The Austrian Societists seem smarter and more dangerous than their South American counterparts. Now there are the seeds for a potential schism in the movement.
I'd say smarter but not more dangerous. Even if democratic support sets them aside Danubia still lacks the raw power that Zone1 can bring to the world stage.The Austrian Societists seem smarter and more dangerous than their South American counterparts. Now there are the seeds for a potential schism in the movement.
The Russian school of Diversitarianism believes that friendship across borders is a form of insanity so what if they're isolationist? Since you need official permission to translate anything...So with Austro-Societism emerging onto the world stage, I wanna take a moment to note that Alfarus' panic makes total sense. The obvious parallel here seems to me to be the SPD-KPD split during and after the First World War, over exactly the question of whether socialism could be accomplished exclusively through revolution or whether democratic elections were acceptable. The problem Alfarus has is that the orthodox societism of Zon1 is ideologically committed to the "doctrine of the last throw" and the idea that electoral democracy will always be too committed to nationalistic delusions to properly act as an instrument of Human governance, but austro-societism throws a total monkey wrench into the works of that. Why do you even need Celatores and Celagii when the people of the nations will, under the right circumstances, voluntarily abandon national identity and gradually work towards human unification?
Of course, by the same token, you can also see why all the modern historians we've seen so far are always careful to emphasize the unexpected degree of the threat austro-societism proved to the Combine, and why the people of the nations would be totally panicking about a Grey Menace. Societism has just scored one of its biggest victories in recent memory, and it's done it at the ballot box and not through Scientific Attack. I dunno when knowledge of the degree of ideological difference between austro- and merido-societism is going to start to get out, but until then it sure looks to outsiders like Alfarus and the Combine's talk of how the people of the nations will throw down their arms and surrender at the first sight of the Celatores when they realize the truth of Sanchezism is far from just talk.
Oh, it's also worth noting, in the future I can totally foresee a conflict between Danubia and the Eternal State, roughly equivalent to the wars in the 1970s and 1980s between Vietnam, China, and Cambodia, having a similar effect of disrupting all notion of revolutionary unity between the societist states.
EDIT: Also, one other thing I should probably note, I've gotta say I find it really interesting that our sources are consistently treating the Russians as irrational actors. I still think they're wrong and that the Tsar isn't acting out of spite so much as out of fear of a loss of credibility, but it's enough to make me worry about Russia. We haven't had a Russian POV for a while, and even the historians we're getting don't seem sure about why the Russians are doing what they're doing, so, is all of this coming from "We lost the records during the Sunrise War, this is our best guess?"
It's 50's cookie-cutter conformity, it just seems alien because they're speaking garbage latinSocietism sounds less like an interesting ideology, and more like something awful. I think that there should be a book detailing the British Societist League (or whatever it was called), which was suggested to be outlawed in a previous post at one point in history. Also, the book The Giver has somewhat Societist vibes.