NationStates Jolt Archive

- People who are oppressed, or consider themselves to be opressed will rise up eventually
- Poverty and hardship breeds crime and radicalism
- Societies over time head towards the left, with more interests being reflected. The steadier the process the better.
- Fear is behind a lot of damaging policies
- The slippery slope argument is amongst the worst ever

- People don't learn from history

These points might be particularly relevant for any libertarians in the house but we're also seeing the above being ignored by more mainstream (and sane) thoughts

Dictators are at their evilest when they have moustaches.

Peopele will learn about history sooner or later. History will happen to them, They will become history and history ALLWAYS repeats itself throughout time!!:rolleyes:

Peopele will learn about history sooner or later. History will happen to them, They will become history and history ALLWAYS repeats itself throughout time!!:rolleyes:
History, and not Justice, is Eternal. :x

The judgements that lead to terms like "better", "worse", and "sane" are rendered axiomatically more often than might be warranted.

The judgements that lead to terms like "better", "worse", and "sane" are rendered axiomatically more often than might be warranted.

Theocracies fail miserably

Theocracies fail miserably
Hmmm...Sumer, Babylon, Aztecs, Mayas, Incas etc etc

I suppose they fell eventually.

Which brings me to the most important thing we can learn from history:

Nothing is eternal!

We learn from history that we learn nothing.

That elephants really CAN cross the alps, even if most of them will die.

Nothing is eternal!
History is. :x

PS: Oddly enough, a book entitled the End of History has concluded that we are in our last phase of History, as social democracy is our final form of government. A funny proposition.

Theocracies fail miserably

Fail at what?

If the goal of a government is to keep its power as long as it can, some have made a run.

If the goal of a government is to provide a reasonable mechanism to express and execute a sound array of public policies, then I don't put my popcorn on Theocracies to come in strong.

History is. :x

PS: Oddly enough, a book entitled the End of History has concluded that we are in our last phase of History, as social democracy is our final form of government. A funny proposition.

Not sure I entirely agree that history is eternal. If history is predicated on the presence of some sentient being to compile, interpret, and sustain history, it is limited by the durability of such presence.

Oddly enough, a book entitled the End of History has concluded that we are in our last phase of History, as social democracy is our final form of government. A funny proposition.
Fukuyama, is it?

He's sorta got a point in that there really isn't any way back, barring some sort of huge catastrophe destroying civilisation. And it's not social democracy so much as Western liberal democracy - there may be some differences from country to country, but that's the system.

But then again, I think the guy belongs to PNAC, so you make your own judgement...

History will destroy all the laws that it "creates".

History is. :x

PS: Oddly enough, a book entitled the End of History has concluded that we are in our last phase of History, as social democracy is our final form of government. A funny proposition.
you mean after "this" we won't do anything worth writing down and remembering???

you mean after "this" we won't do anything worth writing down and remembering???
He seems to think so. This is not in terms of factual recording and so on though. It's in terms of governmental structures.

you mean after "this" we won't do anything worth writing down and remembering???
It's just a title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history

Fukuyama, is it?

He's sorta got a point in that there really isn't any way back, barring some sort of huge catastrophe destroying civilisation. And it's not social democracy so much as Western liberal democracy - there may be some differences from country to country, but that's the system.

But then again, I think the guy belongs to PNAC, so you make your own judgement...
I find his view a little naive. Nothing lasts forever. Who knows what change time will bring.

While the study of history as a means of social/cultural/political progress may slow, the advent and impact of technology should hopefully have at least the potential to continue unbounded.

And should technical/scientific progress open new problems/opportunities for politics and society, then...

Not sure I entirely agree that history is eternal. If history is predicated on the presence of some sentient being to compile, interpret, and sustain history, it is limited by the durability of such presence.
Obviously. :) Yet for us, that might as well be eternal.

I find his view a little naive. Nothing lasts forever. Who knows what change time will bring.
Well, as I said, he's a neocon. They are like that.

But then again, I think the guy belongs to PNAC, so you make your own judgement...

