WI: No WW1+2, does the Age of Liberalism continue?

I think many here are aware that WW1 was a turning point in European and world history. But i also think many underestimate just how much the western world changed in the wake of WW1 in terms of culture and economics.

WW1 marked the end of the era of classical liberalism. It basically killed the classical gold standard, and showed just how much the government could accomplish if it was in a position to manage large parts of the economy (and society in general). This was even more true for WW2. Without this, would laissez-faire economics continue to dominate the western world? After all, the decades between 1848 and 1914 were an era of unprecedented economic growth, unseen in human history before, and raised living standards in a way previous generations couldn‘t even imagine. Why fix what‘s not broken?

If there are no large scale world wars, and governments are still restrained by a hard gold standard, and no Soviet Union to demonstrate a different economic model, do we ever see governments grow to the extend we have in OTL? Would there be the kind of welfare systems westerners have grown used to over the last seventy years?

I think the lack of an expansive welfare state especially would have huge societal and cultural consequences. For example, being a single mother would be a much worse prospect for women than it currently is, without a welfare system to fall back on. How does this affect relationships and marriage? Are women going to be more ‚choosy‘ when it comes to dating? Are (extended) families going to remain the main ‚safety net‘ for most people? How would this affect the ‚sexual revolution‘, if it ever happens?

And culture and art would surely develop very different in the absence of world wars. It‘s possible that the world remains more nationalistic in general, as well as more monarchist.

Overall i think many seem to take it for granted that modern societies are eventually going to evolve along social-democratic principles similar to our own world, but i don‘t think that‘s necessarily true.

What do you think? Does the age of liberalism and laissez-faire continue in the absence of WW1 and 2? How do you think society in such a world would look like in the 21st century?
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the present day in such a TL is a lot more left wing.

Classical liberal economics just sucked, and issues with it were sort of accepted even by Bismarck (who IIRC created the welfare model that much of the world still uses to stifle the influence of the far left). When the economy crashes, expect multiple revolutions that might be a hell of a lot more successful by virtue of embracing the power of state intervention and the collapse of the classical liberal powers around them.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the present day in such a TL is a lot more left wing.

Classical liberal economics just sucked, and issues with it were sort of accepted even by Bismarck (who IIRC created the welfare model that much of the world still uses to stifle the influence of the far left). When the economy crashes, expect multiple revolutions that might be a hell of a lot more successful by virtue of embracing the power of state intervention and the collapse of the classical liberal powers around them.

The thing is, there have been severe economic crises prior to WW1, and they didn‘t lead to revolutions. And the more time passes, the more rich the West becomes, just like in OTL. There might be a point where society is so rich that it almost seems pointless to implement large scale social programs. If the age of classical liberalism manages to reach the 50s or 60s, then i genuinly believe the time window for socialism and even social-democracy has passed. There might still be some things like pension schemes similar to Bismarcks programs, but nothing on the scale we see in our world.
 
I don't think the gold standard would have lasted much longer if there weren't any world wars. Even without a world war, the Western World would still likely have some kind of great depression. In the OTL nations started dumping the gold standard in the 1930s.

I'm unsure about nations like France and Germany, but in the UK and US, without a red scare, people may be more susceptible to socialist ideas and may adopt more interventionist policies than in the OTL. Whether this is good or bad is up to debate. Extreme laisse-faire capitalism can have some draw backs, but economic interventionism and protectionism can cause economic hardship as well.
 
The thing is, there have been severe economic crises prior to WW1, and they didn‘t lead to revolutions.
Actually they kinda did.
The issue with classical liberal economics is how fragile it is to any kind of crisis. The Paris Commune was itself far left, and was so prior to anything near the level of organization that the left would have by the end of the 19th/beginning of the 19th. The British government feared a socialist revolution in Scotland of all places, taking the threat seriously enough to send in the military, and that's with at least some groundwork away from classical liberalism.

And the more time passes, the more rich the West becomes, just like in OTL. There might be a point where society is so rich that it almost seems pointless to implement large scale social programs.
Have you heard of the phrase "The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer"? It doesn't matter if society as a whole is rich if the average Joe can't benefit from it. On this topic, again Britain is an excellent example with Churchill commenting (paraphrased) "What is the use of Empire if our subjects at home cannot flush their toilets?"
If the age of classical liberalism manages to reach the 50s or 60s, then i genuinly believe the time window for socialism and even social-democracy has passed.
Why? All the biggest problems that both movements try to a dress would be a hell of a lot more prevalent.
There might still be some things like pension schemes similar to Bismarcks programs, but nothing on the scale we see in our world.
I would be very surprised if that were the case, largely because the first country to move beyond classical liberalism is going to find they suddenly have a lot stronger position than anyone else.
 
