Unionist ideology

Details of Unionist Ideology
By Ian Montgomerie


The ideology of Unionism originated with the 1884 work The March to Unity, and most of its ideas are contained within that work and a host of others which it inspired in the following decade, the heyday of Unionist theory. The ideological fundaments set in this era remained largely unaltered in the actual Unionist governments, although sufficient leeway existed in the application of the ideology that practical Unionist contains many elements not found in the philosophy. In the interests of brevity, this document will not differentiate between the two, although as a general rule the theory is from the original works while nearly all specific applications were developed by the actual unionist movements.

The main tenet of the ideology is that the entire state is an organism which should have central control and cooperation, that the organs of the state should work toward a common purpose, and that the people are bettered as components of the state, working to better the state and thus the members of the state. This ideology is not inherently capitalistic or socialistic, but in fact conflicts with the extremes of both. It is a theoretical, direct justification of totalitarian societies. It does not prescribe a specific end as some other ideologies are want to do (freedom for democracies, communal equality for communism), but rather prescribes the ideal means to gain whatever ends the society (and thus the state) desire. Unionism favors unity of purpose and cooperation (of course), a majoritarian approach to the goals of the state which frowns on active minority dissent, a strong and centralized government, military preparedness, harsh measures against crime, influence of politics and the state in virtually all aspects of life (a weak form of totalitarianism in theory, usually "normal" totalitarianism in practice), and international alliances and unification.

Unionist governments are, in theory, a sort of pyramidal democracy with a restricted franchise. Virtually all members of a Unionist society are Citizens, with equal rights and protections under the law (military courts, secret police, and several other arms have effectively unlimited power against Citizens, but the civil justice system does not - as is typical in many Unionist organizations, the elite have tremendous power over the masses in practice, but members of the masses are protected against those of similar "rank" by a strong legal system). A minority of the Citizens are also Electors - possessing the power to vote, similar to Communist party members in the old Soviet Union. The status of Elector is gained by all those who have served a required term in approved governmental services - military, bureaucratic, police, and more, have no significant criminal record, and have demonstrated their loyalty to the State (which usually amounts to never having demonstrated disloyalty to the state, and having jumped through the required hoops to become an Elector). Membership in the electorate may be revoked.

Lower positions in the Government are voted on by the electorate, from candidatess appointed by the existing government. The members of the Government then vote on higher positions in a similar way - the new membership of a higher body is voted on by the next lower body, from candidates appointed by the higher body (and, universally at higher levels and in theory at lower levels, approved by the political arm of the police). This holds true for government positions, while many bureaucratic positions are appointed or assigned by merit, as is true for the military and the police. In practice this means that democracy is a mere illusion, the heads of government control the choices of the next government to those loyal to them, and control the bureaucracy, the military, and the police by the appointment of, and the power to dismiss, their senior members. Terms of governmental service are universally long. Many higher offices are for life or until dismissed, especially the supreme leader (title varies), who can only leave office if dismissed by a supermajority of the heads of government.

Unionist systems have the basis of the typical tripartite power system of military, police, and party, but under Unionism the supreme leader and his immediate subordinates are in much firmer control than is typical for totalitarianisms, with the loyalty of senior military and secret police members to the Government/State usually ensured by the control the government has over their positions (this varies between Unionist governments).

Ideologically, Unionist systems are egalitarian, meritocratic (with loyalty counting as an important merit), and antinationalist. Unionism holds that all humans are essentially equal, and in fact that cultural differences are universally impediments if they get in the way of loyalty to the State, irrelevant otherwise. The State is not a nation-state, but the centralized government which ideally unites and directs all humanity. Hence Unionism - not just the "unity of leadership and purpose" in any government, but unity of leadership and purpose under _one_ government, one state. The ultimate goal of Unionism is Unification, all of humanity under a single government. An end to racism, war, religious strife, political bickering, and ideological violence under the totalitarian rule of the Unity.

From this end and these approaches comes the realpolitik of Unionist international relations. Unionist nations are always extremely cooperative with each other as long as there are non-Unionist enemies to fight, and tend to form one or more power blocs with a small number of distinct leaders, and many smaller nations which effectively become satellite states. Unionist states are always attempting to export their form of government, either by military conquest or simply installing a friendly regime, and can form relationships of convenience with nations ideologically similar to their own, though they will not place too much trust in the relationship. Unionist governments are officially in favor of complete equality, and turn the full measures of their police against the more unpopular forms of bigotry. They are, of course, fully capable of actions against an ethnic group which happens to be mostly opposed to them, but will accept turncoats from the group, will deal with the members it wants to get rid of by imprisonment or execution, and will provisionally assume that the rest are functioning citizens, though they may be scrutinized minutely.

