Who is more to blame for the development of liberalism?
>>17980528France, no contest. England's main sin is propping up France in WW1
>>17980528the UK developed the good parts of liberalism, France developed all the bad parts of liberalism. There is more good than bad in Liberalism, so I guess you could say the British, but it'd have been a perfect ideology without the French messing it up.
>>17980545Funny since Germany was the main spawnpoint of socialist ideology, movements and innovative thinkers.It's funny because schizo anons on 4chan always associate Imperial Germany with hardcore conservative and nationslist sentiments, when they probably had the absolute majority of European left-leaning society.
>>17980628Both communism and liberalism come from the French revolution. Marx was not the first communist retard
>>17980628>Imperial GermanyYeah the state founded in 1871 is responsible for liberal democracy???
>>17980663Left-liberalism yes. Liberalism as in 'capitalism' is older of course
>>17980628I thought the whole justification for WW1 was the Central Powers weren't liberal enough? Now their problem is that they were too liberal?
>>17980528The dutch.
>>17980677No the justification for ww1 was the central powers going around and attacking small countries for dubious reasons.
>>17980716And they did that for liberal democratic reasons apparently?
>>17980663>>17980667>>17980677LMAO it really didn't take long to rattle you history inept retards out of your cages didn't it?All it takes is saying something bad about Germany (even if it's not Hitlers Germany) Germany was the first country whom in 19th century passed through welfare state reforms such as pensions, largely to appease the masses of the growing Socislist party. France for example still relied on social aid.The socislist parties in UK and France were small while the socislist party in Imperial Germany held a third of the vote. The same goes for labour movements whom were much larger in Germany than Britain and France because of Germanys exploding coal and iron industry which put a strain on workers harsh conditions and unfair wages. UK experienced this during their industrialization as well, but the government was far more successful at cracking down on organized labour movements.Germany also spawned some of the most influential socialist intellectuals (no not just Marx). The overwhelming majority of The International were German (many of them Jewish, seethe and cope stormfags), Max Weber and Tönnies, Luxemburg, Engels, Bernstein. All of these were far more influential than early British or French socialist intellectuals.Imperial German universities were pumping them out to the world.Also, France was completely democratic yet the socislist parties struggled to achieve any influence. Germany on thr other hand was deeply authoritarian ruled by a junta, whom still struggled extremely hard to keep the massive socislist movements and parties in check, and had to constantly make concessions.The 1848 revolution was far more about socialist reforms than they were in UK/FR.The arguments that Imperial Germany had the largest socislist sentiments among its population compared to other states is overwhelming, and that these German movements and thinkers were far more influential in international socialist movements than in Britain and France.
>>17980756Of course not you Muppet, for what liberal democratic reasons did Tsarist Russia protect Serbia?
>>17980775Social welfare isn't the same as left-liberalism. Most people wouldn't consider Bismarck to be a left-liberal
>>17980775What does this have to do with the development of liberalism, as stated in the OP?>Germany on thr other hand was deeply authoritarian ruled by a juntaOk so they weren't liberal. Again, what does that have to do with the subject?You didn't read the OP, which is why you're talking about socialism and authoritarianism, instead of what the thread is about
>>17980628>Mindbroke by Germany
>>17980786>If the state disagrees with their people it doesn't count
>>17980792Yeah it doesn'tAre you trying to argue Germany was a liberal society or that it wasn't??
>>17980794>All the ideas of modern socialism are from Germans but it's not German because the state disliked itThis is a special kind of retard logic. Do Germans stop being German when they disagree the government?
>>17980797Marxism isn't relevant in the modern day. Also, the thread isn't about Marxism. You want it to be about Marxism so you can complain about Germany
>>17980628>>17980775>>17980797>
>>17980797>>17980799can you retards answer my question instead of having a dick measuring contest about imperial germany?
France was based and redpilled. England was greedy and degenerate.Liberalism is bad because of anglos.
>>17980799Socialism casts a far wider net than mere Marxism, and it's hardly a bold claim to say modern liberalism has as much, if not more, to do with that, with it's support for welfare and various progressive policies, than it does with classical liberalism. >>17980804I answered it earlier.
>>17980806Whoops sorry>I answered it earlierMeant for >>17980803
>>17980786>Ok so they weren't liberal. Again, what does that have to do with the subject?You're the one who quoted MY post about Germany being the center of socialism, where both of you faggots pounced at the argument supposedly being 'inaccurate'.But what does it have to do with liberalism? Because the labour movements of the late 19th/early 20th century was all about what we today associate with liberalism, mainly universal, vote, suffrage, pensions, free press, public health, fair work, free market (as in freedom from your employer and freedom of business) etc.Sure, French enlightenment thinkers kickstarted the sentiment of social liberalism, and English intellectuals spread economic liberalism, and American and Dutch governments pioneered political liberalism, all of these occurring in the 1700 (1600s in Hollands case), but if we're talking about immediately prior to ww1, which is what the anon I QUOTED suggested, then Germany was absolutely the leading state in social liberalism because of how accepted it was in German society, and it was just a matter of time how long the authoritarian state could suppress it.
