User:Rtcity/homaitism

From the Other Universe
Jump to navigationJump to search

Homaitism (Kryfona: Homaitisya; Drakona: Homaitin or Homaiti; Arieles: Omatesmu) is the general term applied to a collection of far-left political philosophies and ideologies which, broadly speaking, reject the ideas of property ownership and small government. Most Homaitist schools of thought advocate the establishment of a large social net, the socialization of the most important services in a society (such as those of fire, police, healthcare, and so on), and the formation of a government which serves most if not all of the needs of its people. Early Homaitists, as well as some modern Homaitist groups, advocate for the government to do everything for its citizenry; more recent and more conservative versions of Homaitism have also advocated for a large government, but one which is fluid in its provision of service based on economic and social conditions.

Homaitism has no singular founder, and originated as a popular movement within the First Adborthos Republic during the early 1600s. At the time, the Adborthos Republic was a deeply conservative nation which functioned in a similar manner to a dictatorship–a far cry from the liberal communes and states which had organized themselves in the aftermath of the collapse of the Dal-Tetas. Under the rule of the three aiadsi, Adana Yedana, Anila Nadasa, and Ozele Oredorga, government was kept small except for in respect to military; several rebellions during the period were crushed as a result. It was in this political environment that the Homaitist movement arose. By the mid 1600s, and in spite of several decrees banning open practice of the ideology, Homaitism was the dominant ideology in most of the First Republic. A subsequent attempt by Oredorga to crush the ideology failed, and prompted the Homaite Revolt, which threw him out of power. Jalthan Adel and Garodina Atyel, who ruled from 1679 to 1769, established and maintained the first–and to date only–Homaitist state to ever exist.

In the centuries since, Homaitism has remained a popular and extant ideology, particularly within Adborthos-Yolatho and its successor state in the Second Adborthos Republic. While Homaitism remained out of power for most of the 1800s, locally the power of Homaitists remained extensive in the century. The Church of Bira acted largely as a rubber stamp to the actions of Homaitists during the period, and in fact greenlit the failed experiment of the Biraist Homaitists and the more successful Religious Homaitist movement, and although it later distanced itself it remained for many decades after a supporter of the ideology. Homaitist parties have also traditionally done very well in Adborthos-Yolatho and the Second Republic since the establishment of democracy in 1881, with multiple Homaitist governments being formed in the 19th and 20th centuries. Although under the Adborthos Aiadna in the 1970s, Homaitism was suppressed and crushed, Homaitists remain a significant influence in Adborthos politics, and the Homaite Party is one of the largest parties in the Republic today. Outside of the Republic, Homaitist parties flourish in every Old World nation, although in particular they are successful in the provincial parliaments of the Kryfona Kingdom. Lesser, but generally more successful parties can also be found in the Lyoonos, Luenas, and among the Eloonis dragons in the far west of the New World.

Etymology

The native Drakonic name for Homaitism, Homaitin, is derived from the older Standard Drakona word for white, which was "homaite." Homaitism was not originally named this–in fact for most of its early history it had no name–but was christened Homaitin during the period under the aiadsi in which it was banned. Supporters of the Homaitist ideology at the time donned white and established it as a symbol of the movement in contrast to the green of the aiadsi–they were dubbed Homaitisi (literally, "Whiteists") subsequently. Gradually, the name stuck, and by the days of the Homaite Revolt most Homaitists took the name as a symbol of pride. In the years since, the word "homaite" has ceased to be used in reference to the color white, and is now used virtually exclusively to refer to Homaitism, Homaitists, and Homaitist politics and parties.

History

Origins

Ideologies similar to Homaitism have been practiced since the days of the Dal-Tetas in many Drakonic-majority regions, particularly in the modern homelands of the Adborthos Republic and parts of the Arieles Kingdom. For thousands of years before Homaitism was established and codified, a predominantly agrarian and rural-based society had propagated in these lands and among their Drakonic inhabitants. While not necessarily Homaitist in nature, the agrarian ideas of pre-Homaitist Drakona societies were certainly quite similar, and the communalism practiced by Homaitists historically and in present day has its origins in the pre-Homaitist communities of the Drakonic homelands.