He just defected from the neoconservative movement, saying that it was forcing history and comparing it to Leninism.

oh oh oh i remember one


you cant use history to predict the future



this is why we always "fight the last war"

Well, as I said, he's a neocon. They are like that.
It just sometimes astounds me what learned people can write. I think I could actually write a book advocating to give the vote to animals with a higher intelligence than certain humans, and it would sell. Hrm, maybe I should get to it. <.<

He just defected from the neoconservative movement, saying that it was forcing history and comparing it to Leninism.
what the fuck does "forcing history" mean??

He just defected from the neoconservative movement, saying that it was forcing history and comparing it to Leninism.
W00T!!!

That's awesome. I always thought he was a little more sane than some of the others. :)

Neoconservatism, whatever its complex roots, has become indelibly associated with concepts like coercive regime change, unilateralism and American hegemony. What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world -- ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about.

*dances in actual, real joy*

He's sorta got a point in that there really isn't any way back, barring some sort of huge catastrophe destroying civilisation. And it's not social democracy so much as Western liberal democracy - there may be some differences from country to country, but that's the system.
The first and second estates thought the same thing during the feudal period, believing that it was impossible that their could be any successful way to defeat the divinely ordained system that they represented.
They didn't last either.
But then again, I think the guy belongs to PNAC, so you make your own judgement...
Everyone is a Social Darwinist until their system starts to go out of fashion.

The first and second estates thought the same thing during the feudal period, believing that it was impossible that their could be any successful way to defeat the divinely ordained system that they represented.
They didn't last either.
:) Nothing is so good that it can last forever.

Everyone is a Social Darwinist until their system starts to go out of fashion.
Yes. As soon as the system becomes non-vogue, it quickly dies.

what the fuck does "forcing history" mean??
History, in the Hegelian/marxist sense, is the evolving story of the conflict of governments. Hegel (who marx and later fukuyama borrowed the idea from) pictured the end of history to be when a government encompassing all mankind came into existance, Marx when everone was equal adn government become unnecessary, and Fukuyama when the world falls under the influence of the "perfect" form of government. Forcing history in this sense is the attempt to bring about the establishment of enlightened democracies throughout the world through, well, force.

As for the original post, I know a fair ammount of history and learned none of the lessons you did, except maybe the 3rd (fear is behind a lot of bad policies - it also is behind a lot of good policies though so I do not consider it much of a lesson). I think an examination of Chineese History and more of the ancient history will expose the weaknesses of your lessons.

It just sometimes astounds me what learned people can write. I think I could actually write a book advocating to give the vote to animals with a higher intelligence than certain humans, and it would sell. Hrm, maybe I should get to it. <.<
Now having heard his new leanings and ideas, I shall defend his argument.

Liberal democracy exists, right? People know about it, right? Even oppressive regimes pretend to be democratic, because it seems to be universally acknowledged by the world to be a good thing.

So democracy will always be an option, always be a preferred option, for government until something better comes along. "Something better" could only mean some form of anarchism, as everything else will only decrease liberty and self-determination, particularly now that Communism has largely been dismissed. And I think most would agree when I say that anarchism is no more realistic than communism (particularly since I have yet to see a feasible way of getting there).

Ie, over time the tendency is towards liberal democracy, everywhere.

What are the threats to it? Islamist terrorism can't harm liberal democracy. They can blow up a few people, but things aren't going to change because of that.
So the only context in which Islamism can be successful is by going through the majority - and thus using liberal democracy. All future conflict between ideologies can potentially be carried out through the framework of liberal democracy.

That's how I would interpret his argument, and it does have some merit.
Fascism? Gone. Communism? Gone. Dictatorships? On the way out.

Liberal Democracy is the only framework that remains, and it does shape the minds of the people living with it as well.

Has anyone else noticed that the entire written history of this planet has been about war??

*snip*
Indeed, Anarchism at the moment is by no means practical, yet. This might change though.

However, I just found the remark to be both blind and a bit presumptuous. It is a ceteris paribus argument. If something should change, this form of government may well be derailed. Anything can change given time. I would say that it is perhaps one of the form of governments that will last the longest, but it being the last in history? I am not so sure.

hmm, I am reminded of the old Churchill quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Indeed, Anarchism at the moment is by no means practical, yet. This might change though.
How?

I would say that it is perhaps one of the form of governments that will last the longest, but it being the last in history? I am not so sure.
What could replace it, and how would it come about? And why would the majority tolerate the change?

How?
By finding a means of providing security and protection. This is the instability within anarchism.


