Why is the western world declining?

[Arent11]

It took quite alot before they started to stick together during ww2.

That is true, but some historians argue that appeasement led to ww2.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

That is true, but some historians argue that appeasement led to ww2.

Yes obviously it was a bad thing but that is because we know how the story went.

However given the choice between instantiating a global war or avoiding it, most would choose to avoid it for very obvious reasons.

 

[innonimatu]

Of course you can argue that other countries rather "catch up" instead of the western world "declining".
You can even choose the answer "Decline? No, I don't think so" in the poll. That's why I added that
choice.

Regarding absolute vs relative decline, I would argue that this only holds if you factor in technological
advancement. Of course, technology today is more advanced than decades ago & you can argue that
therefore, Europe or USA today are "stronger" than decades ago. But if you ignore tech, you would
have an absolute decline in power at least in military & political areas.

I also want to point out that this is not about ethics. According to your view, China would be "backwards",
because it is oppressive.

I think that you have been unfairly bashed, only because you've asked a question that ever since Spengler wrote his infamous book are associated with what we might call "reactionary movements".

But if you define "the west" as "Europe and its offspring in the Americas", and it that "west" includes Russia as was done during the 19th century and until the Cold War, then it is clear that there has been a relative decline, a decline in the political influence ("power") of that group taken as a whole, over the world. To deny this is to deny history.

What should also be pointed out in any "decline" discussion is that historically "the west" has been politically split between different major powers. Even when one economic center had primacy, that did not meant that the politicians who held it could order the others around. The British Empire at its height could not command "the west". The USA could, but that time lasted only a few decades (I believe we have seen its end already by the turn of the century). So apart from some 50 years of US hegemony, there never was a west, politically or even economically, there were several that spoke the same political language but were happy enough to ally occasionally with "outsiders" to that club (France and Turkey, Britain and Japan, etc).

The question of why decline should be raised about each center of power, economic and military, rather than about an heterogeneous group. The group, which we can add together for military or economic calculations, has seldom acted together in the past. Then there is cultural hegemony, and that's a different issue. There are also centers that can be identified, but I think that there was "a west" that could legitimately be delineated in that case and often moved together above the political, military and economic quarrels.

 

[Ajidica]

The west has been in decline since 1071 AD.

PROVE ME WRONG

 

[gay_Aleks]

1054 C.E, but I hear you.

 

[Arent11]

But if you define "the west" as "Europe and its offspring in the Americas", and it that "west" includes Russia as was done during the 19th century and until the Cold War, then it is clear that there has been a relative decline, a decline in the political influence ("power") of that group taken as a whole, over the world. To deny this is to deny history.

What should also be pointed out in any "decline" discussion is that historically "the west" has been politically split between different major powers. Even when one economic center had primacy, that did not meant that the politicians who held it could order the others around. The British Empire at its height could not command "the west". The USA could, but that time lasted only a few decades (I believe we have seen its end already by the turn of the century). So apart from some 50 years of US hegemony, there never was a west, politically or even economically, there were several that spoke the same political language but were happy enough to ally occasionally with "outsiders" to that club (France and Turkey, Britain and Japan, etc).

The question of why decline should be raised about each center of power, economic and military, rather than about an heterogeneous group. The group, which we can add together for military or economic calculations, has seldom acted together in the past. Then there is cultural hegemony, and that's a different issue. There are also centers that can be identified, but I think that there was "a west" that could legitimately be delineated in that case and often moved together above the political, military and economic quarrels.

Well, in principle you could argue that the "western civilization" as enlightenment/natural scientific world view is very much alive & thriving - and that Cina or south America are, in fact, quite "western". In that sense there is no decline in "western civilization" but more some kind of "cultural victory condition"

And yes, the "west" has always been split. So maybe one should talk whether there is a decline of first the "eastern bloc" - former sowjet union - and now a decline, at least in my eyes, of the "western bloc" as well. The eastern bloc had severe economic problems. The western bloc seems to suffer from internal conflicts.

I think that you have been unfairly bashed, only because you've asked a question that ever since Spengler wrote his infamous book are associated with what we might call "reactionary movements".

Well, I don't really care. The only problem is that it derails the thread.

 

[Arent11]

The west has been in decline since 1071 AD.

PROVE ME WRONG

Interesting statement. Could you tell me what happened in exactly that year?

 

[JohannaK]

I believe the West has been in a moral, material and spiritual decline ever since Julius Caesar was assassinated on the floor of the Senate.

 

[gay_Aleks]

That's putting it mildly. I think that we can mark it with accuracy to the death of Pythagoras and the beginning of bean culture

 

[Crezth]

I would argue they can not because of political & demographic reasons.
If you add modern technology, you are right. But apart from that, Western
countries could, in my humble opinion, not bring the same cohesion &
manpower to the table as some decades ago.

are you serious? the population of the USA in 1940 was 132 million. the population now is over 300 million and climbing.