Under the Dal-Tetas, while the ideas Homaitism would come to encompass were widespread, they were not seen as something to be implemented at the national level. To most people–while these ideals were seen as good for families and communities–widespread implementation of such ideas was seen as malevolent to a society. In any case, the leadership of the Dal-Tetas was not very open to their implementation anyways. Thus for most all of the state's existence, pre-Homaitism was just that.

When the Dal-Tetas collapsed, there was a sudden vacuum of power and a vacuum of society in the Drakonic homelands. The Dal-Tetas fell into disarray almost immediately after having lost its eponymous war, and by 1099 had completely disintegrated into a loose collection of societies and city states. It was in this environment of small, locally based government interspersed with a few larger city states that Homaitism began to take off.

1500s: Early Homaitism

Main articles: Early Homaitism, Old Homaitism
See also: The Homaitist Manifesto, Underground Homaitism, Homaitist Circle, Homaitist Society, Homaite Revolt

The origins of the Homaitist ideology are somewhat murky due to spotty record keeping in the days immediately before the First Adborthos Republic and subsequently its formative years. Homaitism almost certainly got its start as an extension of the ultraliberal, agrarian, and communal societies that many Drakona formed in the aftermath of the Dal-Tetas, but the wheres and whens have long since been lost to history. Early Homaitist ideology is likewise poorly documented. While outlines of proto-Homaitism do exist, they are certainly not comprehensive and speak little of the ideology itself. Most likely, proto-Homaitism was simply a more radical form of what was already being practiced by the Drakonic communes in the wastes of the Dal-Tetas. Other theories suggest it was predominantly agrarian, with decidedly less emphasis on the ultraliberal and communal aspects of society. Regardless, while its early history is imprecise, by the establishment of the First Republic, Homaitism was a well established ideology.

The first Homaitist groups sprung up almost immediately after the establishment of the First Republic, with the Homaitist Society being the most prominent of these flagship groups. Society founder Enare Beisabaresh is generally considered by Homaitists to be the first of the Old Homaitists, although his leadership of the early Homaitist groups was short lived and ended in his assassination in 1589. Other prominent Homaitists of the time who established a foundation for Homaitism in the early First Republic include Sarhi Eikare, Syyle Perdanbarish, and Vype Serisow, the latter of whom is considered to be the first foreign Homaitist. Of Serisow, Modern Homaitist philosopher Saphod Onari wrote: "without [his] work, it is unlikely that Homaitism today would be so broad and accepted as it is now."

Although Homaitism was well established in the early First Republic, it was not necessarily well respected nor broadly followed by the Adborthos public. Early Homaitism was considered a fringe movement by most Adborthosi, not least because of its ultraliberal tendencies and radical ideals. Although Serisow, Perdanbarish, Eikare, and others with them attempted to convert followers to the cause of the Homaitist Society and Homaitism in general, it was not until Adana Yedana–the leader of the First Republic at the time–declared himself an aiad in 1596 that the Homaitist ideology began to grow and take in new members other than those who already adhered to it. Yedana, who in today's terms would likely be deemed a fascist, almost immediately sought to ban the ideology. A year after his declaration, he did so, driving the movement underground and in the process galvanizing an otherwise unsympathetic public to support the movement. It was in this environment that Homaitism began to thrive, and in this environment that the basis of the Homaitist ideology would be established.

