The Current Era Compared to the 20th Century

[Heyo]

I have been reading about the Red Terror started by Lenin as well as the Gulag system under Stalin, in addition to the White Terror and Nazi concentration camps. It is almost hard to fathom that humans are capable of such atrocities, let alone over extended periods (e.g., Stalin ruled for nearly three decades, while Nazis ran concentration camps for over a decade).

I know that there are still many atrocities today, but compared to the brutal brands of communism in the 20th century (primarily Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism), the large-scale torture and massacres by Britain and France in their colonies or former colonies (such as during the times of Churchill and Charles de Gaulle), the horrors of Nazi Germany and its allies, and even the Allies' war crimes—among many other examples—the world today seems relatively far more peaceful even if only because such practices are less prevalent.

This is not to downplay the existence of brutal leaders and/or warmongers like Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, and George W. Bush in today's world, but it seems that global interconnection and an increasing reliance on technology and trade over military force have made it harder for regimes like Hitler's and Stalin's to exist today and exercise the same degree of brutality as they did in the 20th century. I suspect this is why we see fewer of them and, when they exist, often (but certainly not always) usage of less force than before.

What are your thoughts? Do we live in a relatively better time, or is it the same nastiness under a different banner?

One atrocity, war, has become uneconomical. There are no winners in modern wars except the weapons manufacturers or businesses which profit from the spoils of wars. For a country it is always a loss. The only reason war still exists is lobbying by the military-industrial complex or by people who don't understand economics.

 

[Audie]

I think things are increasingly getting better as generations pass. I believe the upcoming generation may be more eco-friendly

Some better, some worse.

My great grandmother had bound feet.
I'm OK with missing that.

 

[Audie]

One atrocity, war, has become uneconomical. There are no winners in modern wars except the weapons manufacturers or businesses which profit from the spoils of wars. For a country it is always a loss. The only reason war still exists is lobbying by the military-industrial complex or by people who don't understand economics.

War is always about armed robbery

 

[Heyo]

To be clear, I'm not saying that any relative improvement in this era is due to any change in human nature. I think human nature remains the same throughout history, and progress only happens in material conditions rather than our inherent traits.

I think human nature has changed. Or if the nature hasn't changed, our culture has changed. That change has been slow and it isn't global, yet. But in the civilised world we agree upon standards that weren't even thought of some hundred years ago. We have, at least on paper, equality of women and men. We have banned capital punishment, slavery and torture.
And all that has settled in for the vast majority. Our "better angles" have done some good work.

 

[Heyo]

War is always about armed robbery

Yep, but in the past the robber had a chance to come out with more than he invested.

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely. Great improvement.

 

[lukethethird]

I have been reading about the Red Terror started by Lenin as well as the Gulag system under Stalin, in addition to the White Terror and Nazi concentration camps. It is almost hard to fathom that humans are capable of such atrocities, let alone over extended periods (e.g., Stalin ruled for nearly three decades, while Nazis ran concentration camps for over a decade).

I know that there are still many atrocities today, but compared to the brutal brands of communism in the 20th century (primarily Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism), the large-scale torture and massacres by Britain and France in their colonies or former colonies (such as during the times of Churchill and Charles de Gaulle), the horrors of Nazi Germany and its allies, and even the Allies' war crimes—among many other examples—the world today seems relatively far more peaceful even if only because such practices are less prevalent.

This is not to downplay the existence of brutal leaders and/or warmongers like Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, and George W. Bush in today's world, but it seems that global interconnection and an increasing reliance on technology and trade over military force have made it harder for regimes like Hitler's and Stalin's to exist today and exercise the same degree of brutality as they did in the 20th century. I suspect this is why we see fewer of them and, when they exist, often (but certainly not always) usage of less force than before.

What are your thoughts? Do we live in a relatively better time, or is it the same nastiness under a different banner?

Our mainstream media has merely sanitized the wars since Vietnam. Out of sight they don't happen. The military industrial complex which includes media propaganda continues to overthrow governments, brutally attack and invade nations in a forever wars campaign. Nothing has changed except the now advanced efficiency of our propaganda machine.

 

[Audie]

Yep, but in the past the robber had a chance to come out with more than he invested.

