Looking back on the classical liberal period from the Congress of Vienna to the beginning of the First World War, there are obviously some enormous advancements made over the preceding mercantilist period. Slavery was ended (peacefully in all but 2 countries), government oppression decreased (although Victorian values were awful), the number of wars decreased significantly, living standards increased significantly and the advances in technology were unparralled. However, while there were certainly other injustices, the glarring flaw of that period is that the empires were not dismantled, they in fact grew stronger. Do you all think this was just simply reamnants of mercantilism, nationalism and despotism that just couldn’t be rid of? More importantly, do you think the empires would have began to fade had we not shifted course with WWI and the intellectual climate that directly proceeded it? Furthermore, what could have been done to quicken the process? Thanks in advance.
Empires usually destroy themselves from within, I guess the only thing we can do is wait.
Imo, slavery did not dissapear; not economically, at least.
A short, and fairly broad answer, but I think that empires remained, and grew stronger, due to the continued legitimacy of Statism as a system of government. Additionally, despite said revolutions or reforms, the state was furthered legitimatized by simply “flushing out” terrible masters who pulled all the wrong levers, & opting to say if the right men were in place, everything will be fine.
That’s a fairly opinionated answer though; however, I do also think that had the civil war turned out differently, Statism might not have as big a stronghold on us now. There was a parallel thread that mentioned possible alternate outcomes that should be on the 2nd page of topics in political theory, so you might find better elaboration there.
Guns, Guns, Guns.
The 20th century was the century of the gun, and it was also the century of the revolution.