The Homaitist Circle and The Homaitist Manifesto

Shortly after the banning of Homaitism, a small group of Homaitist thinkers who would come to be known as the Homaitist Circle began to exchange ideas in the hopes of coming to a common agreement on the tenets of Homaitism. The Homaitist Circle consisted of about twenty prominent Homaitists, including Serisow and Eikare, but also newer Homaitists who were then up-and-coming like Gyila Senia and Hirisina Omaradose. Gradually, the Homaitist Circle refined some of the ideals which previous Homaitists like Perdanbarish (who by then was dead) had established. Most prominently, the group came to a very simple conclusion on property: it simply was not compatible with Homaitism. Eikare was the single dissenting voice on the matter of property–"I believed," he wrote on the matter sometime after the Circle met, "that Homaitism and property could coexist with relative ease. 'Simply end private property and refine the definition of public property!' is what I told them–'Impossible!' is what they replied." Eikare ultimately went along with the rest of the group on the matter, but not long after dissociated himself with the group over ideological differences he considered irreconcilable.

It is thus said by we of the Homaitist Movement that the idea of property is inherently unequal, and in no uncertain terms should be rejected by all Drakona, and all species and races of every nation of the world. It is a right that all who wish to use the lands of this world should be free to do so, and property runs contrary to this ideal. For, if one's right to use the lands of this earth are so restricted, what rights does one truly have?

Sarodgi Pesomgesh, "The Homaitist Manifesto: A Declaration of the Ideals of the Homaitist Movement"

For the most part, however, the Homaitists of the Circle agreed on what Homaitism was and what it meant for both them and the world. They agreed that Homaitism meant socialization for the masses in every way possible, welfare for those in need, and the end of private property for certain. Likewise they agreed that for such a system to work, government would have to be very large, and very liberal, neither of which would be easy to sell in a place like the First Republic. They nevertheless saw the selling of the idea as necessity–the alternative to big government was no government at all in Homaitism, a prospect which none of them deemed appealing. With the major points hammered home, the Circle resigned itself to now finding a way to propagate its conclusions. For several weeks, the Circle labored with how best to do this–unbeknownst to them, Circle member Sarodgi Pesomgesh had long found the solution. Rather than quietly send out their ideas in bullet points or fragments, Pesomgesh instead laboriously transcribed the ideas of the Circle to prose and, on a quiet day in April of 1598, sent these ideas out to every publisher he possibly could. And so, the Circle rose to quite a surprise when "The Homaitist Manifesto," as he titled it, was published by almost every paper and publisher in the First Republic on 19 April, 1598.

The Homaitist Manifesto was incredibly controversial, but also one of the major successes of the early Homaitists. Yedana was outraged that such a revolutionary ideology had managed to have its ideas published so easily; conservative Adborthos were likewise outraged by the very ideas Homaitism espoused. For many Adborthos, however, The Homaitist Manifesto channeled feelings of community and unity which now seemed to not exist under Yedana. Tens of thousands of new Homaitesi suddenly sprouted up overnight throughout the First Republic, and for days on end it seemed almost as if the whole nation had been swept by a Homaitist craze. The Homaitist Circle for their part was immensely pleased by the results of of Pesomgesh's gamble, although they certainly chastised him for taking such a risk in the first place.

While the Homaitist euphoria and hysteria gradually died down, Yedana's reactions and responses to the Homaitists did not. At the end of 1598, Yedana introduced a sweeping reform which made it criminal to even associate with Homaitists, although obviously such a rule was seldom enforced even when it was possible to do so. The reforms brought new anger, and for a second time that year the Homaitists were boosted by the apparent authoritarianism of Yedana. By the end of 1598, there were more than 60,000 new Homaitists, and Homaitism dominated many rural parts of the First Republic. For a long time afterwards, and well into the modern era, it was not unusual for rural towns in the Adborthos to have strongly Homaitist communities–thanks in no part to Yedana, the Homaitist movement was firmly cemented into Adborthos culture before the 1600s even began.

1600s: Rise of Old Homaitism

Main article: Old Homaitism, Kailaist

Beginning in about 1600, what is today known as Old Homaitism began to spring up in parts of the Homaitist movement. While at first, there seemed to be a virtually negligible difference between mainstream Homaitism and the new movement that had begun to rally in urban parts of the First Republic, in very short order the differences between the Early Homaitism which formed the basis of The Homaitist Manifesto and the Old Homaitism which became the dominant form of Homaitism in place of Early Homaitism were clear.

