Democracy. This would end in about three months as Syrian Army forces rolled into the mandate and would execute the ‘Old Syrian’ for his crimes. However the turmoils for the region hasn’t ended just yet as former Bashar Al-Assad and Tlassq loyalist Shafiq al-Fayadh has decided that Rifaat has betrayed the Corrective Revolution and is building his own forces in the region for himself.”

 

[lerk]

brewing between the Sunni and Shia groups though with Shia groups often targeting Sunni’s as being Assad Collaborators (given how a majority of Sunni’s supported the Assad regime till Rifaat gained control there is a twisted sense of logic to this) and arguments whether Saudi Arabia or Iran should be there main supporter has ground down supply issues in a number of places.

No

 

[Time Enough]

No

Is it wrong? I can change it in that case.

 

[lerk]

Is it wrong? I can change it in that case.

It’s wrong, very much so. I’ll give a longer response in a few hours when I get back on my computer

 

[Time Enough]

It’s wrong, very much so. I’ll give a longer response in a few hours when I get back on my computer

Thanks, I have deleted the offending piece in question but I’m happy to hear what you have to say, and make edits etc.

 

[lerk]

Thanks, I have deleted the offending piece in question but I’m happy to hear what you have to say, and make edits etc.

An Iran working to overthrow Assad, or at least an Iran that isn't allied to it, isn't the most implausible thing as IOTL Syria under Hafez al-Assad fought Hezbollah (a group allied with the IRGC since the 1980s) in Lebanon. Furthermore in the early stages of the Syrian Civil War Iran was a bit hesitant in helping Assad as they supported all the other Arab Spring revolutions, including the one in Libya that was backed by the US, as they saw them as a potential continuation of the 1979 one. Of course Iran eventually did decide to help Assad as the more moderate rebel factions were beginning to lose control over the whole situation and groups like al-Nusra and ISIS (prior to its split from al-Qaeda) were getting stronger.

However in this case it isn't plausible as first of all only 2% of Syria's population is Twelver Shia Muslim and as such can't really form a "Mujahideen" group like in Afghanistan. Furthermore since we're implying that the main rebel group here are the Syrian Mujahideen comprised of Sunni Islamists it makes more sense to say that the Shias will go for the secular Ba'athist government regardless of Iran's relations to it. Even in Iraq, even after Iran played such a big role in fighting ISIS and thus preventing a genocide of the Shias there, many Iraqis are still skeptical of Iran's role there (as can be seen in the recent elections where pro-Iran parties underperformed), and that's not even getting into the theological differences between Iran's more revolutionary Wilayat al-Faqih ideology and more traditional forms of Shia thought (the most partisan traditionalist Shias consider Iran's ideology to be communist influenced and too light on Sunnis, going so far as to declare Khomeini and Khameini as apostates). As such since this is the 1980s before the rise in anti-Shia violence and Iran's role in combatting that Iran has even less influence on worldwide Shias as they do now, so no, I don't think a Shia Mujahideen in Syria is likely. In fact since the main rebel groups are Sunni Islamists it is likely that Iran decides to help Assad the elder ITTL as they did with Assad the younger IOTL as Syria is the site of very sacred Shia sites which could be endangered if it were to be run by Sunni Islamists (that was another big reason why Iran played such a role in Syria).

Then there is Sunnis being "Assad Collaborators" which is a very big statement to make seeing as how all anti-Syrian government rhetoric has the implication that Syria is an Alawite minority-rule state which has a bias against Sunnis, with some more extreme ones going so far as to say that Assad is genociding Sunnis. Of course there were large parts of the Sunni Muslim community which supported Assad or didn't care either way (that's part of a reason he's still in power, if the entire Sunni Muslim community in Syria stood against Assad he'd be history). Hafez al-Assad tried to "Sunnify" his Alawite community in order to make himself more palatable to the Sunnis there but assuming there's a civil war he wouldn't really have the power to do that.

If you want a suggestion: Iraq probably backs the Sunni Islamists in order to get rid of its foremost Ba'athist rival. IOTL Iraq backed the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood in Hama. Many Arabs that went to Afghanistan IOTL would instead be going to closer to home in Syria, and Arab countries would focus on that more. America would be interested in getting rid of a Soviet ally but the difference between Syria and Afghanistan is that 1) there is no foreign Soviet military presence trying to destroy the rebels and 2) the anti-government Mujahideen is going to be more ideological than the Afghan one was, many of them consisting of people who just wanted to get rid of a foreign power invading it, and thus are less likely to accept US aid (IOTL this was a big sticking point between jihadi groups like ISIS and more moderate ones like the FSA, the former accusing the latter of at best engaging in a poor strategy by wanting US help and at worst having apostasized from Islam for that). Then again Salafi-Jihadism was still in its infancy in the 1980s so the Mujahideen in Syria will be more pragamatic than in the 2010s IOTL. Without massive amounts of Russian and Iranian aid as IOTL along with no infighting between FSA/al-Qaeda/ISIS the Syrian Mujahideen is more successful than IOTL rebel groups and is probably the favorite to win here. Saudis are more comfortable with Islamist groups as they had yet to face the controversies of the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula during the Gulf War and others after 9/11 which made it clear to the Saudi government that those groups aren't their friend and as such will back the Syrian Mujahideen a lot more, as will Pakistan (being under an Islamist government run by Zia ul-Haq, and also because Syria was backing leftist militancy in Pakistan because Zulfikar Bhutto was Hafez al-Assad's friend and his sons fled to Syria after the former's execution). Libya and Algeria back Assad, whereas Egypt will probably try to stick a middle ground, and I don't know too much about the Lebanese Civil War to comment on that but if the Soviets are backing Assad and if the presence of the Syrian Mujahideen leads to a Lebanese Mujahideen emerging which fights secular Palestinian groups then I imagine Yasser Arafat will try to reconcile with the Syrian Government. Also the lack of Arab attention on Afghanistan probably leads to the Soviets doing much better on that front though whether or not they actually win is still up in the air.

