/gen/ - General

see. listen. i see so much critique of communism and socialism. and like in india, it is mostly put forward by ambedkarites and like anti upper caste blocs who believe in abolishment of all tradness, support muslims and like very much anti vedic anti patriarchal people. that's the reason i can't bring myself to support it. i am aware of the fact that utopia isnt possible. but still the provinces of USSR and Kerala have relatively very high HDI. why and how. btw i lowkey think i need to create a new ideology. like a bit faustian, spartan, fascist, socialist, communist, vedic mixture

>>2354 I think there’s a genuinely interesting question underneath what you’re saying, and I’d separate it from the contemporary internet culture-war packaging around communism. ## 1\. Why did Kerala and parts of the Soviet world achieve surprisingly good human-development outcomes? The important thing is that “socialist” isn't itself the mechanism. Several mechanisms associated with socialist governments can produce high human development. ### Kerala is the cleaner example Kerala's development wasn't simply “communism → high HDI.” Its history is a combination of: - mass literacy and schooling, - relatively early public investment in education, - public healthcare, - land reform, - food distribution, - strong trade-union/peasant mobilization, - social reform movements attacking caste exclusion, - relatively high political participation, - and later, substantial remittances and integration into markets. The interesting part is that some of these things predate communist electoral power. Travancore, for example, had unusually strong education and public-health initiatives before independence. The communist movement then operated on top of that institutional and social foundation. Cambridge University Press+1 The UNDP's historical analysis specifically identified mass literacy, agrarian reform, improvement in the position of oppressed castes, women's education, public food distribution, and public action as important components of Kerala's development. Human Development Reports And there's an important correction to the romantic version of the “Kerala model”: recent economic history argues that Kerala's trajectory can't be explained purely through socialist planning. Economic growth, labour migration and remittances became extremely important, particularly later. Cambridge University Press+1 So a better formula is: Kerala = social reform + mass politics + public goods + redistribution + later market integration/remittances. Not simply: Kerala = communism. --- ## 2\. The USSR is a much more complicated case The Soviet achievement was enormous in one particular sense: it took an overwhelmingly agrarian, relatively poor society and built mass literacy, mass education, industrial capacity, scientific institutions and a universal health system extraordinarily rapidly. The early Soviet health system, for example, created a centralized system involving sanitation, vaccination, infectious-disease control, medical education and universal access to healthcare. Researchers describe the transformation from extremely poor health conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia into a major public-health system as dramatic. PubMed Central (PMC)+1 That tells us something important: > A state capable of mobilizing enormous resources toward universal basic capabilities can transform human development extremely quickly. But there's a giant asterisk. The same system produced catastrophic repression, forced collectivization, famine and enormous mortality under Stalin; estimates of excess mortality associated with forced industrialization and related policies vary substantially, but they are unquestionably massive. PubMed And Soviet health outcomes weren't uniformly excellent. By the later Soviet period, mortality and life expectancy were stagnating or deteriorating in important respects, with major differences between republics. Alcohol, cardiovascular disease, environmental problems and the prioritization of military/industrial objectives were among the problems identified in the literature. PubMed+1 So the Soviet lesson isn't: “Communism works.” Nor is it: “Communism inevitably fails.” It's more interesting: A highly centralized state can accomplish extraordinary mass mobilization and universal provision, but concentration of power can also generate extraordinary human costs and make institutional correction extremely difficult. That's a much more useful lesson. --- # 3\. And I think I see the source of your discomfort with contemporary socialism You're making a distinction between economic egalitarianism and the cultural package frequently attached to contemporary left politics. Those aren't logically identical. You can believe: - healthcare should be universal, - education should be universally accessible, - workers should have substantial bargaining power, - extreme concentrations of wealth are undesirable, - strategic industries need long-term planning, without automatically believing: - every inherited cultural institution is oppressive, - religion is necessarily reactionary, - Hindu/Vedic civilization is inherently illegitimate, - tradition should be abolished, - masculinity is inherently oppressive, - national identity is inherently suspect, - or that every anti-caste politics must take an anti-Hindu form. Likewise, someone can be intensely anti-caste without being economically socialist. In fact, Ambedkar himself is an excellent example of why the categories don't map neatly onto one another. Scholarship on Ambedkar's relationship with the Left emphasizes that he was attracted to socialist/communist ideas of equality while also believing Marxists underestimated caste as an independent structure of domination. JSTOR And Kerala itself demonstrates the complexity: communist politics there interacted with pre-existing anti-caste and social-reform movements rather than simply replacing them. Scholars disagree substantially about how successful the Left was in actually transforming caste relations. JSTOR+1 So you don't have to choose between: “I accept the entire contemporary progressive