An agrarian, rural society is the way we must live, and the way which we have always lived. For Homaitism to work, this is the way to which we must return.

Kaila Berhores ib Ratinethos, "A Call for Change in Homaitism"

For starters, the ideals of Old Homaitism were not simply a return to communal society and the end of property like those of Early Homaitism–rather, Old Homaitists wanted the whole of society to become rural and agrarian in addition to the communal society aspects of Early Homaitism. Moreover, though today Old Homaitists are roughly middling in regards to how radical they are, during the early days of Homaitism they were radical even compared to typical Homaitists. Thus, when in 1601, the Old Homaitist philosopher Kaila Berhores ib Ratinethos called for these reforms to the traditional Homaitist ways, it was reacted to with shock not just from Yedana and conservative Adborthosi, but by the Homatist Circle and other Homaitist groups as well. Nevertheless, Berhores' pitch was of similar popularity to the pitch of The Homaitist Manifesto, and the popularity of Old Homaitism skyrocketed with city dwellers, particularly those in Ratinethos, the First Republic's capital. Berhores became a figure of authority in the Homaitist community–although certainly not with the Early Homaitists–virtually overnight as a result.

While the Early Homaitists did not see Berhores as a threat, they certainly were not approving of the job she was doing. Even if her movement was popular, it did not reflect well on Homaitists and certainly was not attractive to many people. Gyila Senia, then on her death bed due to chronic illness, spoke rather ill of Berhores and the Old Homaitist movement–"She speaks well," said Senia, "and yet all the same she speaks poorly for all of us. If we were all as her, our movement would have died so long ago." Many of the Homaitist Circle's remaining members echoed her sentiments. Berhores for her part did not particularly care about the 'Old Guard,' as she was prone to call them. Years after the Homaitist Circle lost influence with the general Homaitist movement, she spoke in one of her now-famous speeches that "[The Homaitist Circle] never did influence me much, and I never much did influence them, I think." And she certainly was not wrong. For most of the Circle's remaining existence, it was diametrically opposed to the Old Homaitists and–in many respects because of that–it was probably their downfall.

While the Homaitist Circle remained prominent, with time it began to play second fiddle to Berhores and the Old Homaitists. Adherents to her cause, who became known as the Kailaists, by 1602 dominated Homaitist literature and politics. Likewise by 1603 they held most of the power Homaitists had over their government and the public. Although opposed heavily by the Homaitist Circle, it was clear that the sympathies of the Homaitist public fell with Berhores, and in spite of the efforts by the Circle to keep the Kailaists out of Homaitism, by 1605 there were essentially no Early Homaitists left in the First Republic beyond the small sphere of influence the remaining members of the Circle had. Even then, it was clear that the Circle was effectively out of Homaitist politics. Pesomgesh had died in 1601, followed by Eikare and Omaradose. Serisow lived a few years longer, but ultimately died in 1607 and spelled the end for the Homaitist Circle and Early Homaitism. Gaisa Dosegeres, the last major member of the Circle, died in 1615, and was almost certainly one of the last Early Homaitists.

Kailaism and the rise of radical Homaitism

With the Homaitist Circle mostly out of the picture, the Kailaists gradually consolidated power as the dominant Homaitist movement, and Old Homaitism took the place of Early Homaitism. Berhores herself was rather quiet on the matter, although she was more than a beneficiary from it. Rather than focus on the "old ways," as she herself said, she instead channeled her focus into refining the Old Homaitist ideology. She was not alone in that regard: by 1608 a new guard of Homaitists in the form of the Reactionary Homaitist movement was gradually developing where the Homaitist Circle had once been, and was ready to take the world by storm.

The Reactionaries, as they fashioned themselves, were first the beneficiaries of the reduced influence of the Homaitist Society. Although long irrelevant, the Homaitist Society remained extant in 1606, and it was in that year that the first Reactionaries entered Homaitist politics. The first Reactionaries, these being Ione Erak-Gosbe, Beiye Onsiske, and Sapary Gehom, got their start in the Homaitist Society and, not liking what they saw, sought to change the organization. A silent coup in 1607 brought the Society under effective Reactionary control, and it was from this platform that the Reactionaries first began to change Homaitism. Unlike the Kailaists, they were not docile and certainly not afraid of fighting the government where possible: in 1608, in fact, a Reactionary nearly assassinated Adana Yedana in his office. The Reactionaries were met with cries of terrorism and militants thereafter.

