Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yesterday my somewhat crazy brother went on a rant about how history has a very liberal trend. He traced back from like the fething dark ages, talking about how things steadily get more and more liberal. He talked about how the more advanced a society is, the more welfare there is and that sort of thing. Even though I mostly agree with him (mostly, some of the stuff he said was still crazy and stupid) I kinda stopped listening at that point. Then he started going through American History, and how far we've gone from the US's quite libertarian-ish beginnings to the society we have now.

So, I figured this might as well start an intellectual conversation or at least an entertaining flame war. Does history have a liberal trend? If so, will it continue? And where will it stop?

Discuss.

It was extremely liberal in Stalinist Russia, especially in the gulags. One for all and all for one Comrade!

History is written by the victors, be they Soviets, Nazis, weiner dogs etc etc. If history seems too liberal, it is because we live in a liberal society.

Frazzled wrote:It was extremely liberal in Stalinist Russia, especially in the gulags. One for all and all for one Comrade!

To clarify, the picture represents the argument that you're using.

I would say yes, now most of the population can vote, people can air their opinions without fear of reproach, and people have basic human rights. IMO the most advanced societies are the social democracies of Scandinavia, where they have referenda on pretty much every issue, but actually trust the public's opinion to make the right choice.

It depends on what time period you are looking at and who is writing the history. Marxist historians are clearly going to look deeper into the social policies and extrapolate a Marxist historical hypothesis. Revisionist historians will also generally take a closer look at social constructs, and generally you'll find the more wealthy a civilization is the more liberal it's policies become the poorer the more austere. Realistically there is a certain liberal bent to History but it has to do with mankind growing more adept at solving it's problems than a political agenda.

For most people, empathy and Christian (or Bhuddist, Islamic, etc) charity compel them to help the weaker of society. The increasing wealth of modern society has created greater and greater surpluses to allow this sort of charity to be undertaken.

LoneLictor wrote:Yesterday my somewhat crazy brother went on a rant about how history has a very liberal trend. He traced back from like the fething dark ages, talking about how things steadily get more and more liberal.

Define liberal.

LoneLictor wrote:He talked about how the more advanced a society is, the more welfare there is and that sort of thing.

"Welfare" - as in transfer payments - are not liberal.

Frazzled wrote:It was extremely liberal in Stalinist Russia, especially in the gulags. One for all and all for one Comrade!

Im not quite sure how you can call one the most authoritarian regimes in history liberal.

In general history has become more liberal, at least in terms of personal freedoms. I wouldn't as far as to say that we have an actual liberal society though.

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It was extremely liberal in Stalinist Russia, especially in the gulags. One for all and all for one Comrade!

Im not quite sure how you can call one the most authoritarian regimes in history liberal.

I believe he was being facetious

biccat wrote:
"Welfare" - as in transfer payments - are not liberal.

"Welfare" as in providing for those without the capacity to provide for themselves is liberal. Or should the disabled starve to death?

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:It was extremely liberal in Stalinist Russia, especially in the gulags. One for all and all for one Comrade!

Im not quite sure how you can call one the most authoritarian regimes in history liberal.

In general history has become more liberal, at least in terms of personal freedoms. I wouldn't as far as to say that we have an actual liberal society though.

My sarcasm icon wasn't working.
You were doing good until you went to the second sentence. General history ebbs and flows. Seome time more liberal under this definition,. sometimes less.

Compare North America and Europe now to 1939 you betcha. Compare 1939 to 1925 no way Jose.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. - Stephen Colbert

Ahtman wrote:Reality has a well-known liberal bias. - Stephen Colbert

Except by its very natural it can't. Its just reality.

dæl wrote:"Welfare" as in providing for those without the capacity to provide for themselves is liberal.

That's not liberal. At least, not according to the "liberty" definition of liberal.

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:"Welfare" as in providing for those without the capacity to provide for themselves is liberal.

That's not liberal. At least, not according to the "liberty" definition of liberal.

Does in the sense of "liberal amount"

We both know that liberty as in personal freedom, and liberal as in progressive thinking are separate entities.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:

dæl wrote:"Welfare" as in providing for those without the capacity to provide for themselves is liberal.

That's not liberal. At least, not according to the "liberty" definition of liberal.

Does in the sense of "liberal amount"

We both know that liberty as in personal freedom, and liberal as in progressive thinking are separate entities.

Which is why I asked what the OP was referring to when he said "liberal". Oddly enough, the most liberal progressives tend to be the most illiberal.

But no, there is no trend towards liberty, or liberalism. Freedom and totalitarianism ebb and flow.

Frazzled wrote:

Compare North America and Europe now to 1939 you betcha. Compare 1939 to 1925 no way Jose.

Hence why I said in general. 20th century Europe was far more liberal than 10th century Europe. There will always be variations, both geographical and chronological.

