Tales from Look to the West

MRiG said:
Though some of the members of the team may have been wounded, captured or killed, the whiggish, heroics of Captain Nuttall have saved the party from a wipe. The Thande institute will send in a rescue mission that will curse the original team for failing to give them any information about the present-day of this world, so they have no idea what to expect. Or, Thande Institute will reopen the portal just in time for a filmish escape. Or they're all dead. But History Shall March On.

So I've just spoiled the whole thing, right?

[...]

right?
I think so. I'm not sure Thande would want to introduce an entirely new set of characters for the explorers, so some of them will survive. Probably. I would guess not all of them. Or Thande might decide to kill them anyways to show that it's serious.

This sort of got buried in the last thread, but I do think that Sanchez is the anti-Marx of socialists. Like, he's not an economist at all, he becomes directly involved in the repressive machinery that he later fights against, he travels around the world and gains quite a bit of foreign experience, and is generally far less intellectual then Marx. That's a really fascinating contrast to me. I'm really interested to find out how his philosophy differs from Marx in it's prescription of the world (obviously it will differ tremendously in it's fundamentals, particularly since Hegel was born after the POD so I would doubt that he would be influenced by Dialectic, but I don't think were that interested in how he justifies his philosopy).
 
I very much doubt that Societism will influence the Popular Wars anymore than Communism affected the 1848 Revolutions. I imagine the PW as a couple of massive uprisings against the ancien regime that failed to defend the people from the Jacobins.

That's more or less what I meant, I'm thinking Societism grew into a mass movement after the PW. I think Schmidt's ultra nationalism will provoke a reaction that will make Societism catch on. Didn't Socialism catch on after 48 revolutions were crushed?
 
. This sort of got buried in the last thread, but I do think that Sanchez is the anti-Marx of socialists. Like, he's not an economist at all, he becomes directly involved in the repressive machinery that he later fights against, he travels around the world and gains quite a bit of foreign experience, and is generally far less intellectual then Marx. That's a really fascinating contrast to me. I'm really interested to find out how his philosophy differs from Marx in it's prescription of the world (obviously it will differ tremendously in it's fundamentals, particularly since Hegel was born after the POD so I would doubt that he would be influenced by Dialectic, but I don't think were that interested in how he justifies his philosopy).

Aye. It will really help that Societism was founded not by some intellectual who spent a couple of years in his house reading econoomic data, but by a guy literally off the street who traveled across the world to come to his conclusions.
 
I think perhaps the Popular Wars might be more influenced by Schmidtism inspired ultra-nationalism, with early Societism playing a role; but the ideology doesn't pick up until after the Popular Wars-like a harsh reaction from all the blood spilt again over nationalism. At least that's my interruption from the text.:confused:

I very much doubt that Societism will influence the Popular Wars anymore than Communism affected the 1848 Revolutions. I imagine the PW as a couple of massive uprisings against the ancien regime that failed to defend the people from the Jacobins.

That's more or less what I meant, I'm thinking Societism grew into a mass movement after the PW. I think Schmidt's ultra nationalism will provoke a reaction that will make Societism catch on. Didn't Socialism catch on after 48 revolutions were crushed?

I had been maybe thinking that too because of the timing, but ended up predicting otherwise because we're hearing so much about Sanchez now. But yeah, y'all are probably right. It's looking like the Popular Wars will be like 1848 on crack, with a strong nationalist tinge.

So I revise: Societism is influenced by the Popular Wars--perhaps Sanchez doesn't even come up with the ideology until after--but it plays little role in the wars themselves.

One thing I have noticed about LTTW is that the clock is running at a different speed than our world. The technology has been outpacing our world for some time now, but the politics have been somewhat delayed. It looks like the Popular Wars are what will make the politics catch up: the Age of Metternich cut short sixty years earlier. Or, conversely, delayed by forty years, if the Whigs win the Popular Wars. In the latter case, the politics have been delayed even more than in OTL, and that suggests even greater cataclysms as the future catches up to the past in the 20th century.

The repressive nature of the present-day in Timeline L suggests that this timeline's political and social developments might have even been continuously delayed. Somehow, the political threads of the Ancien Regime remain in conservative, authoritarian systems like Churchill's Britain and its dystopian scions. They are, eternally, holding back the forces of the people--societism, republicanism, egalitarianism. But for how long?