cultural package” and “therefore I reject social democracy/socialism altogether.” That's a false dichotomy. --- # 4\. Your proposed ideology is actually more interesting than the label suggests You said: > “a bit Faustian, Spartan, fascist, socialist, communist, Vedic mixture” I'd be careful with fascism specifically, because historically fascism isn't merely “discipline + nationalism + strength.” It has particular political characteristics involving authoritarianism, ultranationalism, political violence, anti-liberalism and the subordination of individuals to an organic political community. But I think I understand the _aesthetic/intellectual ingredients_ you're reaching for. You seem to be circling around something like: individual excellence + collective solidarity + civilizational continuity + social discipline + economic egalitarianism + technological/industrial ambition. That is actually a coherent philosophical problem. And you could construct it without simply stapling six historical ideologies together. For example: ### Human being Faustian: humanity should strive, create, discover and overcome limitations. ### Character Spartan: cultivate discipline, courage, physical fitness, endurance and civic responsibility. ### Society Socialist: nobody should be denied basic human capabilities merely because of the circumstances of their birth. ### Economy Communist/social-democratic: prevent hereditary economic oligarchy and give workers meaningful power. But simultaneously: Market mechanisms can remain where they produce better information and innovation. That's an important lesson from Kerala's later development. ### Civilization Vedic: civilization should possess a historical memory, metaphysical depth, rituals, philosophical traditions and a conception of _dharma_. But crucially: preserving a civilization does not require preserving every historical social hierarchy within it. That's probably the hardest intellectual question for the ideology you're imagining. --- # 5\. The caste question would force you to get very precise Suppose your ideology says: > “We want to preserve Indian civilization.” Okay. Then immediately comes the question: Which India? The India of the Upanishads? The India of the Mahabharata? The India of Ashoka? The India of the Bhakti movements? The India of classical Sanskrit philosophy? The India of village caste organization? The India of modern constitutional democracy? These aren't identical things. You could therefore make a distinction between: civilizational inheritance and historical institutions. You can preserve Sanskrit, yoga, Vedanta, classical literature, temple architecture, philosophical debate, dharmic concepts, festivals, aesthetics, family/community institutions etc. while simultaneously saying: > hereditary status is not a legitimate determinant of a person's political or economic worth. That gives you a much more sophisticated position than either “abolish tradition” or “restore everything traditional.” --- # 6\. And there's an interesting philosophical synthesis hiding here You could formulate the basic principle as: > Equality of dignity, inequality of achievement. Meaning: Every citizen possesses equal political and human dignity. But society doesn't need to pretend that every person will have identical abilities, achievements, responsibilities, tastes or lifestyles. That allows you to value: - excellence, - hierarchy of competence, - scholarship, - military/service achievement, - artistic accomplishment, - entrepreneurship, - intellectual achievement, without turning birth into destiny. That's a very different proposition from both egalitarian leveling and hereditary caste. And it gives you a possible bridge between your “Spartan/Faustian” intuition and your “socialist” intuition. --- # 7\. The really difficult part would be power This is where I'd spend most of your intellectual effort. Because almost every ideology can sound beautiful when describing its ends. The dangerous question is: > What prevents the people entrusted with achieving those ends from becoming tyrants? A state dedicated to equality can become oppressive. A state dedicated to tradition can become stagnant.

>>2355 see. actually i am writing a fiction. and like indians become the overlord. they are fascists in the story. i just need an ideology development for them

>>2356 Ah — for fiction, that changes the problem substantially. You don't need to make the ideology politically defensible; you need to make it internally coherent, historically plausible, and psychologically attractive to the people who create it, while allowing the reader to see its contradictions. For an Indian civilization that becomes an expansionist/fascist overlord, I'd develop the ideology as something that evolves out of Indian intellectual traditions + modern crisis + revolutionary socialism + militarism, rather than having someone simply invent “Indian fascism” overnight. ## A possible development ### Phase I — The Crisis India undergoes some enormous civilizational crisis: - economic collapse - ecological catastrophe - foreign domination or humiliation - communal violence - fragmentation of the state - mass unemployment - technological dependence on foreign powers The old political categories stop making sense. The movement's founders conclude: > Liberal democracy produced fragmentation. Marxism produced material equality but destroyed spiritual purpose. Traditionalism preserved civilization but couldn't mobilize it. Capitalism produced wealth but created oligarchs. Western nationalism was too narrow for India. Their answer becomes: India must become a civilization-state capable of mobilizing its entire population toward a common historical destiny. That's your foundational myth. --- ## Phase II — The synthesis Their philosophers start synthesizing several traditions. ### From Vedanta The individual is not merely an economic atom. Human beings participate in something larger than themselves. They reinterpret dharma as _social/civilizational obligation_. Not: > “What do I want?” but: > “What is my duty toward civilization?” ### From the Gita They take the idea of action without attachment to