Thande
Donor
Thank you very much. I do think it is a neglected area of AH to consider these things.As for the final chapter, I very much liked the conflicting accounts of Pablo Sanchez last words, as I indeed appreciate very much the censorship, redactions, modifications and outright lies that appear in your history books. I think you're really the only one on this forum who have properly managed to make use of the fact that historians aren't omniscient, neutral objective observers, sometimes giving different interpretations of events. The three differing accounts of Pablo Sanchez' last words were therefore pretty good as the very feel of your timeline of there being people out there actively trying to falsify history.
In particular, I liked this part.
As a Popperian, I like the very special effect this (presumed) piece of pseudepigrapha by Raúl Caraíbas will have on the development of Societism. Whereas both Whiggish historiography and Marxism have traditionally been highly historicist in nature (The march of towards liberal democracy/communism is as inevitable as the fact that the entropy of the Universe will increase!), this little addition changes Societism from being (as Sanchez appears to have been) historicist to actually saying that there's no inherent law of nature dictating that humanity will move towards the Final Society, or rather, that is a special condition that only applies if you don't have "enough people interfering". Instead, it is something that must actively be sought. Very interesting.
I don't think there has been an ideology in OTL which goes with the approach "Sanchez"/Caraíbas advocates here in terms of 'there is an ineluctable dialectic, but it can be delayed by human intervention so counter-action is required'. I know some of the Soviet theorists tied themselves in knots about how Lenin was supposedly able to accelerate the revolution in Russia to transform it directly from a feudal to a socialist society without any intervening capitalist step, but still.