Look to the West -- Thread II

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by Analytical Engine

Actually, I think that there was one mention of aristocracy being considered a "natural" part of human society, according to Societism. Can't remember the part number off-hand, though.

It could be that Societism sees a strict class system/hierarchy/caste system etc. as something inherrant in all cultures, and so utilises this as one of the cornerstones by which different cultures can be united and almagamted into one group, so that it's not necessarily that Societism views class as more important than race as it sees class as a unifying factor and so emphasises this as a consequence.

[Analytical Engine]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

It could be that Societism sees a strict class system/hierarchy/caste system etc. as something inherrant in all cultures, and so utilises this as one of the cornerstones by which different cultures can be united and almagamted into one group, so that it's not necessarily that Societism views class as more important than race as it sees class as a unifying factor and so emphasises this as a consequence.

IIRC, Thande also mentioned that the Diversitarians are (officially at least) mostly classless, or don't view such things as important. Though most of that is probably just to seem contrary to the Societists.

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Sentinela do Norte

Ins't Societism a Aristocratic Internationalism? Essentially, it doesn't matter what nation or ethnicity you are from, but rather, what class you belong to....

I think Thande is partially making it up as we go along and partially lying back and tweaking it into something rather mind-bending.

However, as the UPSA is this timeline's analog of the OTL USA, I've been understanding Societism as something in some ways analogous to the "American" ideology I believe I recently sketched in my earlier response to you, and at much greater length way upthread somewhere. That is--it in some ways sees itself as revolutionary, in others as the mere refinement of common sense. It is basically pro-capitalist, in concept grounded in broadly democratic basis--but democracy readily boils down to the idea of the "aristocracy of merit." That is, a formally fluid class structure is a means of permitting the best talent to rise to prominence, but it's perfectly OK if one's formal institutions tend to operate without the actual, direct input of the actual majority of people day to day.

So, the USPA having been founded by a mass-based insurgency against Spanish rule, one that mobilized very broad sectors of society including Native American peoples, they don't (in this pre-Societist period) see themselves as continuous with the old European aristocratic system. In this stage very radical "Cobrist" notions tending toward being analogous with OTL socialism and communism are current and openly articulated as part of the USPA's spectrum of politics.

However...

Originally Posted by Analytical Engine

Actually, I think that there was one mention of aristocracy being considered a "natural" part of human society, according to Societism. Can't remember the part number off-hand, though.

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

It could be that Societism sees a strict class system/hierarchy/caste system etc. as something inherrant in all cultures, and so utilises this as one of the cornerstones by which different cultures can be united and almagamted into one group, so that it's not necessarily that Societism views class as more important than race as it sees class as a unifying factor and so emphasises this as a consequence.

However...While I very much doubt that Societism will ever formally declare a rigid class system as a good thing, I do suppose they might recognize the stratification as important to successful functioning of society. In their terms, the revolutionary success of the early UPSA would be that they broke the rigidity of the old Spanish system--but, while undergoing a period of dangerous ideological commitment to radical democratic concepts that might logically imply muddling up social operations with the interference of the uneducated and irresponsible mob in actual decisions, kept that "danger" at arm's length while capitalist business (that might not be recognized as such in terms familiar from OTL) developed, the nation (glorified, by the Societists, only as the embryo of the post-national world social order they champion) strengthened and sectors of leadership came forth.

Meanwhile, there are some major divergences between the UPSA and the OTL USA. The citizens of the USA OTL saw themselves as ethnically one people (of northwestern European, mostly British, extraction) with a range of culture that largely fit within the British context, and a huge preoccupation was daily confrontation with ethnically "Other" people--Native Americans, African-American slaves. The UPSA I believe came into being without slavery, the Spanish having either abolished it completely before the rebellion, or limited it paternalistically to the point that in the revolutionary enthusiasm with which the South American federal republic was founded, it was easily then abolished. And it came into being as the alliance of peoples more or less united by their opposition to Spanish hegemony, spanning a spectrum from liberal "Castillians" to entire Native nations. I guess these divergences are part of why the UPSA seemed so promisingly romantic to me!

But the resolution of interethnic tensions has apparently not always gone smoothly, and now they've bitten off a huge chunk of a different Iberian hegemony, one that relied on slavery on a massive scale.

Societism, as a vision of a world order based on freedom from ethnicity and national barriers, but one that rejects the more radical implications of democracy by asserting explicitly that social stratification is an eternally necessary and thus good thing, might have recommended itself to a broad coalition of the overextended UPSA's ruling classes, providing a framework in which ongoing slaveholding could be worked in and an open-ended strategy for absorbing ethnically diverse peoples worked out.

Originally Posted by Analytical Engine

IIRC, Thande also mentioned that the Diversitarians are (officially at least) mostly classless, or don't view such things as important. Though most of that is probably just to seem contrary to the Societists.

I'm unimpressed with the Diversitarians as an ideology, so far--indeed as an ideology I do suspect it is nothing more than "What You Should Hate About Societism, and Why." In fact, I daresay most "Diversitarian" nations are functionally quite stratified.

And of course part of the logic of Diversitarianism, if any, is that people from one nation have nothing to say about how another organizes itself (as long as they don't organize themselves as Societists!) so the constellation is quite open to for instance racist apartheid.

But vice versa--while I've gotten disenchanted with the ENA and a bit contemptuous of it, we've seen how it edges toward abolition of slavery.

