Look to the West Volume V: To Dream Again

[Falecius]

Interestingly, "Alvarez" and company are trying to do "Societism in One Country". Which is a far bigger contradiction in terms than Stalin's OTL's approach at a vaguely similar problem.

 

[xsampa]

Interestingly, "Alvarez" and company are trying to do "Societism in One Country". Which is a far bigger contradiction in terms than Stalin's OTL's approach at a vaguely similar problem.

Maybe Alvarez is the new Stalin.

 

[Slings_Arrows]

I'm also getting vague, alt right, "defending western civilization" authoritarian vibes from them.

I keep getting the same vibe, especially with the whole doubling down on ethnic pride thing they have going on. So far it sounds like Diversitarianism is anti-supremacist, but who knows if that's only the version that's present in Britain.

The more that the two ideologies get fleshed out, the more that it seems that the conflict of the twentieth century is going to be between a horrible system and one that only somewhat better. Which is a pretty nice parallel now that I think about it.

 

[245]

you know what would be an interesting idea, a thread for fan ideas and stories and an expanded universe, like the madness expanded universe thread.

 

[Shevek23]

That does not imply inter-bloc trade, though:

Um, your Thande quote, from three years ago, discusses Venezuela's status as of the 1860s and thereafter. The Pandoric War is a generation and more later, and God knows how the dust settles after it. The Societists want to get the upper hand there but have to bribe the Yankees to get it at this time, who knows if the Empire will take the bribe...or if they take it, will honor the terms it is offered for. You might be thinking of something else Thande said elsewhere but offhand I must have forgotten any such prophecy. The 2010s and the crosstime frame story are more than a century in the future from where our story has gotten to now.

I'm just saying we don't know that if and probably when Venezuela, due to sheer proximity if nothing else, falls into the Societist ambit, whether that bloc will refuse to trade outside it, any more than the Soviets or PRC refused to.

Or if Venezuelan oil will be sequestered for a hungry Societist zone aka "humanity" and jealously denied with heavy military force wherever the nearest border of their effective power with outsiders is. Depending on just where they have success outside of the former UPSA core regions, it might be their only oil source until alternate ones are incorporated, which might take considerable time. Either way, someone is going to drill I think.

Meanwhile as always I have a less jaundiced view of what the Societists are about, though I am rather hostile to their hostility toward the notion of class struggle, which strikes me as rather corporatist in the fascist sense. Murphy's Golden Rule, whoever has the gold makes the rules, and they have tossed out the notion of an effective democratic state whereby the people might possibly countervail the power of wealth and thus if I dislike Societism it will mainly be because it seems to be plutocracy. As @Bulldoggus says, it is looking like some sort of Bioshock Randroid "neoliberalism on meth" perhaps, and since my ITTL ideological preference is best described so far as "Mentian Adamantianism" I hardly like that!

But between unreliable narrators framing the story from a century uptime for their contemporary polemics, postmodernist subjectivism gone nuts as a way of life in Diversitarian spheres, and a general countersuggestibility, I have long remained resistant to the notion the Societists are such awful fellows. I might be convinced, but not by the stuff others cite as giving them the willies. They might be right that these things are a sign of things gone horribly wacky, but the Diversitarian response to the challenge hardly inspires either. Poor California is unlikely to remain as neat as it was in the wake of La Zorra, but it remains the least screwed up zone so far...and actually despite unfortunate elements the ENA is not so bad...now, and yet...Among strong great powers I like the French the best with ENA not far behind, and I mourn the lost potential of the USPA, but it is not clear the Societists are so bloody awful. Not yet.

 

[B_Munro]

But is Randianism compatible with the sort of centralized, powerful state needed to establish Societist cultural uniformity? The cost of the school system alone...

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Societists should not be supposed to have aims in individual Zones or aggregates thereof. They are interested in peace. Not in the ENA, or in "South America" (AKA Zone 13 IIRC).

(Caraibas may be turn out be Stalin, not Lenin, to Sanchez's Marx).