Finally, Unionist economics are a combination of small-business innovation and government supported large business. Small-scale entrepreneurship is not discouraged under Unionism, although in some areas it is difficult to compete with the government or its sponsored corporations without being absorbed. Many areas are nationalized by the government, which amounts to a monopoly which may still be profit-making but whose leadership is firmly under political control, or are client corporations of the government. Clients vary in size from huge to merely medium-sized, and are typically not monopolies - though they may be regional monopolies. To prevent businesses not under direct control of the government from having undue sway on it, while realizing that it is not necessary for the government to directly administrate all major industry, the government typically maintains a handful of clients in a given area, being careful to ensure that there is always some credible competition so that businesses which become unpopular may be at least temporarily discarded for some form of alternative. On the individual level, Unionism is characterized by a high level of taxation, a high level of benefits for those unable to work (and government work or makework for those unable to find work), and many nationalized services, but also by laws which favor the government, its nationalized corporations, and its client corporations over the individual worker.

Damn, I used to sound like a little academic. These days I could just describe it as "imagine the modern Chinese government in Europe, except that it's justified philosophically rather than a product of reforms".

That essay of yours captured my imagination a lot when I read it. I understood it as a sort of post-enlightenment Western version of Chinese government. Not exactly sure how it would emerge in the dialectic, maybe late 19th/early 20th century where ethnic nationalism never takes off?

Well, in hindsight, it needs to say something about economics, China's system relies on enriching the former peasants. You could get it in a Russian Revolution scenario. If that actually worked at enriching the peasants without killing the capitalist class, it'd have credibility in Europe to replace unstable democracies.

I can see it being to Distributist systems like Social Credit or Christian Democrats what totalitarian Communism is to social democracy. Just give the Second Reich another 50 years and no WWI.

It reminds me a lot of Hegel. Germany might be more fertile ground for Unionism in a universe where right-Hegelians end up being more popular than left-Hegelians, a political alliance between various right-Hegelians and certain Protestant pastors powerful enough to have sway over an emerging German identity and you could have something rather close to Unionism ready to take the place of fascism following an alt-WWI defeat.

I think WWI was one of those shattering experiences that made a lot of Europe go off the rails ideologically. A shorter less devastating Great War or a Balkan War that doesn’t escalate would probably be better. Maybe Distributism as a solution to the Great Depression, extending the existing Prussian welfare state in a sort of new deal?

Truth be told, I'm a bit out of my league here; It's been a long time since I've thought about the political situation in early-20th century Europe. That having been said, my understanding is that Wilhelm was pretty chaotic and expansionist and that Europe was essentially a powder-keg (with a lot of folks keen to see German power knocked down a peg). Is it even likely that without Some Damn Thing in the Balkans Wilhelm would have avoided dragging Germany into an ill-advised war anyway?

Wilhelm II was the entire problem in Germany. His naval arms race broke the Anglo-German alliance and made the Great War possible.

Hence my question x)

EDIT: Just realized the way I phrased that question is kind of confusing. To clarify, what I'm asking is, even without the Balkans triggering war outside of the region, wouldn't Wilhelm have likely dragged Germany into some sort of unadvisable conflict anyway? One that Germany would likely lose and see a harsh peace imposed upon them?

Thought the whole discussion deserved to move from a thread about Thomas the Tank Engine in Chat (yes, really) and to where it could be discussed more productively.

Unionism isn’t my idea, to be clear, that was something Ian wrote 20 years ago. So how could a Unionist government come to be? POD should be post-Hegel, obviously. Beyond that, I’m all ears.
 
Well not to be accusatory of anyone, as I think it helps facilitate critical thinking in reguards to political systems, but it does seem to me as a sort of Victorian Fascism, the illegitimate child of Bonapartism with right-hegelian ideas
 
Maybe different ideological currents earlier would be important? Nationalism as it appeared OTL was quite potent amongst enlightenment philosophers and once the Germans embraced it (as in the confederation, not its darker later implementation) I think its too late for European thought not to be coloured in terms opposed to the proposed unionism.

I've proposed this as an idea before, but what about a POD that makes Stoicism a bigger participant in late Renaissance and early enlightenment thought? The Anti-nationalism, acceptance of authority and 'one universe of man' (to Paraphrase Aurelius) could be popular, as well as an attitude towards divinity potentially acceptable amongst Protestant cultures and the deism which typified the enlightenment era philosopher.

