History as a shift left.

Can history be understood as a political shift to the left, in extremely simplistic terms?  First, let's define terms.  I define conservative as meaning the socio-political affiliation which either tends toward the status quo and local mores, or is otherwise informed by local religion, maintenence of wealth, or patriotism.  Liberal is taken in its more political, and not economic sense.  Supposing the feasibility or desirability of other systems of governance, and if not reformists, the type of people who push for radical change.  Whether this change is good or bad, or is something that people can live with, is a discussion left to details. (for example, communism and civil rights are examples of what most Americans would regard as bad and good drastic social changes, respectively) Let me be very clear that I don't want to get into a Moral superiority game with these two sides, these two impulses.  I just want to trace their influence and ask you guys what you make of the struggle.

What limits are placed on this shift left?  It may be two manifestations of "nature": nature as it exists objectively, and the mental CONSTRUCTION of 'nature' that humans adopt from age to age.  Communism, the most dramatic shift left of all time, involved in its theory a flat, narrow defiance of nature, to diasasterous results.  The idea that the family itself would be dissolved through free union of men and women, and socialized care of childern, was rampant in the heyday of the Revolution.  This is anathema to most humans.  Indeed, babies do very poorly without their mothers.  This is an example of a political shift left butting up against objective nature.  Even genetics and Darwinism themselves connote an unjust advantage in some leftist meta-theories.  As far as 'objective nature', a limit that naturally comes to mind is human population on the globe.  'oh, we're all going to litter the globe and die out.'  Yet, consumption is a superseding problem, and that rests squarely on America, and all of us nice folks using computers.  Whether overpopulation is really 'objective nature' or a particular problem humans attach all problems to, ignoring other problems, is another question.  It's an example of 'constructed nature' which will almost certainly influence more 'left' policy, of, ironically, 'conservation', in future years.  Certain environmentalists might be understood as 'physical conservatives' and 'social liberals' simultaneously.  Another example of 'constructed nature'
was the idea that women couldn't vote, lest the Union, Empire, whatever, be levelled.  85 years later the Union stands, and I daresay everyone's happier overall. Gay rights enter into this. Science, everything.  The idea I'm putting out is that a society tends as far left as its core values of constructed nature, and nature existing objectively, permit it to travel.  Technology has been a very, very, very big driver of this.

I realize that history=shift left is a very simplistic take.  My reason for phrasing the problem in these terms is half sincere, half goading folks to grapple with the problem.  Good discussing.

I think you misscharacterize conservatism although I agree partially with you. 

Things like patriotism and nationalism were invented about the time of the french revolution.  Before then, most people were more conserned with their local lives and not with group-think ideas like the nation-state.  Also some elements of extreme conservatism, like facism, are very recent ideas. 

Capitalism was also a pretty recent invention.  Before the beginings 1800's, industry and commercial were heavily regulated by things like the guild system.  These guilds were eventually replaced with free trade laws.  Also in many cases the divide between government and industry was not that strong.

So I think your theory is right about somethings and wrong about others.  It is a bit to simplistic I would say.  Indeed, don't forget that Ancient Rome was more advanced than "us" in a lot of ways until about the renaissance.

What is more interesting is ,now since both communism and facism have wained in popularity and the politcs of the world seem to be moderating, what the next large, extreme political movements will be.

The politics of the industrialized West are moderating.

Fundamentalist pan-Islamism is on the rise in the Middle East, and it is anything but moderate.

>>3
Iran is troublesome, on the bright side we apparently own Syria already... they just relinquished long-standing regime control of Lebanon "unprompted" (hmmmm.)
In 50 years when we know the true story of what went on in Lebanon this past month... it will be an interesting story.
Syria is afraid and running from the assassination. Lebanon smelled blood. Masses of angry arabs = problem for anyone... including Syria.

Syria knows its holding stuff for Iraq, the Iraqi air force flew their jets to park them in Syria in previous conflict. Syria and Iraq are buddies. Syria just "handed over" saddam's halfbrother.... this action proves they are scared. They want to distance themselves from saddam's particular baath franchise. They have their own baath franchise.. and it is visibly afraid of being isolated. The case is being built for Syria to fall, further isolating Iran as the larger goal. The region is progressing nicely... Turkey is ontop of Syria and is a democracy, Iraq is being democratized below Syria, Jordan is as benign as Yemen. To the west, Afghanistan is ours(ongoing military action), Pakistan is friendly(as long as they dont kill Musharaf..)