Have you heard of the phrase "The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer"? It doesn't matter if society as a whole is rich if the average Joe can't benefit from it. On this topic, again Britain is an excellent example with Churchill commenting (paraphrased) "What is the use of Empire if our subjects at home cannot flush their toilets?

But it does matter if society as a whole is getting richer, and the average Joe has benefited from it. Surely you agree that the average English worker in 1910 was much better off than the average English worker in 1850, despite the lack of modern welfare programs? Why would the rise in real wages, the improvements of living standards, as well as the general accumulation of wealth suddenly stop? Eventually there will be a point where almost everyone can afford flushed toilets. I mean, that’s what happened in OTL, didn’t it? Or do you think toilets wouldn’t exist in modern homes without some social program?

Look at the difference between how a poor person and a rich person would get around throughout the centuries. The rich person in 1800 (probably an aristocrat) has a carriage, and servants to transport him wherever he wants. The poor person has to walk, and is lucky to have a pair of good shoes.
Compare that to 1900, where the rich person still has a carriage, but probably uses the train for greater distances (first class, of course.) The poor person also uses the train, for both shorter and long distances, but travels second class instead. But both use a train!
If we look another century in the future, we see the rich person of 2000 in a limousine with a chauffeur, and the poor person driving his used car by himself. Do you see the difference, and how much more equal rich and poor have become over time in real terms? Both are using cars, something even the richest aristocrat of 1800 couldn‘t even conceive of.

Does it really matter what their respective bank statements say?
 
Just cause the world doesn't lose its mind anymore than it already had doesn't mean you stop the social forces at play in Western Society. Orthodoxy will be challenged one way or another. The argument against capitalism doesn't just lie in the trenches, it lies in the streets where people starve and scrap by to survive; just cause some yuppies get to live it up in poorly regulated economy doesn't mean the social ills of a deeply unequal society go away.

Likewise, the limits of laissez-faire aren't just tested by the needs of a total war, the state will find things to wrap it's tendrils into, it always has and always will. How that creeping influence manifests is the question of the century, not what people will do if it stays weak.

I'm not trying to be a determinist, but the ball is rolling by this point and while the break between the old and the new might not be as drastic you're certainly going to see some changes going into the 20th century. Wars or no war (and there will be a war).
 
But it does matter if society as a whole is getting richer, and the average Joe has benefited from it.
Thats not how economics works.
As a society, again the UK is richer than it has ever been.
My grandfather with no qualifications and acting as a test pilot for the RAF when wages was much lower was able to buy a house outright and hasnt been in debt since 1972 (which has some weird problems when it comes to credit ratings). My father, working for a union and a normal working week off of a university degree was able to support buy himself a family of 5, buy his house outright etc.
Today, at a higher academic standing than my father or grandfather and working a 70 hour week was living bill to bill on the skin of my teeth with my partner in full time employment and rented. Society as a whole getting richer means utterly nothing if it is not in circulation.
Surely you agree that the average English worker in 1910 was much better off than the average English worker in 1850, despite the lack of modern welfare programs?
No, but only because welfare programs had already begun by then and the works of people like Seebohm Rowntree (yes that Rowntree) had provided great evidence of the issues that working class families were facing.
Why would the rise in real wages, the improvements of living standards, as well as the general accumulation of wealth suddenly stop?
Im not saying it would stop, im saying it would dramatically slow down to the point where any government starts to pay attention to the data will obviously outcompete their rivals.
Eventually there will be a point where almost everyone can afford flushed toilets. I mean, that’s what happened in OTL, didn’t it?
Not quite, for an amusing reason which i will adress coming up next.
Or do you think toilets wouldn’t exist in modern homes without some social program?
Hi. I, cannot afford a toilet. I live in the UK.

How is this the case? Well unfortunatly I suffer from a genetic condition which causes my brain to never stop producing adrenaline. Without meds, I can't sleep, my brain starts to produce quite potent and horrifying hallucinations (the wall sprouting faces bleeding out of every orifice being the most common for some reason) and eventually I get rest from blacking out, resulting in being passed out on the floor or waking up a day or two later to find out I've been doing crazy stuff. Sometimes if I'm unlucky, I get to act as a back seat passenger to my own body.

Like my mother's line, this kicked in during my early 20s whilst I was working at my then 70 hours a week job. I couldn't keep it up, as the stress of work + sleeping 3-4 hours a month was literally driving me insane and i had a baby on the way, so I quit my job.
My job (I was a teacher) actually played ok, although proportionally not nearly as much as it would have done in other generations. I contacted local mental health services because I was willing to do anything to keep the job and was afraid I might kill myself during an unconscious episode (or worse, when I was sitting along for the ride).
Due to cuts, I was seen in early June. 8 months from when I said I was suicidal.