Could be a pretty interesting TL altogether actually if done right. Unionism, or something like it could appear as a republican model of the stoic ideal (ala Cicero) whilst enlightened absolutism could get a boost from being able to point to the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
 
Weird. This Unionism, if combined with some social tenets from Communism (like class equality and anti-capitalism), is basically the ideology of Unitarianism from my TL:

A third movement originated in the 1850s, however, and it was directly tied to the Industrial Revolution. The age of machines sharpened the differences between the rich and the poor, the common workers and the bourgeoisie, and the struggle between these two classes was what marked many conflicts in the 19th century. While entrepreneurs and aristocrats bathed in newfound wealth, many workers lived in awful conditions, with no security or government support, living off tiny wages and anything they can find in charities and on the street. Was this really what society should be like? Does our divided world need to stay divided. While thinkers who fought for the common classes have existed for centuries, the 19th century finalized this long development and led to the birth of Unitarianism. In many ways, this ideology was the result of one man - Theodore Weber. Weber was not a politician nor a philosopher - he was a biologist and spent most of his time studying insects and plant life. However, in his many years of studies, he came to a conclusion - the difference between man and animals is that unlike his fellow forms of life, man has purposefully divided himself into different groups that exploit one another, and Weber saw no purpose in this division of society. In his famous "Treatise on the Future of Politics", he gave the example of ants - there is no subjugation nor bourgeoisie exploitation in ant colonies, all workers in that society are completely equal, and thus they are able to build structures and destroy opponents many times their size. Extrapolating from this, Weber figured that the main thing that holds back human development is this class division, and should that "antiquated structure" be torn down and all of humanity were to be turned into an equal, free and united society with nothing separating one individual from another, then humanity will enter a new era of unmeasurable prosperity and power.

In his work, Weber mostly wrote about what he wanted to happen in the future, not what should be done to achieve such goals - and even though he planned a follow-up to the Treatise which would explain the path that humanity needs to take to achieve this perfect envisioned society, he died before he could finish it. Nevertheless, Weber's utopian ideas of Unitarianism spread across Europe like wildfire, and soon, parties following this new ideology began to crop up across the continent. However, the movement almost instantly fractured into sub-movements, as nobody actually knew how to accomplish this dream. The widest branch of the movement, called Democratic Unitarians, believed that the power of the upper classes can be weakened through the democratic process, especially releasing pro-worker laws like minimum wage, child labor bans and social security. Others, called Revolutionary Unitarians, believed that the perfect society can only be accomplished by destroying the old system and building a Unitarian society from scratch. The end of the 19th century saw a third branch of the Unitarian movement, which was a distortion of Weber's work, believing that the biologist was actually calling for national unity, chauvinism and the "purification" of society from minorities. The other Unitarian movements nicknamed them Purple Unitarians, as they believed that they were "infected" by Protectionist beliefs, represented by the purple color. While it started as a fringe movement among ultra-nationalist circles, it later became directly responsible for one of the bloodiest dictatorships of the 20th century.

The color blue, as the symbol of Unitarianism, is actually a reference to one of Weber's allegories, where he compared a future Unitarian society to the waves of the ocean - a united, unstoppable force that erodes even the strongest boulders and mountains.
 
Main problem is going to be creating a ruling class that is anti racial/nationalist and meritocratic from nation states that had just experienced the heyday of nationalism. The soviets tried and still ended up having to appeal to nationalists.
 
Main problem is going to be creating a ruling class that is anti racial/nationalist and meritocratic from nation states that had just experienced the heyday of nationalism. The soviets tried and still ended up having to appeal to nationalists.

That’s why I didn’t specify exactly when or where. The discussion immediately went in the direction of early 20th Century Germany, but elsewhere would be possible. The Ottoman Empire was an explicitly pluralist empire, maybe it retains the Balkans and some sort of young Turks try something like this?
 
That’s why I didn’t specify exactly when or where. The discussion immediately went in the direction of early 20th Century Germany, but elsewhere would be possible. The Ottoman Empire was an explicitly pluralist empire, maybe it retains the Balkans and some sort of young Turks try something like this?

Unionism seems like something that Austria would go for. They'd really dig the anti-nationalism. And it sets up an ideological dimension to their conflicts with Prussia (supposing that they turn to nationalism as per OTL)
 
Unionism seems like something that Austria would go for. They'd really dig the anti-nationalism. And it sets up an ideological dimension to their conflicts with Prussia (supposing that they turn to nationalism as per OTL)

How does Unionism evolve in Austria? You’d need a POD before 1848,probably well before.
 
How does Unionism evolve in Austria? You’d need a POD before 1848,probably well before.

Given it's Bonapartist nature, it would have to start around his time at the latest. Maybe he deals with them differently? Maybe Bohemia/Austria is a hub for the enlightenment for east-central Europe, to make it more open to it?
 
Unionism seems like something that Austria would go for. They'd really dig the anti-nationalism. And it sets up an ideological dimension to their conflicts with Prussia (supposing that they turn to nationalism as per OTL)

Yeah, this seems kind of tailor-made as the ideology to try and hold the Habsburg empire together. It also reminds me of Centrum from the GURPS Infinite Worlds setting.
 
I saw this thread for brainstorming a "national technocracy" ideology which, while technocratic, is quite different from the cargo cult harebrained pseudoscience of Technocracy Inc. that we know and love. Does anyone else think it sort of resembles Ian's Unionism? (The first page of the thread, at least)
 
Top