>>17980801>Did they just say bad things about Germany?>OMFG THEY MUST BE POLISH SHILLSThis isn't even about Hitlers Germany yet you still think it is.A socialist society isn't even a bad thing. I would have been a member of the labour movements too if I had to work (as well as my children) in a coal mine in Hannover and breathe fucking ash every day for 16 hours and barely afford a leaf of bread, only to get sacked because I broke my arm at work, and recieve 0 support or compensation.
It was Britain because liberal economics and ZOG came out of them. Contrary to MAGAtards the economy matters more than social attitudes. Had the spirit of Marx risen in 1914 and gave Germany the strength to flatten London and Manchester, we would be living in a socialist utopia.
>>17980826Fucking take your meds and fuck off back to /pol/. We discuss actual history here. Something you're incapable of.
>>17980830I yearned for the blood of Cannae, why must Moltke have failed me? I put on my pickelhaube and sung a tune, "wir fahren gegen Engeland." Do you understand what the failure at Marne meant? You tea scrumping faggot. I lost EVERYTHING. And now because I lost everything, because success came clutching out my hand, unable to grasp, I must live in a world where Israel rules, a world where calls for unions and welfare are suppressed, a world dominated by the Anglo-American hegemon that feast on the corpse of western civilization instead of the cultured German and Russian.I blame the eternal WASP for every blight on this earth, and I can only dream of a better world where the Soviet-German alliance sailed to the shores of Dover and burnt everything afront to God down.
>>17980628It's like Rousseau, Babeuf, Saint-Simon and Proudhon never existed.Also if you're online in any way, consuming political slop content, you're a monkey dancing on Antonio Gramsci's palm.
>>17980841I didn't even quote the OP, I quoted the moron who tried to parallel France being leading in liberalism around the early 1900 when ww1 was coming.Which is false and absurd because around that time it was Germany who since the mid-1800 was the leading state in developing and exporting liberalism.
>>17980840>Failure at Marne>German-Soviet alliance What the fuck are you even talking about.
>>17980857The fall of France come first, the humiliation of Russia come 2nd, the rise of revolution come 3rd, the alliance set out by Niekisch and Lensch come 4th, the sail against Britain come 5th, the cleansing come 6th...
>>17980549/thread, french socialism later infected the entire world
>>17980663Weishaupt the german jewish head of the illuminati kickstarted the french revolution to counter the american revolution.
bumo
France, because they gave us Montesquieu.
>>17980549>the UK developed the good parts of liberalism, France developed all the bad parts of liberalism.Liberalism ≠ monarchism
>>17980528>itt : retards debate words they don't understand or knowLiberalism can mostly be blamed on England. Locke & hobbes were both English and they were the most influential liberal thinkers. It's part of the broader anglo-sphere where, due to their insulated island, the requirement for a state amounted to little more than protection. Even to this day, there's this notion that many of us continental euros have of Brits as these self-serving people who fundamentally don't understand that there is a common thing by which people live in society and that, to enforce any measure on said-common thing, there must be a state. Spengler in "prussian socialism" iirc talks about this, the english ethos is more focused on personal elevation through personal gain than personal elevation through duty to the state/nation.Republicanism/democracy is french. It was started by the French through Rousseau and is a continuation of the idea of sovereignty, which was itself started through french thinkers (namely Bodin).But if you mean modern liberalism, as in post-modern sociological interpretation of the world founded on moral axioms derived from ww2 as political grounds, then once again the french are the culprits here. This is largely imo due to circumstances. Out of the main intellectual circles, only France could start a new intellectual tradition. The east was focused on marxism, germany was destroyed, Spain & Portugal were tradcath, the US & bongland were focused on maintaining the supremacy of liberalism.
>>17983373>Republicanism/democracy is french. It was started by the French through Rousseau and is a continuation of the idea of sovereignty, which was itself started through french thinkers (namely Bodin).No it isn't kekIt originated with anglosSee Algernon Sidney, and montisque and voltaire who were anglophiles
>>17983420>mistaking liberal republicanism with participatory-republicanismThe only "democrat" thing that originated from the anglos was the idea that of a representative democracy where one's private life remains to his own device while the public life is only managed through elected representatives.Benjamin Constant talks about this in his text "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns". Representative democracy is only an extension of the liberal order where one is left to his own device to do what he deems satisfying. Rousseau republicanism is different in that it advocates, in a certain way, for a totalitarian control of the people by the people. For Rousseau, the "res publicae" is axiomatic to the state and, for it to adequatly represent the interest of the people bound by it, it must be in the hands of those who abide by it (aka. the people). You see this in the french revolution. At first, the revolutionaries who wanted to establish a constitutional monarchy praised thinkers like Montesquieu who they believed represented well their liberal view of the state (a control of the state to let people do their things). In opposition, when Robespierre and Saint-Simon form a coup, they choose Rousseau as a figure to represent their ideal.
Netherlands pioneered political liberalism Britain pioneered economic liberalismFrance pioneered social liberalismUSA then took inspiration from all 3 with their revolution and constitution.
>>17980528France gave us the guillotine and radical, blood-soaked upheaval that terrified the world for decades.Britain gave us Locke, and a gradual, stable expansion of rights that didn't require burning everything down.French made liberalism look dangerous. British made it workable.
>>17980528jews
>>17984937The American Revolution was before the French
England without a doubt, you really have to not know both countries to say England.