The same is true for political cohesion. Ukraine was not defended by anyone.
I'm not so sure western countries would stick together, if a real threat would
arise. I rather believe they would try to appease it.

czechoslovakia was not defended by anyone either.

you're invested in a false and stupid narrative that the western empires of the past were somehow more organized and more cohesive than the nations of today. there's no good evidence that this is the case except that there have been fewer instances of mass mobilization so, relatively speaking, fewer places to compare. Similarly, the "cohesion" of past nations - I really don't know what you're referring to. It's not like Germany was 100% lock-step behind Hitler or Wilhelm all the way. It was a disorganized mess and rife with disorder. Same with France and England and Italy and Russia. Tax was less effective, bureaucracy was less effective, the economies were smaller, and the militaries were less effective. They only didn't seem so desperate compared to our current situation because they were going up against each other.

So again your premise is ridiculous. Please go back to 1919 Germany and tell them how cohesive they are. Or hop on down to 1937 France and tell them how much they have things under control. I'm sure 1938 Spain would love to hear about their cohesion. The British colonial office in 1921 wasn't tearing their hair out over managing its ridiculously bloated empire, I'm sure. [Sarcasm]

If there is anything to be said for evolutions made since then it is the fact that nations like Japan, South Korea, China, Indonesia, and Malaysia are now actually modern economies with political institutions that are reasonably stable (well... moreorless). They don't have to trot out their latest war prototypes for expensive costly disorganized wars on horse carriages anymore, and more importantly they don't do stuff like invade China and America at the same time. So again, by comparison, there's fewer lopsided shenanigans to cast an illusion of western superiority.

 

[Ajidica]

Interesting statement. Could you tell me what happened in exactly that year?

As a result of that year, we no longer have One God in Heaven, One Emperor on Earth; and the west has been in decline ever since.

PROVE ME WRONG.

 

[christos200]

Europe and North America are still the best places for people to live (if you have noticed, people from other regions migrate to Europe and North America, not the other way around). Europe and North America have some of the most advanced economies on earth, best standards of living, education, healthcare, democracy, free press, etch and its people (on average) have higher income compared to people of countries in other regions. There is no decline of the West. The 'decline of the West' narrative is usually propagated by far right extremists (who miss the old racist days and want to take away the rights of women and minorities) and far left extremists (who predict the collapse of capitalism and the West - yet neither seem to be collapsing).

Long story short: just because non-Western countries advance, it does not mean that Western ones are in decline.

 

[sophie]

I think you're first going to have to demonstrate the validity of the Modernization perspective from which your base assumption derives.

 

[Arent11]

As a result of that year, we no longer have One God in Heaven, One Emperor on Earth; and the west has been in decline ever since.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Err, what has an enlightened, natural scientific world view to do with god or religion? Or do you maybe define "western civilization" in a different way I do?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Err, what has an enlightened, natural scientific world view to do with god or religion? Or do you maybe define "western civilization" in a different way I do?

I think the point is that you have to prove that the western civilization is on decline.

Kind like saying god don't exist is just as much based on blind faith as saying god do exist.

 

[sophie]

Err, what has an enlightened, natural scientific world view to do with god or religion? Or do you maybe define "western civilization" in a different way I do?

Again, he's trying to point out that you are operating from an a priori assumption of modernization theory which you haven't really demonstrably proven to be correct.

I think the point is to prove that the western civilization is on decline.

The point is that before you can ask the question of "why is the western world decline" you have to first establish that it has reached some ideal-type apex from which it has (or even can have) begun to decline. That is, you need first to prove that the modernization narrative - that history (or even just Western history) is a unidirectional progression from traditional society (parochial, hierarchical, superstitious, socially immobile, cyclical in perception of time, etc.) to modern (rational, scientific, democratic, capitalistic, optimistic, equal) is the correct way to interpret this history. He hasn't really convincingly done that, at least from where I'm standing.

 

[Kyriakos]

Interesting statement. Could you tell me what happened in exactly that year?

It is the battle of Matzikert.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yes, but that's just divine punishment for the Byzantines being unable to control the Schism, hence why the West is declining since 1054.

 

[Arent11]

are you serious? the population of the USA in 1940 was 132 million. the population now is over 300 million and climbing.

If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I was saying "some decades ago".
The height of "western" power was, IMHO, during the cold war, not during ww2.
Your argument is incorrect for europe & if you admit that our population today
is highly senescent it is even incorrect for USA.

you're invested in a false and stupid narrative that the western empires of the past were somehow more organized and more cohesive than the nations of today.

The "eastern bloc" has broken down. You cannot argue with that.
So at least half of the "western" civilization has lost quite a lot of
its former power.
And even the "western bloc", if you look closely, is showing such
signs. The European Union is failing. You have already the same
situation as in Israel, a continuous state of emergency in france,
terror attacks, desintegration. Some of these countries are even
unable to secure their borders.
In the USA you have a strong polarization between right & left,
black and white.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Wait, I thought "Western Civilization" ended somewhere along Vienna/Berlin, with the Slavic mongr- I mean, people, on the other side.