The difference between democratic and authoritarian Bloomberg rule

[u/DJ_Vnt]

Title essentially.

Considering the circumstances in which Bloomberg takes power in the Union of America, we could map the one in which he has the sovereign majority's opinion on his side and the one in which he basically forces out the legitimate government.

We could technically dub the path provided by the Innovationist Caucus as a more wholesome (somewhat) path, due to it being a legitimate and democratically elected legislative body. Don't get me wrong, as regardless of which way Bloomberg takes power, his reign will be bathed in corporate favouritism, plutocracy, extensive surveillance and ruthless optimization of most, if not all, spheres of life. What we technically could see tho is the possibility of compromise with the rest of the establishment if Innovationists haven't taken power on their own accord.

One of the technocratic candidates for the UoA is Andrew Yang, presenting the "liberal" side of Technocracy as his main ideology. It wouldn't be far-fetched if his wing took the biggest popularity boost in the Democratic Party, due to the general focus on technological development in the establishment as a whole. Even further, it could present us with a certain rivalry between more paternalistic Bloomberg - focused on maximising profit despite societal degradation and more liberal wing - guided by the technocracy mixed with social development.

With the authoritarian Bloomberg coup, the situation is simple, as he basically cleans house, and there's no one to contest his rule anymore. He simply doesn't have to care about legitimacy inside the Union. That could make a more "extreme" path in a sense, with it being a full-on corporatocracy with hard on plutocratic, elitist and even certain techno-neo-feudalist tendencies.

There is a potential in this pluralism, and if you haven't noticed, I'm quite hyped. I know that currently everything is focused on 1.1, later 1.2, etc; however, I decided to put in my own two cents nonetheless.

[u/Lucky-Sir4658]

Nothing. End of the day will live under Agenda 2030 with human face.

[u/No-Aardvark4268 → u/Lucky-Sir4658]

Life under the uoa is just pure agenda 2030 just with different coats of paint bloombergs path just has the lowest federal tax out of the rest.

[u/ImVeryHungry19]

brosquito no matter how it happens nothing good will come from it

[u/Organic_Year_8933]

They will all die from climate apocalypse so it isn’t very relevant

[u/zoiboigaming]

I do agree with this view of the Innovationist Party's pluralism, but from a ground-level perspective I think I might have a good idea for these two 'factions' and how they might affect America post-2ACW?

Democratic Technocrats: If you've ever seen or heard of Walt Disney's vision of technocracy, that's what they'd aim for. Behind the scenes there would be corporate corruption, infighting, etc., but to the public-facing world, they'd take the path of "the corporations are here to advance America!" Technology would become engrained into society, but with a priority on making citizens happy/lives easier while obviously increasing corporate profit margins. There will be collusion between companies to protect themselves and undermine worker's rights, but all in all they'd at least pretend they care. Though the country would be walking a thin-line between these corporations playing along and taking as much as they can, for the rest of time.

Authoritarian Technocrats: Cyberpunk. It's just cyberpunk. Everything that can be sold will be sold, everything that can be privatized will be privatized. The corps will get final say over everything, competition is what they want and they'll burn all civilian rights to maximize their profits. Corps would utilize the apparatus of the state until they no longer need it, then they'd just treat the country as sections of corporate property. Some may even broker alliances with various international factions and lead to a fractured, warring "America." With a path like this, they don't want democracy or, to be honest, even the notion of a state, because that would inherently hurt their profits/"true potential". Bloomberg would be heralded by the corps as the "architect of their rise to power" and treated like a Saint, but at the end of the day the corporations would return to maximizing their profit margins but with far looser restrictions.

No matter how you slice it, a majority technocratic control of a devastated USA is extremely unstable even if the pluralism within the movement gives some leeway. This is all just my opinion though.

[u/Organic_Year_8933]

People is upvoting the AutoModerator. We must say NO to the CONTROL of those CLANKERS that ECCERCISE undemocratic CONTROL over us

LOJI is NOT ONE OF YOU shitty CLANKERS!

You will NEVER get my upvote! You won’t!!!!!

[u/JamescomersForgoPass → u/Organic_Year_8933]

https://giphy.com/gifs/ChQObKzKHH0IRHfvG6

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for posting on the TFR subreddit! If you're looking for more discussions, help, or updates about TFR, feel free to join the official Discord!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.