Although violent, the Reactionary movement grew significantly in its first three years, and by 1609 it was clear that the Reactionaries and the Kailaists would have to come together sooner or later. Berhores herself was very hesitant to associate with the militancy of the Reactionaries, however exaggerated and fictitious the narrative might have been; nonetheless she met with Erak-Gosbe privately that year and expressed a desire to enter into some form of agreement with the Homaitist Society, by then rebranded into the Reactionary Society. A deal followed thereafter.

Fragmentation: 1800s

Homaitism has long been a splintered ideology, with many vying schools of thought that have risen and fallen throughout its history. The most prominent branches of the Homaitist ideology are Old Homaitism, Modern Homaitism, Small-scale Homaitism, and Minority Homaitism, although many other sects exist. Modern Homaitism is the largest of the branches, having split from Old Homaitism in the 1880s and come of age by the 1890s with the establishment of several Modern Homaitist parties throughout the Old World. Old Homaitism is the second largest, and is sometimes known as "Traditional Homaitism" or "Pure Homaitism" because it follows the tenets of the original Homaitist Manifesto. Minority Homaitism is the branch practiced by most non-Drakonic Homaitist parties, and typically advocates for a return to a predominantly rural and agrarian based society, although some branches of Minority Homaitism call for the creation of local communal societies such as those formed by Drakona in the wake of the Dal-Tetas' collapse. Small-scale Homaitism is the smallest of the major branches, and advocates for the creation of such a social structure throughout the Old World.

Modern Homaitism

Main article: Modern Homaitism

Modern Homaitism (also known as Onariism or derogatorily as Revisionism) is the flagship of current Homaitist theory. With roots in the Socialite Homaitists of Ratinethos, Modern Homaitism is a very socially liberal ideology, but advocates for a much more conservative approach to the eventual end of property as an idea and the socialization of government. As opposed to the immediate establishment of big government and the immediate transfer of property demanded by Old Homaitists, Modern Homaitism calls for the establishment of a big government insofar as it is possible given the social and economic conditions of the time. Once this big government is established, de-privatization of the state begins and over time all private lands and private property are turned over or otherwise confiscated by the government.

A major distinction between Modern Homaitism and Old Homaitism is that Modern Homaitism rejects the calls for a return to the communal, community-based society of the post-Dal-Tetas period. While Modern Homaitists believe that Old Homaitism is invariably and inevitably superior for a society that Modern Homaitism, they likewise believe that Old Homaitism is simply impractical in an increasingly globalistic and modernized world. Therefore, it is argued, certain amendments to traditional Homaitist ideas must be made to ensure that society remains as true to the Homaitist ideology as possible while simultaneously remaining viable. What amendments in specific to the Homaitist ideology for it to remain viable in such a world are hotly debated even now by Modern Homaitists and the various sects of Homaitism which derive from it. The most accepted version of the Modern Homaitist amendments are the "Revisions," first published by Homaitist politician and philosopher Saphod Onari, which are as follows:

  • Firstly, a modern Homaitist government may not be capable of providing everything for all of its citizens, and therefore it is acceptable for a Homaitist government to provide only what it is capable of providing given the social and economic conditions of the time.
  • Secondly, a modern Homaitist government may postpone the ultimate goal of full socialization and the end of property as a whole until it can so provide for its peoples, for this is the only responsible and proper action for such a government to take.
  • Thirdly, a small amount of socialization for the whole population is superior to complete socialization for a few, for it is not proper nor right for a system of equality and community such as Homaitism to benefit one over another.
  • Fourthly, even in a modern era of corporation and franchising, the needs of the many should and will always outweigh the needs of a few, for it is the many that anchor the few and the few that rely on the many for their lives and livelyhoods.

