Would a world without the USA a worse world?

Would a world without the USA a worse world?

  • Yes

    Votes: 126 53.6%
  • No

    Votes: 109 46.4%

  • Total voters
    235
The absence of the United States is not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. Europe and the world still had other strains of liberal democratic thought, ones more radical than those proposed during the revolution in the 13 Colonies. It's not like they had a monopoly on the ideas after all, contrary to some American myths. Simply put different ideas would emerge, some perhaps more radical and tolerant than those historically. The social pressures would build up eventually as the events of 1848 showed.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
The absence of the United States is not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. Europe and the world still had other strains of liberal democratic thought, ones more radical than those proposed during the revolution in the 13 Colonies. It's not like they had a monopoly on the ideas after all, contrary to some American myths. Simply put different ideas would emerge, some perhaps more radical and tolerant than those historically. The social pressures would build up eventually as the events of 1848 showed.
This. I don't get why is it so hard for some to get it.
 
I'm going to be brief, because I don't want to get too involved in this thread, especially as I think @EnglishCanuck is essentially on the ball with this:

The absence of the United States is not going to turn the clock back to the middle ages. Europe and the world still had other strains of liberal democratic thought, ones more radical than those proposed during the revolution in the 13 Colonies. It's not like they had a monopoly on the ideas after all, contrary to some American myths. Simply put different ideas would emerge, some perhaps more radical and tolerant than those historically. The social pressures would build up eventually as the events of 1848 showed.

But I just want to address this:

More than most of Europe, but clearly less than the US and Third French Republic at least until 1918. Before 1918, Britain was essentially an oligarchy, with only a third of male adults eligible to vote.

...as this isn't right at all. Following the Third Reform Act of 1884 two thirds of men, roughly, in Britain could vote. Not one third.

Likewise can we be robust when we talk historically about democracy in the nineteenth century? This was the era of ballot-stuffing, machine politics, rigging, and other such nefarious day-to-day activities. Particularly in the USA. What a democracy is or isn't, as @sendô pointed out earlier, goes well beyond what percentage of people can vote or not. Its about institutions and political culture which predate the American Revolution in Europe and especially in Britain by decades at the very least.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
Likewise can we be robust when we talk historically about democracy in the nineteenth century? This was the era of ballot-stuffing, machine politics, rigging, and other such nefarious day-to-day activities. Particularly in the USA. What a democracy is or isn't, as @sendô pointed out earlier, goes well beyond what percentage of people can vote or not. Its about institutions and political culture which predate the American Revolution in Europe and especially in Britain by decades at the very least.
Adding to this, something interesting that I'm not 100% sure about (I remember reading it, but can't pinpoint the source, so take it with a grain of salt), apparently due to the way nobility was inherited in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, more people had the right to participate in the Sejm and elect the king there than the amount of people who had the right to vote in the early US.
 
With 200+ years anything could happen. The world could be destroyed in nuclear fire or we could be living in a series of socialist utopias. Anything past fifty years out is nigh impossible to predict.
 
The build up towards liberal thoughts was a long one. It accelerated at the end of the 18th century. Then there was a very extensive mutual influence between Europe and Amerika. Interesting literature about this subject are the books by Jonathan Israel. He coins the term Radical Enlightment and tries to show that many thinkers and leaders we call enlightened weren't really that enlightened. People like Voltaire, Robbespierre and ofcourse the enlightened despots (he names also some founding fathers) had in his opinion still an authoritan heart.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
I'm not necessarily convinced revolutions for liberalism are the best recipe for advancing lasting, liberal societies. They often either break down as the revolutions turn on themselves, scare the horses too much to cause stronger reactionary movements or lead to a lasting legacy towards violence as a legitimate solution towards political grievance. Britain, Canada, Scandinavia and Australia have ended with better functioning political systems than the US, France and Italy in my opinion.

I think we need liberal ideas though, and the fact of the idea made deed is essential for an idea to take root beyond those revolutionary societies. As a socialist I view liberalism as merely a necessary step to get to something better, it is impossible to envision Marx without the French Revolution, and Marx is necessary for everything that humanised the 20th century. There could be no Attlee without Marx.

The reason Anarchism never took root is not impracticality, it is the most logical of all forms of government, it is that it never had revolutionary success, so its ideas were never taken seriously in non-revolutionary societies.

