where 1 critiqued objectivism the idea, 2 critiques collectivism as a means of manipulation. it feels so much more nuanced and human and honestly makes 1's critique feel one dimensional (not to say it's unimportant or poorly executed)
I forgot how well 2 handles its critique of collectivism. It feels like a story written from the perspective of collectivists that want to pick apart the way anarcho ideals have been abused by cultists to gain ground and numbers for their causes