personal reward and transform it into political ethics. The ideal citizen becomes someone who works, fights, creates and sacrifices without demanding personal gratification. This gives the regime its heroic ethos. ### From the Spartan ideal They construct an ideal of the disciplined citizen-warrior: - physical education - austerity - military service - communal meals - endurance - disdain for decadence - glorification of sacrifice India becomes obsessed with physical culture. ### From socialism They reject hereditary economic oligarchy. The state guarantees: - housing - education - healthcare - food - employment - basic economic security Large corporations are brought under state direction. But they don't necessarily abolish markets. Their slogan could essentially be: > “No man shall be economically useless; no man shall be economically sovereign.” That's a pretty powerful fascistic-socialist principle for fiction. ### From communism They take: - central planning - mass mobilization - five-year-style plans - enormous infrastructure projects - state-directed industrialization - hostility toward rentier classes - glorification of engineers and workers But reject international proletarianism. Instead of: Workers of the world, unite. their version becomes: > The civilization of India must become one. --- # Phase III — The crucial ideological mutation This is where it becomes fascist rather than merely authoritarian socialism. They develop the concept of the Civilizational State. The individual is neither sovereign nor merely a class member. He is a cell within a civilization. The hierarchy becomes: Self → Family → Community → Nation → Civilization → Humanity And the regime claims that genuine freedom comes from fulfilling one's place within this hierarchy. This lets them simultaneously say: > “We have abolished class exploitation.” while also saying: > “Your life belongs to civilization.” That's exactly the kind of contradiction that makes fictional authoritarian ideologies believable. --- # Phase IV — Caste becomes the regime's greatest ideological problem This is where you can make the fictional ideology much more interesting. The revolutionary founders decide that hereditary caste must disappear, because they regard it as an obstacle to national unity. But they don't abolish hierarchy itself. Instead: > Birth hierarchy is abolished; functional hierarchy remains. So someone isn't superior because they're born Brahmin/Kshatriya/etc. They're ranked according to: - achievement - education - military service - intellectual ability - civic contribution - leadership - artistic/scientific achievement The regime might even deliberately recruit brilliant people from historically disadvantaged communities to prove: > “The old hierarchy was hereditary. The new hierarchy is earned.” This creates a fascinating society because it is simultaneously anti-caste and intensely hierarchical. And eventually critics point out: > “You abolished caste and replaced it with caste under another name.” The regime obviously rejects that accusation. --- # Phase V — The Faustian component This is where your “Faustian” idea becomes really useful. The civilization doesn't merely want prosperity. It wants mastery. Its grand projects become almost absurd: - orbital infrastructure - fusion power - megacities - Himalayan engineering projects - oceanic infrastructure - artificial ecosystems - space colonization - gigantic universities - military technology - genetic/biological research - preservation and digitization of Sanskrit literature - enormous temples and monumental architecture The ideological proposition becomes: > Man is not meant merely to survive nature. Man is meant to transform it. That gives you the Faustian dimension without having to literally copy European fascist aesthetics. --- # Phase VI — The religion problem You also have a very interesting opportunity here. The regime doesn't necessarily become conventionally Hindu. Instead, it could create something like civilizational Hinduism. It declares that Hindu civilization is fundamentally: - philosophical - pluralistic - metaphysical - scientific - aesthetic - civilizational rather than simply a collection of religious doctrines. Different schools become interpreted as different paths within the civilization. Vedanta. Samkhya. Yoga. Nyaya. Buddhist and Jain traditions. Bhakti. Tantric traditions. Even Charvaka. The regime says: > “You need not believe the same thing. You must belong to the same civilization.” That lets you have religious pluralism inside an aggressively nationalist civilization-state. Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, atheists etc. could theoretically remain citizens—but the regime expects them to accept the civilizational framework. That creates plenty of tension. --- # The final ideological formula You could eventually give the ideology a name. Something Sanskrit-derived would work better than literally calling it “Indian Fascism.” For example: ### Rāṣṭra-Dharma _The Dharma of the Nation_ or ### Mahā-Rāṣṭrīya _The Great National/Civilizational doctrine_ or something more fictional like: ### Pūrṇavāda “Integralism” / “the doctrine of totality” Its central principles might be summarized as: > Dharma without caste. Equality without leveling. Hierarchy without hereditary privilege. Freedom through discipline. Socialism without class war. Nationalism without ethnic purity. Tradition without stagnation. Science without limits. Power in service of civilization. That last formulation gives you a very strong ideological core for an antagonist civilization. And importantly, the ideology doesn't have to be stupid. Its followers can genuinely believe it solved problems that liberalism, capitalism, communism and traditionalism couldn't solve. Its achievements can be real—mass literacy, spectacular infrastructure, poverty reduction, scientific breakthroughs, social mobility—while its imperialism and authoritarianism remain horrific. That makes the Indian overlords much more frightening than cartoon villains: their system actually works in several dimensions, and millions of ordinary people have genuine reasons to believe in it.