 

[Time Enough]

If you want a suggestion: Iraq probably backs the Sunni Islamists in order to get rid of its foremost Ba'athist rival. Many Arabs that went to Afghanistan IOTL would instead be going to closer to home in Syria, and Arab countries would focus on that more. America would be interested in getting rid of a Soviet ally but the difference between Syria and Afghanistan is that 1) there is no foreign Soviet military presence trying to destroy the rebels and 2) the anti-government Mujahideen is going to be more ideological than the Afghan one was, many of them consisting of people who just wanted to get rid of a foreign power invading it, and thus are less likely to accept US aid (IOTL this was a big sticking point between jihadi groups like ISIS and more moderate ones like the FSA, the former accusing the latter of at best engaging in a poor strategy by wanting US help and at worst having apostasized from Islam for that). Without massive amounts of Russian and Iranian aid as IOTL along with no infighting between FSA/al-Qaeda/ISIS the Syrian Mujahideen is more successful than IOTL rebel groups and is probably the favorite to win here. Saudis are more comfortable with Islamist groups as they had yet to face the controversies of the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula during the Gulf War and others after 9/11 which made it clear to the Saudi government that those groups aren't their friend and as such will back the Syrian Mujahideen a lot more, as will Pakistan (being under an Islamist government run by Zia ul-Haq, and also because Syria was backing leftist militancy in Pakistan because Zulfikar Bhutto was Hafez al-Assad's friend and his sons fled to Syria after the former's execution). Libya and Algeria back Assad, whereas Egypt will probably try to stick a middle ground, and I don't know too much about the Lebanese Civil War to comment on that but if the Soviets are backing Assad and if the presence of the Syrian Mujahideen leads to a Lebanese Mujahideen emerging which fights secular Palestinian groups then I imagine Yasser Arafat will try to reconcile with the Syrian Government. Also the lack of Arab attention on Afghanistan probably leads to the Soviets doing much better on that front though whether or not they actually win is still up in the air.

Thanks for the suggestions and your other points, I’ll delete the on here and apply the change onto the one on my test thread.

I did hear much of the Early 80s Islamist Uprisings in Syria were supported by Iraq, so this makes sense. I doubt Pakistan would be to involved, likely being more bothered by Afghanistan.

A Lebanese Mujahideen would be a fucking nightmare to say the least (and likely increase the chances of the Israeli’s rolling in tanks to secure there sections of Syria) which would likely see Arafat budding up with Assad.

The Soviets would probably have a much easier time in Afghanistan, as the US and Saudi’s are likely to be more interested by what’s going on in Syria and so less money would be directed towards Afghanistan (though money would likely still be directed there and Pakistan would certainly give the Soviets a lot of grief).

What do you think the Jordanian reaction would be?

 

[lerk]

What do you think the Jordanian reaction would be?

Probably support for the more moderate factions of the Mujahideen. There were Syria-Jordan tensions ever since Black September and I can't imagine the Jordanian king supporting the same government that tried to kill him and overthrow his family just a decade prior.

Pakistan doesn't get involved too much but probably gives some very limited support as well what with its alliance with the US and Saudi Arabia along with OTL tensions with Assad's government. Probably just gives shelter to a few Muslim Brotherhood members but nothing that causes an end to diplomatic relations or anything.

I don't think the US will be more interesting in Syria than in Afghanistan as in the latter they have the chance to bleed out their rival. Also US-Syria relations weren't as bad as they are recently: the US wasn't as pro-Israel (they condemned the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear program IOTL and there were some prominent Republicans, like Jesse Helms, openly calling for an end to US-Israel relations after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon). If the Mujahideen begins attacking Christians I can imagine more than a few US policy makers would be scared off. The US will be more neutral than say, Saudi Arabia on this.

If Israel invades Lebanon and ends up fighting both the Syrian and Lebanese Mujahideen I can imagine that they'd be a lot more Arab foreign fighters in the two countries to make an Arab presence in Afghanistan effectively nil, since why fight the Soviets as a stepping stone to fighting Israel (OTL argument made by Jihadists such as Abdullah Azzam, Osama's mentor) when you can fight Israel right now? And if the Syrian Mujahideen not only wins but Lebanon becomes more of a quagmire for Israel leading to it being forced to withdraw at some point then I can imagine the Arab World becomes more Islamist than OTL, as not only is there a revolutionary Islamist state in Syria but they have also managed to humiliate the great evil - Israel. Combine that with an Islamist victory in Afghanistan and you get a much more interesting world. Assuming butterflies make it so that a Soviet defeat in Afghanistan doesn't lead to the Eastern Bloc's collapse we could see an Islamist third bloc to the Western Capitalist and Eastern Communist one.