What could replace it, and how would it come about? And why would the majority tolerate the change?
Who knows? Anything could come by. When Monarchy reigned absolute it seemed almost inconceivable for any other system to exist. Current knowledge proves otherwise.

Liberal democracy exists, right? People know about it, right? Even oppressive regimes pretend to be democratic, because it seems to be universally acknowledged by the world to be a good thing.
People have overthrown democracies to instate dictators in the past. Further, we had Anarchy (which had ultimate civil freedoms) originally, and then people moved into despotism.
History doesn't travel in straight lines.

People have overthrown democracies to instate dictators in the past. Further, we had Anarchy (which had ultimate civil freedoms) originally, and then people moved into despotism.
History doesn't travel in straight lines.
Indeed. And though it may seem impossible for dictatorships to rise in modern liberal democracies, I think that's a bit naive. It's happened before. Circumstances now just make it more unlikely.

By finding a means of providing security and protection. This is the instability within anarchism.
The only scenario in which I could imagine that is if we managed to eliminate scarcity alá Star Trek. And even in Star Trek humanity still feels a common sense of purpose, as expressed by various government institutions flying about in space.

Who knows? Anything could come by. When Monarchy reigned absolute it seemed almost inconceivable for any other system to exist. Current knowledge proves otherwise.
Logic would indicate that the people could rule. Indeed, even when monarchy was around, peasant revolts and so on usually had that in mind.

Today on the other hand, I simply can't get my mind around an alternative that is neither democratic, nor the undemocratic rule of the few over the many.

The best way to get something done starts with being afraid that someone else will get it done first.

The only scenario in which I could imagine that is if we managed to eliminate scarcity alá Star Trek. And even in Star Trek humanity still feels a common sense of purpose, as expressed by various government institutions flying about in space.
Qui vivra, verra. Time will tell. Anarchism is a beautiful ideal, one that I hope finds way to enter reality one day.


Logic would indicate that the people could rule. Indeed, even when monarchy was around, peasant revolts and so on usually had that in mind.

Today on the other hand, I simply can't get my mind around an alternative that is neither democratic, nor the undemocratic rule of the few over the many.
Current logic makes it seem unfathomable. Circumstances may well change.

People have overthrown democracies to instate dictators in the past.
That is true, but the context in which that was done seems to disappear these days. And really, there also seems to be a move of liberal democracies to confront those that are not liberal democracies.
So in a world in which that is the case (which may be what we're moving towards), no dictatorship could last long enough to make any sort of real impact.
And that effect is even stronger if we allow for free global trade (and therefore movement of people).

Further, we had Anarchy (which had ultimate civil freedoms) originally, and then people moved into despotism.
History doesn't travel in straight lines.
I wouldn't say we ever had anarchy, or anarchism. Even the most primitive societies had leaders and restrictions, even if they were mainly established by violence.

If there is a straight line, it might be from simplicity to complexity, of lifestyles, opinions and labour.

The best way to get something done starts with being afraid that someone else will get it done first.

I wish my wife felt that way...

Logic would indicate that the people could rule. Indeed, even when monarchy was around, peasant revolts and so on usually had that in mind.
Oh, were that it true. Sorry, but the peasant revolts (which were not very common) of the monarchal period of Eurpean History (and most of the rest of the world, cannot state conclusively though) were concerned with replacing one lord with another lord, one king with another king or one sheriff with another one unless they were about extorting concessions from the current lord. Even the democratic urban areas (many towns and cities had elected officials), when they went into revolt against a king were in favor of a different king instead of a democracy. There were a few exceptions where independant cities established themselves but usually they would up subjecting themselves to monarchs after a while.

Oh, were that it true. Sorry, but the peasant revolts (which were not very common) of the monarchal period of Eurpean History (and most of the rest of the world, cannot state conclusively though) were concerned with replacing one lord with another lord, one king with another king or one sheriff with another one unless they were about extorting concessions from the current lord. Even the democratic urban areas (many towns and cities had elected officials), when they went into revolt against a king were in favor of a different king instead of a democracy. There were a few exceptions where independant cities established themselves but usually they would up subjecting themselves to monarchs after a while.
Either that, or they tried to get the Monarch to act more fairly.