Actually, wait: the sovereign areas seemed pretty good until the 80s. Their historiography is a bit old-fashioned, but seems produced by a free society. The major development of the 1980s may in fact be a sudden rise of reactionism, perhaps in Britain. Lord Protectress Elizabeth Thatcher, anyone?

I think so. I'm not sure Thande would want to introduce an entirely new set of characters for the explorers, so some of them will survive. Probably. I would guess not all of them. Or Thande might decide to kill them anyways to show that it's serious.

This sort of got buried in the last thread, but I do think that Sanchez is the anti-Marx of socialists. Like, he's not an economist at all, he becomes directly involved in the repressive machinery that he later fights against, he travels around the world and gains quite a bit of foreign experience, and is generally far less intellectual then Marx. That's a really fascinating contrast to me. I'm really interested to find out how his philosophy differs from Marx in it's prescription of the world (obviously it will differ tremendously in it's fundamentals, particularly since Hegel was born after the POD so I would doubt that he would be influenced by Dialectic, but I don't think were that interested in how he justifies his philosopy).

The societist author quoted early on does seem to believe in some kind of inevitable social progression to Societal Unity. There's clearly some kind of determinism at work, though perhaps it is social or political in nature rather than economic.

There's also the idea mentioned a few times, that societism is technocratic. It seems closer to socialism to me, but possibly with some technocratic elements. Some fascism too, maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if there are paramilitary groups marching around roughing people up in the name of humanity. Like Brazilian Integralism it would probably be explicitly anti-racist about it, though--or at least rhetorically so.
 

Thande

Donor
The discussion is very interesting from my POV. The thing is, what is going to happen is only vaguely planned out by me so I can't even entirely say 'this is right, this is wrong' about your speculation even if I wanted to spoil it. Some of the ideas you raise are close to my own. The main area where you're falling down, understandably, is trying to directly extrapolate the present day (2015) from where we are now (1810s-20s) because a lot of things can happen in between without being directly referred to. As an example, if you tried to understand the 2010 of OTL from history books that cut off in the 1820s, you probably wouldn't realise the Soviet Union had ever existed - you might assume that the Russian Empire collapsed in revolution during a war and then directly emerged as a reduced, democratic(ish) federation.

I will give one hint: Churchill's authoritarian Britain has no influence on what Nuttall & co. have run foul of, any more than Lord Liverpool's authoritarian Britain was derived from Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate 150 years earlier.
 
Why does everyone seem to think Societism is communist? Everything I've seen suggests it isn't. It seems to be to me a kind of totalitarian meritocracy with a strong dose of classism that thinks all upper classes are essentially the same, and should therefore be united. I also think it's a very capitalistic system. There will be social mobility, based largely on education and loyalty but it will be quite rare. Government seems to be more like Ian's Unionism or the technocracy from the Chaos TL.
Adamantinism also looks interesting. It sounds like it might be something like the government of the planet Beowulf from David Weber's Honorverese sci-fi series.
And while, thanks to Thande's excellent points, I won't try to predict much, but I don't think they're in a Societist or adamantine state. I know the Whigs have some influence, and I think this is an isolationist british dictatorship.
 
My little conspiracy theory is that societism is actually is a good ideology that will work to a degree (the social equality of communism, augmented with a little more liberty than OTL communism, backed up by practical capitalism). It's ideology frees colonies, frees slaves (albeit bloody of course) but its actually the totalitarian nationalism backed conservative states the instigate violence. This leads to our "good" societist state turning into the fairly totalitarian "Combine" (to a degree of course...I don't its going to be the evil state like Nazi Germany by any means or even like the soviet union). In the epic world war (wars?) on crack between societism and the conservatives (we're calling them whigs right?) the conservatives win...government control and totalitarian aspects become the norm which leads to much censorship and semi-dystopia under the guise of constitutional democracies (which very well might be democratic in name only).

It's not exactly "bad guys win" but nor is it "bad guys lose". But then again with the exception of nazi germany neither would OTL from the eyes of someone looking from the outside in...
 
Societism from what I can see isn't so much "Communist" as it is "Socialist." Both of these philosophies (probably in the case of Societism) grew out of the later 18th early 19th century utopian-socialism of France, and judging from the name they're both somehow vaguely related to a "collectivist" ideology.

Plus we have to compare the two as part of our criticism of the TL, simply due to their similarities in the history of both TLs. Both became the most widely invoked revolutionary movement advocating socialism of some sort, both grew out of 19th century philosophy, and both of them were the product of one mind (theoretically) who wrote a book. Theres obvious connection, and it's worth analyzing. They may not be that similar in practice, but that's not what were analyzing.
 