I'll have to agree with this version of the answer, a world where the US looses their revolutionary war would be radically different, but there's so many butterflies that I can't say precisely that it would be better or worse without some more guidelines about the way it evolves after that. All I can say is that OP seems determined to say it would be worse if the US didn't exist.

Personally, I think it'll be mixed, some aspects will be clearly worse, some clearly better, and some more will be diferent in a way that makes it hard to see if that's good or bad.

Well, American exceptionalism runs deep. There could have been worse American Revolutions or better ones, there could be non-American revolutions that work much much better, and ones that are rank dystopias. What I think is certain is that its hard to imagine an American revolution that is more effective in indoctrinating its own citizens into state ideology.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
The build up towards liberal thoughts was a long one. It accelerated at the end of the 18th century. Then there was a very extensive mutual influence between Europe and Amerika. Interesting literature about this subject are the books by Jonathan Israel. He coins the term Radical Enlightment and tries to show that many thinkers and leaders we call enlightened weren't really that enlightened. People like Voltaire, Robbespierre and ofcourse the enlightened despots (he names also some founding fathers) had in his opinion still an authoritan heart.
Sounds interesting. I'll look him up later.

Well, American exceptionalism runs deep. There could have been worse American Revolutions or better ones, there could be non-American revolutions that work much much better, and ones that are rank dystopias. What I think is certain is that its hard to imagine an American revolution that is more effective in indoctrinating its own citizens into state ideology.
Yeah, absolutely. Especially US exceptionalism running deep, it's always worse than I thought.
 

Deleted member 67076

Depends on your metric. If we assume this means the French Revolution is butterflied away, then Latin America would certainly be far more richer and populated, which translates into greater economic development. Industry would be less than the US, but more spread out and even and that can lead to dividends down the road. Ecudaor had light industry popping up just before the Revolutionary Wars took that away, for example. Similarly, preservation of native languages and culture in the region would also be greater than today. We might even see more bilingual countries ala Paraguay.

So this is probably a net boon to Latin America by virtue of delaying or avoiding the chaotic decades between 1800-1830 that saw countless wars. Other places? I'm not sure.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I'm not necessarily convinced revolutions for liberalism are the best recipe for advancing lasting, liberal societies.
Well, but I believe that successful liberal revolutions, especially the 1848 one, would lead to a form of liberalism which is less elitist and more populist, closer to the mass than OTL classical liberalism. This means a stronger liberalism as a political force in the 20th century (IOTL the US and Canada are only two countries where liberalism is still strong and not displaced by socialism/social democracy).

Take the US as an example, from its birth until at least ww1, all kinds of "ism" in the US were variants of liberalism (well, but no longer since the late 1960s) or born out from it because of the unique way the country was founded. They had no relation with European conservatism.

Besides, you cannot unite Germany and Italy without a war or a revolution.
 
More than most of Europe, but clearly less than the US and Third French Republic at least until 1918. Before 1918, Britain was essentially an oligarchy, with only a third of male adults eligible to vote.
You seem to be trying to pick certain examples at certain points in time because it suits your position, rather than recognising the general point that the general movement towards democracy was a trend that transcended much of Europe and north America throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and that different nations advanced at different rates with regards to democratic reform.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You seem to be trying to pick certain examples at certain points in time because it suits your position, rather than recognising the general point that the general movement towards democracy was a trend that transcended much of Europe and north America throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and that different nations advanced at different rates with regards to democratic reform.
I actually mean democratization would be slowed down. The so-called gradual change would be extended by several decades.

Besides, British treatment of colonies would be more similar to that of France without taking a beating from ARW, which means a harder time for colonies.

Also, no or failed ARW also means that the economic benefits of not abolishing slavery for Britain would be much larger.
The British abolitionist movement was already in incubation by the 1760s, yes. So were the British reform acts. So was the impetus to abolish the House of Lords - how's that coming?

The Parliament that abolished slavery stood to lose a bit of their sugar profits - sugar profits that had been declining in importance for decades. They risked offending a smattering of whites in overwhelmingly black colonies with minuscule populations.

This ATL Parliament has to make the same decision with vastly increased costs, while in all likelihood being told in no uncertain terms that it will cost them a continent-spanning empire. And with your supposition of the 1840s, it has to do it at a point when Britain's economy had fewer alternatives to King Cotton.
 
I guess it all depends on the nature of the POD for TTL - if Britain wins the ARW, but does so narrowly and after a few years of fighting, then perhaps the differences from OTL might not be that great - but if the revolution is crushed in it's infancy then, yes, perhaps Britain might be more authoritarian towards the white colonies.
 