Oh, were that it true.
It depends on the time - the later, the more we can recognise them today.
They all had leaders, and they all represented some sort of power for the common man to influence leadership. And some movements (like the Lollards) were sometimes interpreting their dogma in a way that could suggest the complete abolition of nobility.

Either that, or they tried to get the Monarch to act more fairly.
I consider that as "extorting concessions". Fairness really was not a consideration in terms of temporal leadership, it was accepted that this life would be "unfair" as we think of it. The mindset was that order and stability came from the hands of a protector who had authority over you. One could chose not to have a lord, but one who did so became an outlaw, literally outside the law, who had no rights and generally lived a life 'short, brutish and nasty'.

I consider that as "extorting concessions". Fairness really was not a consideration in terms of temporal leadership, it was accepted that this life would be "unfair" as we think of it. The mindset was that order and stability came from the hands of a protector who had authority over you. One could chose not to have a lord, but one who did so became an outlaw, literally outside the law, who had no rights and generally lived a life 'short, brutish and nasty'.
Indeed.

I have found that history is a pendulum. We swing from one extreme to another and anyone who attempts moderation generally gets knocked aside.

I have found that history is a pendulum. We swing from one extreme to another and anyone who attempts moderation generally gets knocked aside.

Rubbish, you've probably come to that conclusion as the most notable periods in history are radical, because a dramatic swing like the French Revolution or the rise of communism is far more exciting then the issue of ever so slightly lowering the franchise in 1830s Britain. But history has taught us that moderation has not only been the consistent story, it has been the most succesful.

-Never try invading Russia, especially during winter.

It depends on the time - the later, the more we can recognise them today.
They all had leaders, and they all represented some sort of power for the common man to influence leadership. And some movements (like the Lollards) were sometimes interpreting their dogma in a way that could suggest the complete abolition of nobility.Yes/no. The Lollards while having a dogma which could and was used to deny the divine right of kings to rule and could be used to argue against nobility (authority through grace), it was not used by the Lollards to argue for anything but a different mechanism of selecting which people should be in those positions ( and that rarely by radicals, mostly it applied to church positions only).

The famous Peasant Rebellion of 1381 was not concerned with removing the king, but with instead extorting concessions from him. The idea that the common man could and should be able to influence leaders never disappeared, it is an ancient one - but the idea that the common man could live without leaders, that is a different kettle of fish.

When the "modern" period of European History (and comparable periods of other parts of the world) began this changes and the idea that a monarchy was unnecessary could take root, but this is beyond the scope of the monarchal period.

-Never try invading Russia, especially during winter.
On a similar note, never try invading Finland during winter, even if you are the Russians.

*snip*
Precisely. Simply because one cannot fathom a working alternative to social democracy at the present does not mean one will not show up.

Precisely. Simply because one cannot fathom a working alternative to social democracy at the present does not mean one will not show up.
I know, is why I suspect we are nowhere near the end of history. I suspect if perfect anarchy is ever attained it will be the end of history, and while I cannot concieve of a way to attain a state of stable anarchy, that only can be used as evidence of a lack in my ability to conceptualize (actally I can think of a few ways, none of which are probable - for instance the development of "free" matter transumtation combined with an instantly accessible database of all human knowledge encompassing new knowledge as it developed). Further it is only a suspicion on my part that a perfect anarchy would be the end of history, based upon my inability to conceptualize anything beyond that.

This is where Fukuyama, I think, fails - at least as far as The End of History is concerned. Merely because one cannot concieve of something does not mean it can not exist. Well unless you happen to be a Solipsist, in which case there is no reason for you to be discussing this with you, erg me.

I know, is why I suspect we are nowhere near the end of history. I suspect if perfect anarchy is ever attained it will be the end of history, and while I cannot concieve of a way to attain a state of stable anarchy, that only can be used as evidence of a lack in my ability to conceptualize (actally I can think of a few ways, none of which are probable - for instance the development of "free" matter transumtation combined with an instantly accessible database of all human knowledge encompassing new knowledge as it developed). Further it is only a suspicion on my part that a perfect anarchy would be the end of history, based upon my inability to conceptualize anything beyond that.
My sentiments are the same on the matter, especially with regard to perfect anarchy. Yet, humanity being what it is, all things are cyclical. It might be the "end of history," it might also be just a reversion to older trends, if things go badly. It is my sincere hope though that one day free market anarchy manages to figure ways out to rise above its current impracticalities.

