OTOH, what must Societist cuisine be like? It probably isn't an issue early in the movement, but considering the references to breaking up families and zonal rotation of population, they don't lack for ambition when it comes to ironing out the lives of its citizens. Plus, there was that reference to a Carolina town having a local specialty of horse flesh until the Societist sink their teeth in.
"Local specialty" can't be something Societism approves of.
 
OTOH, what must Societist cuisine be like? It probably isn't an issue early in the movement, but considering the references to breaking up families and zonal rotation of population, they don't lack for ambition when it comes to ironing out the lives of its citizens. Plus, there was that reference to a Carolina town having a local specialty of horse flesh until the Societist sink their teeth in.
Presumably some central directive might draw up a carefully balanced diet plan? Or they might be all for the Chain Store model- anywhere you go you can guarantee the food's the same.
 
OTOH, what must Societist cuisine be like? It probably isn't an issue early in the movement, but considering the references to breaking up families and zonal rotation of population, they don't lack for ambition when it comes to ironing out the lives of its citizens. Plus, there was that reference to a Carolina town having a local specialty of horse flesh until the Societist sink their teeth in.
Carefully tailored meals based on your social rank? There's some poem about a guy who's required to have marmelade on his bread even though he'd prefer butter; I could imagine something similar in Societist zones: nourishing protein blocks for the laborers, light meals for the office workers, fine dining for the zonal reys...
 
Carefully tailored meals based on your social rank? There's some poem about a guy who's required to have marmelade on his bread even though he'd prefer butter; I could imagine something similar in Societist zones: nourishing protein blocks for the laborers, light meals for the office workers, fine dining for the zonal reys...
Great - sumptuary laws on top of everything else. But it is basically neo-Medievalist conformism TO THE EXTREME!
 
Those were two great updates, Thande! This prose format is working out well, as it's both a nice change of pace and allows for more detailed worldbuilding. Sure, the lives of 'great people' or the development of ATL technologies are fun to read about, but the everyday is the basis of history!
There is something I wish to discuss however, that which is perhaps at the center of LTTW's creativity. That's right, I'm talking about everyone's favourite form of pacifistic meritocratic universalism, Societism! My fondness for (political) philosophy has lead me to read the Sanchez quotes from part 4, and several questions have arisen (awful list incoming):

1 In Sanchez' biography, he points out that Chinese and Western nobility sure share a lot of terminology, leading him to develop a 'universal hierarchy'. While I do think that this is quite shortsighted, as the past has seen way more systems of government than one could comfortably 'universalise', there is an interesting parallel across continents of centralised hereditary rule. I was wondering how my fellow alternate historians would explain this peculiarity. Again, I am not saying such forms of rule are the natural state (I might just as easily make the claim that anarchism is the one true system and that authority is a 'biologically insignificant aberration' :p), I'm just wondering how you all would explain this parallel.

2 In the preface to chapter 169, Sanchez states that the people should have the idea that their rulers are not eternal, that they should be able to change. Is this just a defense of meritocracy, or did he espouse some form of democracy here?

3 Would you say that Societism is more finalistic than socialism? While Marxism and other such socialist ideologies have been accused of historicism, I feel that most socialists/anarchists do not seek to 'end history', but just solve particular problems such as wage labour and class conflict (problem according to them of course). Societism on the other hand sounds more like 'we have to solve everything forever' from the get go. You might very understandably not agree with me, but this makes me think that Societism is thus by its nature more totalitarian than especially anarchistic forms of socialism wish to be.

4 I think that Societism, thanks to a lack of sophistication perhaps, has some significant intellectual 'blind spots'. By this I mean that it seems to have premises like 'war is JUST wrong' and 'class is JUST natural'. Yes, war is wrong, and yes, class seems to be present in most human societies, but these facts should give rise to clever analysis, not just the positing of sloppy solutions like 'universal hierarchy'. In writing Sanchez, did you build in these blind spots on purpose?

5 Lastly, how did you come up with Societism? I see some Plato in there, some Hobbes, but is this an after-the-fact analysis or were you inspired by OTL political philosophers?

I hope this post is not too much for you. I'm eager to see the rise of Diversitarianism, as it would offer me, a naturalist mentian (broad-strokes anarchist OTL) some comrades in the struggle against the evil Combine!
 
OTOH, what must Societist cuisine be like? It probably isn't an issue early in the movement, but considering the references to breaking up families and zonal rotation of population, they don't lack for ambition when it comes to ironing out the lives of its citizens. Plus, there was that reference to a Carolina town having a local specialty of horse flesh until the Societist sink their teeth in.
I'm guessing it's some fusion of every cuisine in the world, to the point it no longer tastes good.
 
2 In the preface to chapter 169, Sanchez states that the people should have the idea that their rulers are not eternal, that they should be able to change. Is this just a defense of meritocracy, or did he espouse some form of democracy here?
I'm pretty sure Sanchez became disillusioned with democracy after the Popular wars as he saw them as being caused by in large part by the 'those damned nationalists' and 'sheeple'. So I guess that he simply wishes corruption to be punished and dealt with before the plebs become too annoyed with it.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure Societists wouldn't make the distinction between different cuisines.
I didn't write that they did but there's different stages of Societist development. I can see a Societist country having one before the advent of mature/latest stage Societism. It can easily be a Diversitarian restaurant though.
 
Top