Depends on your metric. If we assume this means the French Revolution is butterflied away, then Latin America would certainly be far more richer and populated, which translates into greater economic development. Industry would be less than the US, but more spread out and even and that can lead to dividends down the road. Ecudaor had light industry popping up just before the Revolutionary Wars took that away, for example. Similarly, preservation of native languages and culture in the region would also be greater than today. We might even see more bilingual countries ala Paraguay.

So this is probably a net boon to Latin America by virtue of delaying or avoiding the chaotic decades between 1800-1830 that saw countless wars. Other places? I'm not sure.

Where'd you read this?
 

longsword14

Banned
If we assume this means the French Revolution is butterflied away, then Latin America would certainly be far more richer and populated
Interesting. Is it related to no disruption of global markets due to the two decades of on/off war, or gaining independence from Spain ?
Did removing Spain hurt the economies of various ex-colonies ? I assume that Britain would have easily stepped in to fill the gap.
 
Depends on your metric. If we assume this means the French Revolution is butterflied away, then Latin America would certainly be far more richer and populated, which translates into greater economic development. Industry would be less than the US, but more spread out and even and that can lead to dividends down the road. Ecudaor had light industry popping up just before the Revolutionary Wars took that away, for example. Similarly, preservation of native languages and culture in the region would also be greater than today. We might even see more bilingual countries ala Paraguay.

So this is probably a net boon to Latin America by virtue of delaying or avoiding the chaotic decades between 1800-1830 that saw countless wars. Other places? I'm not sure.

I don't see why you blame the French Revolution for these wars and the economic problems. America's Revolution was hardly pacific and it managed to industrialize and develop.
 
I don't see why you blame the French Revolution for these wars and the economic problems. America's Revolution was hardly pacific and it managed to industrialize and develop.

Those were two different situations, though.

The Latin American wars of independence can trace their origins with both American and French revolutions. Not to mention, the French Revolution eventually led to Napoleon, which led to fighting and beating Spain, which led to deposing the king, which led to a political crisis in the viceroyalties, which led to uprisings, which led to years of fighting, which led to the state of their economies at the end of the day. Simple butterflies, really.

I can't speak for the other countries, but here in Mexico by the end of the war did had its economy devastated.
 
I don't see why you blame the French Revolution for these wars and the economic problems. America's Revolution was hardly pacific and it managed to industrialize and develop.
I'm not Soverihn, but....

The French Revolution catches a lot of blame for Spanish colonial independence wars because the France that came out of the FR was directly responsible for destroying Spain, the Spanish gov't, replacing the sovereign King with a usurper, and creating a situation where the colonies could successfully rebel. No FR means no, or little, rebellion in Spanish America for at least a few decades.

The British colonies were at a point where they were ready for independence. they were educated, had a variety of classes, including a large middle class and had at least some industry. Spanish colonies, by contrast were largely a small wealthy ruling class, a small middle class, and a huge peasant class, were not literate, had little experience with industry or self government, and overall were completely unprepared for independence. Giving them a few more decades isn't going to change things dramatically, but it might get things a little closer to being ready. Given Spain's shitty monarchies in those decades, I doubt a little more time ushers the colonies into a golden era, but it has to be better than the chaos created by the French revolution/napoleonic era.
 
Those were two different situations, though.

The Latin American wars of independence can trace their origins with both American and French revolutions. Not to mention, the French Revolution eventually led to Napoleon, which led to fighting and beating Spain, which led to deposing the king, which led to a political crisis in the viceroyalties, which led to uprisings, which led to years of fighting, which led to the state of their economies at the end of the day. Simple butterflies, really.

I can't speak for the other countries, but here in Mexico by the end of the war did had its economy devastated.

But why would you assume it's more devastating than any other war of independence Mexico would have fought?
 
But why would you assume it's more devastating than any other war of independence Mexico would have fought?

First of all, various factors happened that led to the war lasting for 11 years. Any other war is not bound to end the same. Also, because the circumstances of OTL's war led to the next four decades being not much better. Coup to depose the monarchy, counter-coups against the newly established republic, Federalists vs Centralists, Liberals vs Conservatives, easy prey for America, two French interventions, etc.

Different war, and much of that can be lessened or outright removed. It's not a guarantee, but things could certainly have gone better than OTL.
 
Top