It's just different people getting the loots now

 

[Nimos]

We're able to commit genocide using economics. now. Our whole culture is a giant labor camp run by the rich. And it weeds out the "undesirables" (anyone that doesn't profit the rich to their liking) by barring them from earning a living wage. And by making it illegal to live without money. They need no guns or barbed wire. The camp is global. There is nowhere to escape to.

What? You don't want to man their giant money pump for the rest of your life? Here's a nice pile of garbage and some drugs for you to go away and die on, then.

Yeah, that or you might get some lawyers on your back or you have workplaces around the world which could probably best be compared to slave camps with underpaid employees, working in extremely unhealthy environments.

 

[sun rise]

I think human nature has changed. Or if the nature hasn't changed, our culture has changed. That change has been slow and it isn't global, yet. But in the civilised world we agree upon standards that weren't even thought of some hundred years ago. We have, at least on paper, equality of women and men. We have banned capital punishment, slavery and torture.
And all that has settled in for the vast majority. Our "better angles" have done some good work.

Of course not every country has banished capital punishment, but in general I see the same thing. There are many examples such as the time when miners were not paid in money but in scrip that could only be used at the company store which led to this song.

 

[Heyo]

Of course not every country has banished capital punishment,

in the civilised world

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yep, but in the past the robber had a chance to come out with more than he invested.

Go back far enough and it was almost guaranteed...

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think human nature has changed. Or if the nature hasn't changed, our culture has changed. That change has been slow and it isn't global, yet. But in the civilised world we agree upon standards that weren't even thought of some hundred years ago. We have, at least on paper, equality of women and men. We have banned capital punishment, slavery and torture.
And all that has settled in for the vast majority. Our "better angles" have done some good work.

Things are better in developed countries than they were even a century ago, yes, but a lot of atrocities still happen, and many go unnoticed. The prison system in the US leads to widespread sexual violence, and France has ghettos where people live in extreme poverty and awful living conditions.

Torture is also still very much in practice; just not publicly. The "enhanced interrogation techniques" of the CIA and U.S. Army were used less than 20 years ago.

Parenthetically, I strongly disagree with the term "civilized world" and don't use it myself. It's not because I think of the countries typically included in it as "uncivilized": most average people are normal humans who are overall indeed civilized and friendly. I just avoid the term because it seems to imply a contrast to "uncivilized" countries, which is an overgeneralized implication that has a hint of cultural supremacism.

 

[PureX]

To understand the era of organized mass genocide and global warfare you have to appreciate the impact of the industrial revolution on the minds of younger well educated people at the time. There was a serious glorification of an ideology of industrial might going on that was especially appealing to young, brash, arrogant and well educated men. Men who saw for themselves a future of unimaginable pleasures and conquests.

This is from a Britannica page on "Futurism"; a cultural moveement of that time.

"Futurism, early 20th-century artistic movement centered in Italy that emphasized the dynamism, speed, energy, and power of the machine and the vitality, change, and restlessness of modern life. During the second decade of the 20th century, the movement’s influence radiated outward across most of Europe, most significantly to the Russian avant-garde. The most-significant results of the movement were in the visual arts and poetry.

Futurism was first announced on February 20, 1909, when the Paris newspaper Le Figaro published a manifesto by the Italian poet and editor Filippo Tommaso Marinetti. Marinetti coined the word Futurism to reflect his goal of discarding the art of the past and celebrating change, originality, and innovation in culture and society. Marinetti’s manifesto glorified the new technology of the automobile and the beauty of its speed, power, and movement. Exalting violence and conflict, he called for the sweeping repudiation of traditional values and the destruction of cultural institutions such as museums and libraries. The manifesto’s rhetoric was passionately bombastic; its aggressive tone was purposely intended to inspire public anger and arouse controversy."
​

This cultural 'meme' of the almost nihilistic power of a great new "machine age" has fueled two world wars, run capitalism amok, drowned us in guns, bombs, missiles, and 'doomsday scenarios' that are beyond the comprehension of any same human being. And more then that, it has separated us from the Earth upon which we depend, for literally everything, and divided us from each other as a cooperative species.