Part of the problem here is that americans don't know what "liberal" means. Pretty much every western nation is liberal.
In general, societies are more liberal the more wealth they produce, in Europe anyway. Hence why western Europe became more and more liberal during the 17th-19th century, culminating in the modern world.
It's worth noting that Russia was never liberal - Stalin didn't take away liberties they didn't have.
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

The one that established The Napoleonic Code in Europe, which led to pretty much every mainly European democracy today.

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

The one that established The Napoleonic Code in Europe, which led to pretty much every mainly European democracy today.

In other words: No
It also did not "lead to" any European democracies, it was "used by." There's a rather large difference.

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

The one that established The Napoleonic Code in Europe, which led to pretty much every mainly European democracy today.

In other words: No
It also did not "lead to" any European democracies, it was "used by." There's a rather large difference.

His actions more or less directly lead to the widespread revolts of 1848. He was a catalyst of the spark of revolution in Europe.

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

The one that established The Napoleonic Code in Europe, which led to pretty much every mainly European democracy today.

In other words: No
It also did not "lead to" any European democracies, it was "used by." There's a rather large difference.

His actions more or less directly lead to the widespread revolts of 1848. He was a catalyst of the spark of revolution in Europe.

ROFL.
Bullgak.

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

The one that established The Napoleonic Code in Europe, which led to pretty much every mainly European democracy today.

No. WWI killed the royals. WWII killed the dictators. The Napoleonic Code didn't have jack gak to do with it, other than being superior to the UK/US legal code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Joey wrote:
Hitler was basically a reaction to Napoleon - one conquered Europe and freed it, the other conquered to enslave. Obviously, he failed

I suppose you must be talking about a different Napoleon than the one that reinstated the slave trade in 1802?

The one that established The Napoleonic Code in Europe, which led to pretty much every mainly European democracy today.

In other words: No
It also did not "lead to" any European democracies, it was "used by." There's a rather large difference.

His actions more or less directly lead to the widespread revolts of 1848. He was a catalyst of the spark of revolution in Europe.

Yes thats why they had a Kaisar, Tzar and various nobles ruling pretty much everything but France. It wasn't lawyers it was the death of millions.

Even France was not the result of that. remember Maximillian got killed by Mexicans...Mexicans!

I think it's a mistake confuse a general trend in the developed world over the past 200 years with the whole of humanity, over it's entire history, or across the whole world today. I don't think you'd find much support for a general trend towards liberalism in Africa today, nor would you find a general trends towards liberalism in Europe before about 1400AD.

What we have seen in the developed world, in the last couple of hundred years is that as people have gotten more educated and wealthier they've become more humane. Both in the level of cruelty we enjoy (things that used to be fairly common, like cat burning, are abhorrent to us today), and in the amount of time and resources we spend to improve the lives of others.

We've also become vastly more tolerant and inclusive as a society.

Whether those things are specifically 'liberal' though, is a more complex issue. Conservatives aren't opposed to people acting humanely, rather the debate is over the extent of such, and who should undertake it.

sebster wrote:I think it's a mistake confuse a general trend in the developed world over the past 200 years with the whole of humanity, over it's entire history, or across the whole world today. I don't think you'd find much support for a general trend towards liberalism in Africa today, nor would you find a general trends towards liberalism in Europe before about 1400AD.

What we have seen in the developed world, in the last couple of hundred years is that as people have gotten more educated and wealthier they've become more humane. Both in the level of cruelty we enjoy (things that used to be fairly common, like cat burning, are abhorrent to us today), and in the amount of time and resources we spend to improve the lives of others.

We've also become vastly more tolerant and inclusive as a society.

Whether those things are specifically 'liberal' though, is a more complex issue. Conservatives aren't opposed to people acting humanely, rather the debate is over the extent of such, and who should undertake it.

I'd dispute that strongly. W. Europe has been under a Pax America for decades, after going through the most wrenching bloodiest period in history (outside of China's 1970's of course). We'll see what happens in the future. After all Greece is about seven days from being kicked out of the Euro.

In the words of the immortal bard: We'll see.

Liberalism thrives because it plays into the hands of the type of conservative with power. Namely the 'Free Market'.

The Free Market is not free, slavery is now achieved indirectly through debt and interest repayment. The 'free' economic model is propagated because it suits some for that to occur.

The Free Market is also undemocratic, large companies are to a large extent a mimic of the feudal system with 'lords' having 'overlords' (the franchise system and the corporate structure). With anyone on a standard wage being a form of serf with the educated elite as freemen. The banking system provides the top tier in corporate feudalism, and it is largely self serving above autority and highly unstable.
Most large businesses are inherited so the feudal system is again propogated there.

We are 'free' to join this system or be poor.

I think it definitely has been a liberal trend... since the dark ages, at least. Even before that, the romans were probably what most of us would imagine as liberal.

Is the rise of organized religion considered 'conservative'? And is the fall of religious ideals 'liberal'?

we're getting more liberal, but at some point we need to start working towards the future.

We can grow enough food and feed the world even at 7 billion. We just need the governments to all be replaced by a computer.to manage all the resources to get where they are needed.

I have a bunch more but kid stuff came up, i'll finish tomorrow