I think you may have got it the wrong way round. Sanchez seems to believe the upper and possibly middle classes should unite and form a single worldwide dictatorship (though that may not be his original intention), without regard to race or language. The reason it rises to power in the UPSA so quickly is it meshes well with the abolition of the limpieza, and the fact the UPSA has less of a working class than other nations. When Societism becomes bad is when it develops one and they rebel. As the rulers believe that they have the right to rule due to superior intelligence, this leads to repression and a technocratic dictatorship elected by those who say, have paid enough tax per year for five years running and never dropped below a lower amount and have high enough scores on tests (maybe even the the equivalent of a degree) and have never shown disloyalty to the state. This state thus has in-built classism, and though it's possible, social mobility is rare and usually downward.
This state is actually more Khrushchev/Brezhnev etc communism, by which time it was largely socialist in name only.
The reason it's called Societist is because they believe in a Societal Unity of all societies.
 
I will give one hint: Churchill's authoritarian Britain has no influence on what Nuttall & co. have run foul of, any more than Lord Liverpool's authoritarian Britain was derived from Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate 150 years earlier.

Prediction: Spencer-Churchill will fall in due course (maybe overthrown, maybe he'll just die like Liverpool), and democracy will be restored. What Nutall and Co. run afoul of is McCarthyist America in Britain and on crack (and several other drugs), technically democratic but with a couple of strongmen kept in power by a perpetual Inquisition against Teh Evol Societiststm.
 

Vince

Monthly Donor
Prediction: Spencer-Churchill will fall in due course (maybe overthrown, maybe he'll just die like Liverpool), and democracy will be restored. What Nutall and Co. run afoul of is McCarthyist America in Britain and on crack (and several other drugs), technically democratic but with a couple of strongmen kept in power by a perpetual Inquisition against Teh Evol Societiststm.

If I read this right it was hinted once the King is older (he's only 19) he will be more assertive and it might lead to Churchill's ouster.
 
This sort of got buried in the last thread, but I do think that Sanchez is the anti-Marx of socialists. Like, he's not an economist at all, he becomes directly involved in the repressive machinery that he later fights against, he travels around the world and gains quite a bit of foreign experience, and is generally far less intellectual then Marx.
Based on your description, dare I suggest that he seems rather like Engels?
 
The discussion is very interesting from my POV. The thing is, what is going to happen is only vaguely planned out by me so I can't even entirely say 'this is right, this is wrong' about your speculation even if I wanted to spoil it. Some of the ideas you raise are close to my own. The main area where you're falling down, understandably, is trying to directly extrapolate the present day (2015) from where we are now (1810s-20s) because a lot of things can happen in between without being directly referred to. As an example, if you tried to understand the 2010 of OTL from history books that cut off in the 1820s, you probably wouldn't realise the Soviet Union had ever existed - you might assume that the Russian Empire collapsed in revolution during a war and then directly emerged as a reduced, democratic(ish) federation.

I will give one hint: Churchill's authoritarian Britain has no influence on what Nuttall & co. have run foul of, any more than Lord Liverpool's authoritarian Britain was derived from Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate 150 years earlier.

Hmm. I guess after the Popular Wars we can't really know anything except that a Combine forms, present-day Anglosphere isn't fond of societism, and that something goes down in the '80s.

The Churchill bit is good to know...I wonder if there is any way to guess? We still don't really know what exactly societism is, though we have ideas, and all we know about the Nuttall place is that they don't like Societism, speak English, and don't seem to mind Whig history. And they have nothing much to do with Churchill.

If societism is indeed a hierarchical, technocratic ideology, then the team could have run afoul of something more akin to OTL's socialism: a left-wing populist ideology that attaches itself to a Whiggish theory of societal progress as opposed to a Hegelian theory of class struggle. In opposition to societism, it would support natonalism.

Why does everyone seem to think Societism is communist? Everything I've seen suggests it isn't. It seems to be to me a kind of totalitarian meritocracy with a strong dose of classism that thinks all upper classes are essentially the same, and should therefore be united. I also think it's a very capitalistic system. There will be social mobility, based largely on education and loyalty but it will be quite rare. Government seems to be more like Ian's Unionism or the technocracy from the Chaos TL.
Adamantinism also looks interesting. It sounds like it might be something like the government of the planet Beowulf from David Weber's Honorverese sci-fi series.
And while, thanks to Thande's excellent points, I won't try to predict much, but I don't think they're in a Societist or adamantine state. I know the Whigs have some influence, and I think this is an isolationist british dictatorship.