Can't have peace without territory.

Better known is the fact that Sanchez had indistinctly envisaged a single worldwide decisive revolution—or ‘moment of decision’ might be more accurate—in which the peoples of the world would finally realise the absurdity of war and division and embrace unity. The harder-headed Caraíbas recognised that even if this was possible, those with a vested interest in division and conflict would act to prevent it. He, more realistically (as it turned out) foresaw a world where Societism could come to power in just one country and then seek to expand, while constantly faced by opposition from its neighbours.

Um, your Thande quote, from three years ago, discusses Venezuela's status as of the 1860s and thereafter. The Pandoric War is a generation and more later, and God knows how the dust settles after it.

Was there a notable oil production in Venezuela in the pre-war era? IOTL there was no notable oil production in Venezuela in the 19th century.

The Societists want to get the upper hand there but have to bribe the Yankees to get it at this time, who knows if the Empire will take the bribe...or if they take it, will honor the terms it is offered for. You might be thinking of something else Thande said elsewhere but offhand I must have forgotten any such prophecy. The 2010s and the crosstime frame story are more than a century in the future from where our story has gotten to now.

I'm just saying we don't know that if and probably when Venezuela, due to sheer proximity if nothing else, falls into the Societist ambit, whether that bloc will refuse to trade outside it, any more than the Soviets or PRC refused to.

Actually, it was not mentioned that Venezuela was reclaimed by the ENA. Venezuela is still controlled by Hermandad forces, i.e. future Societist forces, ergo they already have an upper hand there.
The point of the bribe is to ensure that Septens accept the only relevant territorial loss of the Hanoverian alliance to the Meridians in this war. If they don't, they won't get more gold from the Humans.

Or if Venezuelan oil will be sequestered for a hungry Societist zone aka "humanity" and jealously denied with heavy military force wherever the nearest border of their effective power with outsiders is. Depending on just where they have success outside of the former UPSA core regions, it might be their only oil source until alternate ones are incorporated, which might take considerable time. Either way, someone is going to drill I think.

The Combine will own a decent chunk of OTL Indonesia, an oil producing country.

 

[Skallagrim]

I agree with this in principle but I'm also getting vague, alt right, "defending western civilization" authoritarian vibes from them. I suppose time will tell if there are any good guys in the upcoming cold war.

To be clear, I'm fairly sure the Diversitarians are dodgy fellows, too. Thus far, there's evidence that at least a number of them ends up being scarily radical, and we know for a fact that their international union ends up being manipulative and massively hypocritical. My main motivation is that their very nature ensures that there will be a lot of, ah... diversity. Lots of competing states/regions/polities/etc. -- And some are bound to be better (or at least 'less bad') than others. Conversely, Societism seems bent on global domination and making all things equally terrible everywhere.

Maybe there's a nice neutral region that's not messed up in some other way, but just given a choice between the two blocs, I know where I would go.

 

[1SaBy]

Maybe there's a nice neutral region that's not messed up in some other way, but just given a choice between the two blocs, I know where I would go.

Wasn't California said to be neutral?

 

[Indicus]

Wasn't California said to be neutral?

There’s also Danubia, but I doubt it’s going to be a nice place, especially if its monarch retains dictatorial powers.

 

[Bolt451]

Only up to page 65 so far but the change in tone after the worldbuilding is quite thrilling. I'm absolutely gripped

 

[Bene Tleilax]

Who are the Popes since the POD? Its not entirely clear.

 

[Mr.J]

But is Randianism compatible with the sort of centralized, powerful state needed to establish Societist cultural uniformity? The cost of the school system alone...

Societism probably isn't unifomly minarchist/libertarian. The whole point of the alt-Cold War is that the ideological divide isn't about economics and economic policy is seen as a minor side issue. Nobody important thinks of means of production and the class struggle as being the defining historical forces, because the world's philosophy/ideology developed differently.