So, while avoiding the Societist declaration that society should and must be stratified, they keep the revolutionary tendencies of radical democracy at arm's length by compartmentalizing the world into nations, so that if conditions on the ground in one place tend toward egalitarianism, they can still be contained in the coalition by asserting that that is peculiar to that nation's special character, while accommodating other formulations that are quite stratified with the same formula, keeping them all in the same anti-Societist coalition. The ruling orders of each nation are protected from cross-national revolutionary or counter-revolutionary ideology and the worst features of Societism are held up as the boogeyman to be feared.

[Admiral Matt]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I think Thande is partially making it up as we go along and partially lying back and tweaking it into something rather mind-bending.

Quite.

*snip*

I think you have it, now. Your analyses do tend to add a lot.

[5000 Cows]

Long time lurker here, chiming in on what I think is the greatest timeline I've ever read since coming here. This timeline is just so.... complete, in depth, more like a real actual world than any other I've read.

And all the hints of the future, of what the 20th century has in store downright make me feel dread. Not just knowledge that things are going to go bad Anlgo-American Nazi War style, but as well that this world is going to become in some ways almost totally unrecognizable from our own. I feel like we're talking about a world so far removed from our own it may as well be an otherworldly dream world. Normally when I read a timeline, I'm familiar with what the world is like, what it's constituent parts are.

... blah I'm rambling really bad perhaps not hitting the nail on the head, but I just wanna say you've set this up not only as as great timeline, but an absolutely superb narrative that has me on the edge of my seat in anticipation. Keep up the good work!

[Vosem]

Well, we know 1834-1849 is called The Democratic Experiment, and 1849-?? is The Great American War. Both of those sound ominous -- wars always are, of course, but 'Experiment' next to democracy suggests democracy was but a passing fancy. And Thande said somewhere along the line he'd "soon be dropping enigmatic hints about The Riverine Wars and the Second Coronation of the Hun..." What d'y'all reckon these are?

yes, this is actually a shameless bump

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Vosem

Well, we know 1834-1849 is called The Democratic Experiment, and 1849-?? is The Great American War. Both of those sound ominous -- wars always are, of course, but 'Experiment' next to democracy suggests democracy was but a passing fancy. And Thande said somewhere along the line he'd "soon be dropping enigmatic hints about The Riverine Wars and the Second Coronation of the Hun..." What d'y'all reckon these are?

yes, this is actually a shameless bump

Well I'm guessing the Riverine Wars are either in China or South America, and that the Hun is likely either a crazed eastern european fellow or western chinese.

[Alex Richards]

I reckon the second coronation of the Hun will be some sort of mostly unified German Kingdom/Empire.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

I reckon the second coronation of the Hun will be some sort of mostly unified German Kingdom/Empire.

Or some Central/East Asian group over the Chinese. After all IOTL 'Hun' didn't refer to the Germans until the Hunnenrede in 1900.

[Massa Chief]

I'm going to say that the Coronation of the Hun refers either to the Centrasian idea or perhaps the coronation of a German king over the ENA.

[Grouchio]

So when's the next chapter?

[Kaiphranos]

Originally Posted by Grouchio

So when's the next chapter?

When Thande writes it, presumably, but I doubt pestering him will make him write any faster.

[Massa Chief]

I concur- stop pestering him. With these well-researched, more extensive, lengthy timelines (especially one of publishable quality like LTTW), they take time. A major section was just finished in February- he is probably taking a break (and rightly so).

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Massa Chief

I concur- stop pestering him. With these well-researched, more extensive, lengthy timelines (especially one of publishable quality like LTTW), they take time. A major section was just finished in February- he is probably taking a break (and rightly so).

I did take a break. I was going to start again by now but then those geniuses at BT decided to screw up my internet again in such a way that makes it hard to do research in-situ (currently I can't get internet on the computer with the good keyboard where I write LTTW).

Rest assured it will be coming back as soon as this situation is resolved, seeing as how I've lost a bet with Mowque and I am therefore honour-bound to put him in this TL as a character.

[GamingWeasel]

Eagerly awaiting new updates Thande. I hope your internet problems get resolved.

[Alex Richards]

Ditto.

I remember when I used to think that working on my TL was something I could do when the internet wasn't available. That went out the window pretty quickly.

[Faeelin]

Hrm. Looking at the 1832 map... The Empire's expansion is basically over, isn't it?

[Umbric Man]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Hrm. Looking at the 1832 map... The Empire's expansion is basically over, isn't it?

Perhaps. I'd imagine taking over Puerto Rico is on everyone's mind since I believe the ENA controls literally all the Caribbean but that and the Dutch ABC islands.

And, of course, that doesn't count population and economic expansion, which it still has plenty to do (perhaps even to TTL's 2012). America might only have a small portion of the west coast, but IMO holding Canada east of the Rockies and the Caribbean makes up for it proportionally.

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Hrm. Looking at the 1832 map... The Empire's expansion is basically over, isn't it?

It wouldn't surprise me if the post-Popular Wars ENA expands at the expense of Nouvelle Holland.

Originally Posted by Umbric Man

Perhaps. I'd imagine taking over Puerto Rico is on everyone's mind since I believe the ENA controls literally all the Caribbean but that and the Dutch ABC islands.

You forgot the French Caribbean.

[Beedok]

I'm more interested in potential collapse myself.