Airstrip One!

I'm willing to accept the theory of societism-as-hierarchical technocracy, but I'm not sure where you're getting it because it's always seemed very egalitarian to me. But it does make a certain amount of sense: capitalists of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your boundaries. It also plays into the OTL truth that it's easier to get elites to unite across borders and easier to whip the folks into nationalism.

Thande also mentioned that societism is largely comprised of ideologies he doesn't like, so we can metagame this with his RL politics (hint: he's a Euroskeptic!)

What is Adamantism? I don't remember seeing it mentioned.

My little conspiracy theory is that societism is actually is a good ideology that will work to a degree (the social equality of communism, augmented with a little more liberty than OTL communism, backed up by practical capitalism). It's ideology frees colonies, frees slaves (albeit bloody of course) but its actually the totalitarian nationalism backed conservative states the instigate violence. This leads to our "good" societist state turning into the fairly totalitarian "Combine" (to a degree of course...I don't its going to be the evil state like Nazi Germany by any means or even like the soviet union). In the epic world war (wars?) on crack between societism and the conservatives (we're calling them whigs right?) the conservatives win...government control and totalitarian aspects become the norm which leads to much censorship and semi-dystopia under the guise of constitutional democracies (which very well might be democratic in name only).

It's not exactly "bad guys win" but nor is it "bad guys lose". But then again with the exception of nazi germany neither would OTL from the eyes of someone looking from the outside in...

I have been calling the anti-societists whigs because of the prevalence of whig history in the 20th century works the team has no problems bringing back. E.g., "Great Man" emphasis on exceptional individuals (Leo Bone, Moric Benyovsky or however you spell it, Frederick I who started it all), a somewhat optimistic tone, a preference for constitutional monarchy over absolutism or radical republicanism. Also a complete absence of social history or race/class/gender theory excepting discussions of Linnaean Racialism.

One more clue to understanding the whigs is that they subscribe to an interpretation of 18th century wars as struggles of cultural supremacy, which the British and Spanish win.

I have a feeling we're going to see some wars in the future without any clear side to root for.

I think you may have got it the wrong way round. Sanchez seems to believe the upper and possibly middle classes should unite and form a single worldwide dictatorship (though that may not be his original intention), without regard to race or language. The reason it rises to power in the UPSA so quickly is it meshes well with the abolition of the limpieza, and the fact the UPSA has less of a working class than other nations. When Societism becomes bad is when it develops one and they rebel. As the rulers believe that they have the right to rule due to superior intelligence, this leads to repression and a technocratic dictatorship elected by those who say, have paid enough tax per year for five years running and never dropped below a lower amount and have high enough scores on tests (maybe even the the equivalent of a degree) and have never shown disloyalty to the state. This state thus has in-built classism, and though it's possible, social mobility is rare and usually downward.
This state is actually more Khrushchev/Brezhnev etc communism, by which time it was largely socialist in name only.
The reason it's called Societist is because they believe in a Societal Unity of all societies.

I had thought he'd meant societal unity within one society but I am now convinced that it refers to between societies, like you say.

The technocratic interpretation makes sense, but I can't think of anywhere in the text that indicates it. The parallels to socialism are obvious, but that doesn't make the content the same. That would be an interesting change, though: people are divided more by class than nationality, and therefore the ruling classes should consolidate their power across borders.

I think this must be a bourgeois ideology rather than an aristocratic one, since the upper classes have no reason to disrupt the post-Jacobin status quo, though they may change their mind after the Popular Wars. This does seem like a classic Goldsteinian Middle-overthrow-the-High-by-disingenuously-enlisting-the-low situation, though. The High is the linnaean slaveholder, the Low are his slaves, and the Middle are Sanchez and his buddy kicking the tar out of the first guy.
 
Adamantinism is a future republican ideology. the Restored Kingdom of France is referred to as proto-Adamantine.
 
Look to the West itself will hopefully make a return early in the new year. Stay tuned!

I hope so, it would be cruel to taunt us with that.

Excellent story, by the way. You're good at capturing the viewpoint of people from the past without overloading us with values dissonance.
 
Last edited:
Excellent stuff. And I don't just say that because I have a certain fondness for Napoleonic era sea stories starring a captain and a naturalist / spy.;)
 
Top