 

[245]

Societism probably isn't unifomly minarchist/libertarian. The whole point of the alt-Cold War is that the ideological divide isn't about economics and economic policy is seen as a minor side issue. Nobody important thinks of means of production and the class struggle as being the defining historical forces, because the world's philosophy/ideology developed differently.

I do wonder what the economic theories of the world look like in this timeline?

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

I do wonder what the economic theories of the world look like in this timeline?

Welfare and housing for everyone in the Human society.

“Though Mr. Carlton makes several good points, he seems wilfully blind to others. He perpetuates the myth of divisions in humanity when he speaks of ‘the wealth of nations’, but though not forgiveable this is sadly a common enough misconceived notion that it does not stick out. Yet while creating an imaginary distinction in one place, he fails to see a self-evident one in another—I am of course speaking of his discourse on inequality of wealth, in which he seems blind to the distinction between necessity and luxury. Mr. Carlton seems to see no difference between the inequality of a man with a large house versus a man with a small house, and the inequality of a man with any kind of house versus a man with no house at all. Or of a man who can buy enough basic food to survive versus one who may purchase food he particularly likes, as opposed to a man with enough food versus one who starves. Inequality of luxury and inequality of necessity. A healthy society can tolerate the former; it cannot tolerate the latter...”

– Pablo Sanchez, 1862 review of Sir Richard Carlton’s collected works.[1]
Later republished in expanded form in The Societist Primer, 1879

 

[xsampa]

How will Societism affect how the other colonies are governed, in particular those bordering Societist states? Given its (very nominal) support of 'savages' and tribes as technically All Human, we could expect the Combine to sponsor rebellions in order to annex the territory later. Colonial powers would respond by promoting their rule as necessary to the protection and survival of local cultures, with the argument that independence would lead to dominance by the most populous tribe and ensuing inter-ethnic violence, as regrettably happened several times IOTL, or worse, annexation by the Combine with all that entails.

 

[Jared]

Thought I would share a moment I was browsing FB and stumbled upon a message which made me wonder whether Societism had crossed over into OTL:

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

It does not surprise me that an Indian would talk about the values of Societism.

Shrikanth Krishnamachary‏

As I transited through Serbia, a country of 7MM people in central Europe, on my way to Karnataka - a province of nearly 70MM, I wondered -

Why is Serbia an independent nation? But Karnataka is not...

It is an interesting question that helps us understand what makes India tick
It is not as though Serbia has a distinct culture that Karnataka lacks. Karnataka has had its own regional empires for a couple of millennia (Chalukyas, Hoysalas and several others).

It has a very distinct language. With a distinct body of literature
Yet it is not a nation
Now a quick answer would be - it is the H word.

Karnataka is unified with the rest of India through Hinduism. But then Sebia too has its own Slavic form of Orthodox Christianity.
To me it is not so much the fact that Karnataka is Hindu that is important, but the nature of Hinduism

Hinduism is a "national" religion, in the sense that it is not merely a "faith" unlike Christianity (esp Protestant Christianity)
"Christendom" never had much of a chance as a political bloc in post Reformation Europe. Because Protestant Christianity has v little bearing on the life led by people.

It is faith. Pure and simple. It does not influence culture or ways of living
In contrast, a Hindu's whole outlook and his ways of living, and his ideas of right and wrong are not to be disentangled from his faith. They are a whole package.

That's what cements inter-provincial unity to a far greater extent in India, than in Europe
This includes the taboos that people follow, the food people eat, the rituals they undertake, the pilgrimages they visit, the expressions they use, the attitude they nurse towards death and afterlife...several things..
The second important reason that prevents "regional nationalisms" from breaking India is Varna Vyavastha, or in modern parlance "Caste".

Caste ensures a non-geographic axis of diversity, which makes the geographic axis less critical
While in Europe, Geography is the key source of diversity, in India, diversity exists in ample measure within each geography through caste, which again is closely linked to religion, and lifestyle
Eg - As a Kannada speaking Lingayat in Belgaum Karnataka, would you be more comfortable marrying a Marathi Lingayat? Or a Mysore based Gowda?