This is where Fukuyama, I think, fails - at least as far as The End of History is concerned. Merely because one cannot concieve of something does not mean it can not exist. Well unless you happen to be a Solipsist, in which case there is no reason for you to be discussing this with you, erg me.
Agreed. I think he is wrong in declaring it the last period of History. I see that both near-sighted and narrow-minded.

Truths we can learn from history
-The sun doesn't revolve around the earth
-The earth isn't flat
-Faster then sound is possible

Here's a Truth (FSVO 'Truth')...

Opening up a second front towards asia is a Bad Idea (TM) and almsot always ends up as a battle against the winter...

[Edit: Cant believe I missed Superpower's similar stated but mroe terse suggestion to this end... sheeesh]

That small, poor nations can, in fact, kick the snot out of nations many times larger than themselves in a stand up fight against clearly superior forces (both in numbers and material).

-Never try invading Russia, especially during winter.
Couldn't have said it better mehself.

Also, the Jews are going to face some adversity.

On a similar note, never try invading Finland during winter, even if you are the Russians.

On a similar note, invading Russia will only work if you're Finnish. :D

Fanatical adherence to any religious order destroys empires.

- People who are oppressed, or consider themselves to be opressed will rise up eventually
Yes.
- Poverty and hardship breeds crime and radicalism
No, there are a large number of peoples on this earth that are very poor, and have limited crime and radicalism (Bushmen, and to a lesser extent rual India), it is a matter of perception.
- Societies over time head towards the left, with more interests being reflected. The steadier the process the better.[/quote]
Not really, I would say it is more of a pendilium that goes back and forth, we have had this century God-Kings, and democracies, sometimes in the same country. The only difference is that now there are more options.
- Fear is behind a lot of damaging policiesI would say all of them.
- The slippery slope argument is amongst the worst everNo it's not, this argument is :)

Seriously; make anything large enough and you will see flaws, any flaws present in the system will be magnified as well.

- People don't learn from history
Not really, hindsite is 20/20 and it is often a problem of which lesson of history is applicable.

Not really, hindsite is 20/20 and it is often a problem of which lesson of history is applicable.
Then you got your Catch-22's, were all your available options have been proven in history to be the wrong choices.

History is. :x

PS: Oddly enough, a book entitled the End of History has concluded that we are in our last phase of History, as social democracy is our final form of government. A funny proposition.

IMO the last form of government will be Absolute Empathy; this is, everybody working for a common objective that will benefit everybody

History, in the Hegelian/marxist sense, is the evolving story of the conflict of governments. Hegel (who marx and later fukuyama borrowed the idea from) pictured the end of history to be when a government encompassing all mankind came into existance, Marx when everone was equal adn government become unnecessary, and Fukuyama when the world falls under the influence of the "perfect" form of government. Forcing history in this sense is the attempt to bring about the establishment of enlightened democracies throughout the world through, well, force.

ive never understood why anyone would believe that a philosopher can predict the future. hegel and marx had an interesting analysis of history and the flow of human events but to think that they can know what happens NEXT is just stupid.

so neocons are the leninists of democracy?

On the first day of my HSC Modern History (HSC is Aussie equvelant of SATS or British A levels FYI) class my teacher told all of us that if she only taught us one thing besides how to pass the exam at the end in two years it would be that History does in fact repeat its self.. and over and over again..

Mrs Nixon was right and along with everything else she taught me in two years this basic rule stays with me today some 20 years after the orginal lesson.

Dictators are at their evilest when they have moustaches.
That might explain the Amish... ;)

Yes.

No, there are a large number of peoples on this earth that are very poor, and have limited crime and radicalism (Bushmen, and to a lesser extent rual India), it is a matter of perception.

Fine, in societies more familiar to us, particularly urban. I'm thinking of poverty in Europe and America really. I should have made that more clear.

Not really, I would say it is more of a pendilium that goes back and forth, we have had this century God-Kings, and democracies, sometimes in the same country. The only difference is that now there are more options.

Nearly every country in the world is far more left-wing now then in the 19th century., certainly true for North America + Europe.



.

IMO the last form of government will be Absolute Empathy; this is, everybody working for a common objective that will benefit everybody
Eww no :eek:

The only consistency is change.