I have been unable to get a job since despite a decent resume. Without government support, my family would be on the street despite my partner being employed full time in a pathology lab. Ok we cannot afford the house, the food nor indeed our flushing toilet without welfare, a situation which keeps getting worse as more cuts are made.

Look at the difference between how a poor person and a rich person would get around throughout the centuries. The rich person in 1800 (probably an aristocrat) has a carriage, and servants to transport him wherever he wants. The poor person has to walk, and is lucky to have a pair of good shoes.
Compare that to 1900, where the rich person still has a carriage, but probably uses the train for greater distances (first class, of course.) The poor person also uses the train, for both shorter and long distances, but travels second class instead. But both use a train!
I live in a predominantly rich place (thank you council housing). I take my child to the local playgroup and on Monday was told I was a terrible father for taking my child on a bus, despite everyone there knowing I both don't have a car and may not legally be able to drive one.

Yes, technology does push social change, but technology can increase drastically with lower quality of life if the social system is not favourable (I think for instance we would agree that the 19th century Kulak was far better off than the 20th century Kulak under Stalin, despite mechanization.
If we look another century in the future, we see the rich person of 2000 in a limousine with a chauffeur, and the poor person driving his used car by himself. Do you see the difference, and how much more equal rich and poor have become over time in real terms? Both are using cars, something even the richest aristocrat of 1800 couldn‘t even conceive of.

Does it really matter what their respective bank statements say?
If you have ever lived in poverty, doing more work than generations above you, you would know that the answer isn't just "yes" it's "absofuckingloutely yes".
 
The argument against capitalism doesn't just lie in the trenches, it lies in the streets where people starve and scrap by to survive; just cause some yuppies get to live it up in poorly regulated economy doesn't mean the social ills of a deeply unequal society go away.

How many people were actually ‚starving‘ in Britain, or Germany, or France in 1914? Whatever the number was, it was surely much less than in 1880, right? And people in 1880 were surely much better off than people in 1850, no? And in reverse, people in 1950 would be much better off than people in 1914.

My assertion is that there was a specific window of time, somewhere between 1850 and 1950, where socialist ideas actually made a certain amount of sense in the context of the time, at least superficially. Anything prior to that and most common people were too uneducated to even think about something like social reform etc. But after 1950 Europe and North America became so rich (and no, i‘m not only talking about the upper 1%) that the need for large scale social programs would be much less prevalent.
 
How many people were actually ‚starving‘ in Britain, or Germany, or France in 1914? Whatever the number was, it was surely much less than in 1880, right? And people in 1880 were surely much better off than people in 1850, no? And in reverse, people in 1950 would be much better off than people in 1914.

My assertion is that there was a specific window of time, somewhere between 1850 and 1950, where socialist ideas actually made a certain amount of sense in the context of the time, at least superficially. Anything prior to that and most common people were too uneducated to even think about something like social reform etc. But after 1950 Europe and North America became so rich (and no, i‘m not only talking about the upper 1%) that the need for large scale social programs would be much less prevalent.

Wealth is impermanent, social stability is impermanent, everything in a society is subject to change. Just because the good times keep rolling doesn't mean you can't get a recession, or a deep and lasting depression. So what if times are good for most of society, that cannot be guaranteed going into the future and once the luck dries out and the financial system gets unsettled (like it always does) those ideas and programs that aren't needed then will become so. Avoiding the world wars doesn't fix anything about the volatility of Western economics.

Even if your assertion is true, it will be untrue given enough time and the prevailing economic theories and political forms of the Victorian era will wear out their welcome and the rise of the state will go on, if not in the same way as OTL then at least in the same vein. That's my assertion, the West is working on shaky ground going into the 20th century that's just the system doing what it does.
 
Thats not how economics works.
As a society, again the UK is richer than it has ever been. My grandfather with no qualifications and acting as a test pilot for the RAF when wages was much lower was able to buy a house outright and hasnt been in debt since 1972 (which has some weird problems when it comes to credit ratings). My father, working for a union and a normal working week off of a university degree was able to support buy himself a family of 5, buy his house outright etc.
Today, at a higher academic standing than my father or grandfather and working a 70 hour week was living bill to bill on the skin of my teeth with my partner in full time employment and rented.

Man, that sounds harsh. I hope your situation improves eventually. But you brought up an interesting fact: Your father and grandfather were able to afford their own house despite earning lower wages, something you can‘t even dream of under current conditions. Why? The answer is of course inflation.

I think many underestimate just what kind of horrible effects inflation has had on the middle and lower classes. There was a time when people could put their savings under their mattress, and they would actually be worth more several years later, because in the past we actually had deflation. But that ended when the international gold standard prior to WW1 was abolished, and eventually replaced with our current monetary system. Central banks now have a lot control over the economy, trying to keep things stable, but at the cost of real wages for most people.