It is necessary for all Homaitist thinkers, but Drakona especially, to recognize the brave and unprecedented world in which we now live. Even as I write this, technology and innovation are driving the once rural masses to urban areas, to cities and villages from what were once thriving communes. The Age of Innovation will be the undoing of the old standard of Homaitism, for no longer do the masses toil in community-directed communes where the word of the masses may as well be the Word of God herself. Instead, the masses now thrive in their housing blocks and work not in their communal public fields but in the fields of business and innovation, at the tops of privately owned towers run by multi-national companies. The Revisions are not pure, certainly, and I too recognize that. But so long as the worker toils in the private tower of a business and not in the fields of his forefathers, pure Homaitism can exist no more.

Saphod Onari, "The Modern Homaitist Manifesto: A Future for Homaitism in the Age of Innovation"

The four Revisions were the foundation of the Modern Homaitist Manifesto, the first Modern Homaitist literature to ever be published, and are largely accepted by the Modern Homaitist community, although this was not always true, as detailed below. Additions and revisions to the Revisions themselves have also been made by other Homaitist politicians and philosophers since Onari published The Modern Homaitist Manifesto; however, none of these additions and revisions have been endorsed or supported broadly.

Who first proposed the actual Revisions is a matter of historical uncertainty. Although they were published by Homaitist philosopher Saphod Onari in 1877, he was almost certainly not the first Homaitist to come up with them. By the time the Modern Homaitist Manifesto was published, support for a revision of the original Homaitist Manifesto and the tenets which it proposed was high in most of the Adborthos. In particular, among the Socialite Homaitists, with whom Onari was on good terms with, support for such a thing was effectively unanimous and a regular point of discussion. While Onari never credited anyone else with the ideas expressed by the Revisions, almost certainly he derived them and at least part of the Modern Homaitist Manifesto from the writings of his fellow Socialite Homaitists. To what extent this occurred is more controversial–Onari himself never spoke on that matter and died just a few years after the Modern Homaitist Manifesto was published. Nevertheless, the overlap between the ideals of the Socialite Homaitists and the Modern Homaitist Manifesto seems clear.

Although in hindsight a necessary change for the Homaitist ideology as a whole, the Modern Homaitist Manifesto was not well received at first. Many Old Homaitists considered it virtually sacreligious to suggest that Homaitism might have to modify its ideals, and actively tried to exclude those associated with both the Socialite Homaitists and Onari from Homaitist circles. Hale Seondes, Kaila Saphare, Harisia Onazes and several other prominent Socialite Homaitists found themselves effectively excommunicated from the Homaitist movement as such. Infighting between the Socialite Homaitists and the Old Homaitists quickly followed. After the Socialite Homaitists were prevented from attending that year's Homaitist National Convention, they (along with Onari) established the Modern Homaitist Front and made Onari's Manifesto the gospel. Many of the Socialite Homaitist's followers went along with them, refusing to attend the HNC and enacting in essence a boycott of the event.

Infighting between the Modern Homaitists and the Old Homaitists gradually got worse after the "boycott" began. A new version of the original Homaitist Manifesto was released in 1878, the year after the Modern Homaitist Manifesto was released–the Homaitist National Convention subsequently declared the original Homaitist Manifesto to be the canon. The move enraged the Modern Homaitists, who considered the move to be exclusionary. Although they were effectively powerless and as time went on the less radical and more forward-thinking Homaitists began to agree with them. At that year's Homaitist National Concention, a bloc of otherwise-Old Homaitists raised objection to the efforts of the Old Homaitists to exclude other branches of the ideology. They were shouted down by the radical Old Homaitists, however; chants of "Death to the New! Long live the Old!" and "Traitors to the Homaitesi, leave us now, leave us be!" filled the Convention. Outraged, many of the liberal delegates stormed out, and began to caucus with the Modern Homaitists.

See also

Parties and unions

Manifestos

Criticisms

Concepts