As a Tamil Brahmin living in Bangalore, would you prefer to marry a Kannada Brahmin? Or a Tamil Vanniyar?
The answers are obvious. And they tell us why the "tukde tukde tendencies" don't take off in India.

Because caste provides a counterpoint to regional chauvinism and prejudice
So one reason you never see the "Kannada" identity getting too strong because it is also up against Gowda identity, Lingayat identity, Brahmin identity.

Each of which are perhaps more influential than the Kannada identity
These are some of the reasons why Serbia is a nation. While Karnataka is an integral part of a much larger "Bharatavarsha" though the latter may seem too unwieldy to be a "nation" to casual observers
Its regional diversity is overrated. While its intrinsic ideological unity achieved through religion is underrated
This also helps us articulate a case for a very genuine Indian "exceptionalism"

Much of the world is comfortable with the idea of "geographic diversity" - and also comfortable with geographic diversity being the raison d'etre for the formation of "nation states"
India presents this alternative where geographic diversity and its excesses are minimized by non-geographic sources of diversity like caste.
This is something much of the world is not comfortable with.

Eg - There is nothing odd at all in a Frenchman not marrying a German. After all their "cultures" are different. And the axis for this diversity is "geographic"

But people do baulk at the Indian caste system
Thats in my view because we are conditioned to think of "geographic diversity" as natural.

In fact the modern nation state is predicated on the idea of cultural nationalism concentrated in a certain geographic space.
But Indian exceptionalism lies in downplaying this geographic angle and creating a model for nationhood that can accommodate geographic faultlines that are apparently very deep, though not as deep as many outsiders may think
The Indian view does not see culture as being "tied" to a piece of land. But as something preserved through hereditary linkages.

Eg - A Brahmin in Kerala may sing hymns of the Rig Veda composed by v remote, possible ancestors in the Punjab region, that an Ezhava may not.
So the culture here stems from a population group held together by links of endogamy and is not linked to the geographic situation of that group
One can think of Indian culture (or cultures) itself as an intellectual revolt against "geographic limits" on culture.

It is a very real exceptionalism.
Whether this exceptionalism remains strong, or whether it withers away and the Indian subcontinent falls prey to geographic faultlines of culture that characterize the rest of the world remains to be seen in the next 100 years
Post-script : One point raised so far is that -

Hey...Serbs are an ethnic group as well. Not linked to a territory necessarily.

Fair point. Nikolo Tesla was born in modern Croatia in the Austro Hungarian empire, but was an ethnic Serb.
But then in most cases across the world (with Jews being a fine exception), a culture sustains itself only when linked to a geography....

When people of that culture venture to other geographies, they intermingle with other cultures. And lose their ethnic distinctiveness
India is a remarkable exception

Eg : North Indian migrants to Southern India circa 500CE still retain their ethnic distinctiveness vis-a-vis other groups

(Contd..)
Similarly "Sankethis" - a group of Tamil Smartha brahmins who migrated to present Karnataka from Southern TN some 1000 yrs ago still remain a distinct group. To this day!

They are not quite the same as Tamil Smarthas or Kannada Smarthas. They are distinct

 

[xsampa]

It does not surprise me that an Indian would talk about the values of Societism.

Shrikanth Krishnamachary‏

The combination of caste and religion as unifying forces may make a Hindu variant of Societism popular in TTL's India. The existence of Muslim "Black" Turkey provides enough support for religious Societism.

 

[Sheshachi]

I agree with Grand Prince Paul II (sorry, haven't figured out the quoting system yet). This exceptionalism partly explains why the Muslim League thought it would be possible to make a state whose constituents are geographically separated by over 1000 miles of hostile territory. It failed in the end, and Bangladesh today no longer seems to adhere to this Indian Exceptionalism. Could it be because it is no longer dominated by Hinduism?