The 'bullyboys' have always been lurking among us, in every era. And they have made their way into positions of power, regularly, to do great harm. But the dawn of the age of the machine inspired them like no other. And inspired the 'bullyboy' in nearly every one of us, I think, to some degree or other. It wasn't just about murder, but about murdering efficiently. It wasn't just about lying, but about lying outrageously. It wasn't just about the exercise of power, it was about humiliation. And it wasn't just about conquest, it was about annihilation. Through the rise of the machine age, the bully boy mentality found it's justification and the mechanics for going extreme. And it is still a very strong drive among many males even today.

​

 

[Heyo]

Parenthetically, I strongly disagree with the term "civilized world" and don't use it myself. It's not because I think of the countries typically included in it as "uncivilized": most average people are normal humans who are overall indeed civilized and friendly. I just avoid the term because it seems to imply a contrast to "uncivilized" countries, which is an overgeneralized implication that has a hint of cultural supremacism.

I don't have such qualms. I don't criticise an unchangeable quality. It is just the question if there is a strong enough moral majority to influence the laws and politicians in the country.
And I expect, from historical precedent, that more and more countries will eventually join the civilised world. There will be some back and forth but the general direction is towards a more moral world.
I don't expect a cure for psychopathy in the near future, so atrocities will still happen. The question is if they are legal.

 

[Stevicus]

Parenthetically, I strongly disagree with the term "civilized world" and don't use it myself. It's not because I think of the countries typically included in it as "uncivilized": most average people are normal humans who are overall indeed civilized and friendly. I just avoid the term because it seems to imply a contrast to "uncivilized" countries, which is an overgeneralized implication that has a hint of cultural supremacism.

I would say that a term like "free world" would also fall into the same category, as well as terms like "first world" and "third world." I think it relates to how many Westerners relate to criticism of their regimes, usually attempting to discredit or marginalize critics by dismissing them as "conspiracy theorists." The implication is that Western, first-world governments would never do the kinds of things that human governments have been known to do for as long as recorded history. The idea is that our government would never do anything wrong, because they're special, enlightened, and morally/culturally superior. Only some uneducated "whacko" would think otherwise.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't have such qualms. I don't criticise an unchangeable quality. It is just the question if there is a strong enough moral majority to influence the laws and politicians in the country.
And I expect, from historical precedent, that more and more countries will eventually join the civilised world. There will be some back and forth but the general direction is towards a more moral world.
I don't expect a cure for psychopathy in the near future, so atrocities will still happen. The question is if they are legal.

I don't know if North American countries will join the civilized world in my lifetime. I would like to see it happen but imperialism seems to be the mainstay.

 

[Augustus]

I know that there are still many atrocities today, but compared to the brutal brands of communism in the 20th century (primarily Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism), the large-scale torture and massacres by Britain and France in their colonies or former colonies (such as during the times of Churchill and Charles de Gaulle), the horrors of Nazi Germany and its allies, and even the Allies' war crimes—among many other examples—the world today seems relatively far more peaceful even if only because such practices are less prevalent.

The 20th C totalitarianisms are of an order of magnitude greater than things today, but what would you say was notably worse about the British and French Empires in the 20th C than things that are happening pretty consistently these days?

Among the worst examples would be the atrocities that occurred during the Mau Mau Rebellion and Algerian War, where you have very brutal wars and some pretty awful actions on both sides. France also in Indochina. Lesser scale, but still significant conflicts would include Malaya, Iraq, etc.

These were certainly bad, but near half the world must have been in these 2 empires, so are things really notably better than that?

Off the top of my head 21st C wars and armed conflicts include Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, ISIS, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Sudan, Libya, Chad, Mali, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Kashmir, Chechnya, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Turkey/Kurds, Myanmar, Maluku, Aceh.

Im sure there must be quite a few more too.

Serious internal repression would add countries like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Myanmar, China, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.

The 20th C had 2 world wars, Nazism and Communism which make it stand out. Beyond these it’s pretty comparable imo.

Do you believe that things look markedly worse in the 20th C beyond these massive outliers?

I have no doubt that there are many Hitlers, Stalins, and Churchills who exist today, but they either have to be more restrained than they would have been in previous times or have a smaller chance of reaching power compared to before.

What specifically do you think Churchill did to put him in that company?