I‘m not saying there wouldn‘t be any problems and hardships in a world of laissez faire, but i don‘t think i would the kind of dystopia many make it out to be either. It’s certainly something worth thinking about. And we are here to discuss alternate ways history could develop, are we not?:)
 
Last edited:
Wealth is impermanent, social stability is impermanent, everything in a society is subject to change. Just because the good times keep rolling doesn't mean you can't get a recession, or a deep and lasting depression. So what if times are good for most of society, that cannot be guaranteed going into the future and once the luck dries out and the financial system gets unsettled (like it always does) those ideas and programs that aren't needed then will become so. Avoiding the world wars doesn't fix anything about the volatility of Western economics.

But economic crises prior to 1914 didn‘t have a lasting effect on the economic orthodoxy of the time, why would recessions after 1914 (without WW1 or 2) be any different? And some of those pre-1914 recessions were quite severe too. Why wouldn‘t it just be seen as business as usual? I‘m not saying it‘s impossible that something like keynesianism could replace the old orthodoxy, but it‘s not a sure thing either.
 
But economic crises prior to 1914 didn‘t have a lasting effect on the economic orthodoxy of the time, why would recessions after 1914 (without WW1 or 2) be any different? And some of those pre-1914 recessions were quite severe too. Why wouldn‘t it just be seen as business as usual? I‘m not saying it‘s impossible that something like keynesianism could replace the old orthodoxy, but it‘s not a sure thing either.

If you stress the system something is bound to break at some point. There's nothing guaranteeing it at all, you're right, but as economies continue to grow severity of crises will increase(if for no other reason than they affect more countries and people). And if circumstances are such that they also last longer, and/or more frequent there will be repercussion for the Western economies. That's all I can really say, that's how it happened in OTL as far as I understand it.
 
Man, that sounds harsh. I hope your situation improves eventually.
It has improved gradually. I am on enough medication to slay a walrus and still see eldritch symbols floating around, but its a world away.
But you brought up an interesting fact: Your father and grandfather were able to afford their own house despite earning lower wages, something you can‘t even dream of under current conditions. Why? The answer is of course inflation.
Oh I know. The issue is that classical liberalism doesn't really have a good solution for inflation. Economic systems would eventually learn to adjust for it to make the situation less dire.

I think many underestimate just what kind of horrible effects inflation has had on the middle and lower classes. There was a time when people could put their savings under their mattress, and they would actually be worth more several years later, because in the past we actually had deflation. But that ended when the international gold standard prior to WW1 was abolished, and eventually replaced with our current monetary system. Central banks now have a lot control over the economy, trying to keep things stable, but at the cost of real wages for most people.
I'm not quite sure I follow here? I may have misread you (I am certifiably crazy after all =L) but I thought you were discussing a continued gold standard?

I‘m not saying there wouldn‘t be any problems and hardships in a world of laissez faire, but i don‘t think i would the kind of dystopia many make it out to be either. It’s certainly something worth thinking about. And we are here to discuss alternate ways history could develop, are we not?:)
To be clear, im not suggesting it would be a dystopia either.
In many ways, it could be a better world, but only if there are limits on how long it lasts. Having the greater technology when reform comes about might for instance make people more ambitious and/or revolution in already developed countries are less likely to inherit the Tsarist autocracy that OTL communism put up with.

To put my points into a quick summary: I am of the oppinion that the economy for the duration of the extended period would be worse than OTL, and that this would entail a more fertile ground for radicalism (bad or good).
 
It has improved gradually. I am on enough medication to slay a walrus and still see eldritch symbols floating around, but its a world away. Oh I know. The issue is that classical liberalism doesn't really have a good solution for inflation. Economic systems would eventually learn to adjust for it to make the situation less dire.

I'm not quite sure I follow here? I may have misread you (I am certifiably crazy after all =L) but I thought you were discussing a continued gold standard?

To be clear, im not suggesting it would be a dystopia either.
In many ways, it could be a better world, but only if there are limits on how long it lasts. Having the greater technology when reform comes about might for instance make people more ambitious and/or revolution in already developed countries are less likely to inherit the Tsarist autocracy that OTL communism put up with.

To put my points into a quick summary: I am of the oppinion that the economy for the duration of the extended period would be worse than OTL, and that this would entail a more fertile ground for radicalism (bad or good).

Internationalism intensifies...
 
Social Liberalism will probably continue to develop and take the place of classic liberalism. Socialism would still be around and while may viewed as intially radical, it would probably be accepted over time as history moves on. Nations and cultures would want to assert themselves from their superiors and smart states will take advantage of that, especially Africa at some point later on.
 
Top