At the current pace the middle east would leave us with Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have big deals with Saudi Arabia and will probably deal with them directly in a civil manner. Iran is a big question, they have big deals with euro currencies, we have less leverage on them. The presidential tour of Europe was done for a reason.

Let's forget for a second the US president's name from 2000 to 2008 is George W Bush. US policy actions are run by the Republican party, and they employ PhDs in political science and international relations. You are all fooling yourselves when you laugh about Bush's individual intelligence; in fact, go ahead and continue to underestimate his administration based on its figurehead... its exactly what they planned for you to do.

Divorce policy from rhetoric, you will see America is aggressively pushing democracy into the most dangerous region of the world. Once the middle east is done(100yr total), the danger will migrate to Africa. Until no region is left unchecked and democratized... only then can America relax, and after some generations of true global democracy... capitalism will likely fail and evolve into enlightenment. Even if the priority of democratized countries is arbitrary, and even if the means are less than enlightened, in 1000 years the world will eventually thank America for doing its dirty work.

Rome wishes it was America, but even it got 1000 years. Rome just wanted to conquer and rule... America does the same but plants the seeds of its own evolution. Once complete on a global scale, democracy becomes a self-destruct mechanism for capitalism. All it takes is the entire planet to realize the same thing, then relativity takes over and everyone is equal. What a nice dream lol. To get to this stage we need a machine to blank everyones brain... or a new global generation needs to be educated properly in a global democratic culture, which ever comes first.

Bump to fix board for great justice.

Also to show off what a shithouse this board has become. "tl;dr" amirite?

bla bla

>>5
Agreed. People who drivel on and on about useless irrelevant buillshit instead of just getting to the point using clear pure logic are retarded. I learned to think about what I was going to say before I openned my mouth when I was 6 or 7 for fuck's sake.

Oh yeah?  FUCK your theory.
Fuck your left and right bullshit.  You stupid little two party cunts are all going down.

I would say history is kinda like finding the middle ground slightly to the left. Look at American History, it always goes liberal,conservative,liberal and so on 

You fail to mention ultraconservativism which is a shift far to the right, to go back in time. History can be a shift left, or right, or even stagnation if the society has no motivation to push forward and change itself.

>>10
Basing something's value on whether it is a change or not is retarded.

>>11
OP doesnt think so

>>12
I didn't read the OP, because reading something that long on a forum such as this is a waste of time and it's obvious he's doing it on purpose. I'll prove it by grabbing something random from the ocean of text and abbreviating it.

"Communism, the most dramatic shift left of all time, involved in its theory a flat, narrow defiance of nature, to diasasterous results.  The idea that the family itself would be dissolved through free union of men and women, and socialized care of childern, was rampant in the heyday of the Revolution.  This is anathema to most humans.  Indeed, babies do very poorly without"

Communism was unrealistic, they believed the family unit to be illogical.

But the OP likes to rant appr and his rants are amusing

>>14
well if they are amusing, he should cut straight to the point so they are more amusing

>>13
Well, communism interpreted the family unit as illogical, because they thought of things as the "class" unit, they just threw out the family unit, replaced it with the "class/societal" unit, and it was too harsh of a separation from the existing paradigms.

>>16
But aren't there some small villages where the community DOES raise a child together?

>>15
Then it wouldnt be a rant

>>16
So you think it is logical to tear families apart and send their kids to orphanages in the name of equality and blame the fact that people prefer families for the existence of families?

>>17
Rants are pointless.

>>18
All entertainment is pointless

>>19
Making rants which are not entertaining are pointlesa as no one reads them.

>>20
20 post thread happened

>>21
People can respond without reading the OP, therefore the amount of responses does not necessarily mean the amount of readers of the OP.

>>22
It does mean that at least a few people did

>>23
But not necessarily.

History doesn't always shift left. The early Greeks were much more liberal than early America.

>>24
Youre mad

>>25
Greek men had forums.
Greek men sexed boys.

Thus there were Greek men who sexed boys in their forums.

and therefore greeks inspired 12chan.

QED.

>>25
Correct. There is no correlation.
>>26
no u
>>27
Or maybe it is part of the human condition. Eventually an isolated human culture will have repressed homosexuals who think it is ok for them to vent their frustration on little boys because "they sort of look like girls lol".

Doctors have been accused of using jargon to conceal unpleasant facts from a patient. Author and doctor Michael Crichton has claimed that medical writing is a "highly skilled, calculated attempt to confuse the reader".

bump