Europe's Golden age? 1890-1914

[alfred russel]

The problem with the standard "if the test is extent to which the human beings that inhabit the country enjoyed improvements in their lives and standard of living" is that it is much easier to have improvements from a crappy base. Stalin and World War II were a horrible time for Russians, so a vast improvement doesn't say much. 

It's more than that though: the improvement of Soviet production and living standards from Stalin's death up to the mid-70s simply dwarfs any prior experience in Russian history, and brought standards of living far, far past pre-WW II or pre-revolutionary norms.  And any prior period in Russian history one might pick is so horrifically awful that there just isn't a lot of competition.  That leaves post-89, but the Yeltsin years are a chaotic mess where death rates spiralled out of control, and the Putin period has serious flaws of its own, its ultimate destination unclear.

By the same standard today Chinese per capita GDP growth dwarfs our own, but they are still a dirt poor country without some basic freedoms.

Sure, but China is going through what is easily its best period since the fall of the Ming.

Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.

Hence if you want to enter a golden age, a good start is to get wrecked by Nazis, or start a Ukrainian famine or cultural revolution.

[Sheilbh]

I mean I understand the youth of America being angry about racial segregation, Civil Rights, Vietnam and all that but fuck what was wrong with those French and Germans?

The elite had just drawn a line under the past and didn't discuss it on a personal or political level. 

How many local Mayors or police chiefs were former Nazi Party officials or collaborators?  Basically every authority figure over the age of, say, 40 was, more probably than not, a Nazi or had to make serious comprimises to survive.  That eroded trust between the youth who weren't really tainted by the past and the governing elite who just wanted everything kept quiet.

One of the reasons Willy Brandt was so popular was that he was a German politician with clean hands.  In France de Gaulle basically validated the myth that France resisted, France never surrendered.  While, of course, his opponent was a former Vichy collaborator.

I think in Europe there was that sense that you have in the US in the 50s that everything looks very good and shiney but, to an extent, society's been anaesthetised and there's just these areas of discourse where you're not allowed to go.  For example asking that authority figure 'what did you do during the war?' 

Plus Euros got excited by civil rights and were anti-war protesting too.  Additionally it's the period that started of the environmental and peace movements in much of Europe.

The violence in France was largely after-effects of Algeria.  The 68ers were generally peaceful.  But the RAF and the BR and the rest were a shower to be honest.  Again one of the points Judt makes in Postwar is the contrast between Western European youth movements which were often rather self-involved (see Godard's superb 'La Chinoise') while in Eastern Europe you had Stasiland and the Prague Spring.

[Razgovory]

Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.

Hence if you want to enter a golden age, a good start is to get wrecked by Nazis, or start a Ukrainian famine or cultural revolution.

I dunno.   You can wreck ordinary life with just a bunch a guys on horses with bows.

[alfred russel]

Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies.

Hence if you want to enter a golden age, a good start is to get wrecked by Nazis, or start a Ukrainian famine or cultural revolution.

I dunno.   You can wreck ordinary life with just a bunch a guys on horses with bows.

But you can be so much more effective with tanks and machine guns.

[Ideologue]

Most effective of all is the B-29.  It even gives you a wide range of options: fire, and nuclear fire.

[Jacob]

If by "ceding ground" Valmy meant "the gap was narrowed" then I agree with him. If he meant "ceding prerogatives and influence to" (which is what I think "ceding ground" means), then I'd disagree with him.

When did I say something about ceding ground?

You didn't 

You said "losing ground". And it wasn't you. It was P. Wiggin.

[Malthus]

Are there any periods/places in history which are more or less agreed to be "Golden Ages"?

The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.

[Jacob]

Are there any periods/places in history which are more or less agreed to be "Golden Ages"?

The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.

Tang and Song dynasty China?

[Razgovory]

Are there any periods/places in history which are more or less agreed to be "Golden Ages"?

The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.

Yeah, but there was no want.

[The Minsky Moment]

Connected to the problem of "improvement" as a standard is the bias it will have to the modern age. Both China under Mao and the Stalinist Soviet Union were primed to dramatic leaps in the standard of living because of the disastrous results of state policy. Modern technology makes it possible for the state to wreck ordinary life to an extent that was not previously possible. It also makes it easier to achieve higher standards than existed in the past once you reverse the worst aspects of those state policies. 

There is a bias but it is a justified one.  Modern technology enables the potential to improve peoples lives in a manner that far exceeds that available at any other time in history.

But I disagree with the claim that modern tech makes it possible to wreck ordinary life in a unique way.  Old fashioned tech was perfectly capable of facilitating the total wipe out of major civilizations, and acts of brutality that would make Beria turn away. 

[MadImmortalMan]

It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless. It's everybody's golden age right now. Or nobody's has come yet.

[Eddie Teach]

You didn't 

You said "losing ground". And it wasn't you. It was P. Wiggin.

Well if you look at Japan's military record there appears to be a steady rise in relative capability between 1860 and 1940.

[Ideologue]

ESSEX RUSH kekekeke

[Jacob]

Well if you look at Japan's military record there appears to be a steady rise in relative capability between 1860 and 1940.

Yeah sure, but I don't think military capability in and of itself qualifies, or relative changes in military capability, is a good measure of whether a culture is experiencing a golden age. The Japanese may have modernized and gotten more capable militarily, but while it may be setting the stage for the punctuation of a putative European golden age, it's not really a factor in determining whether Europe was experiencing a golden age at that time. Once Japan acted to end European thoughts of being the masters of the globe, yes then clearly any European golden age is over; but simply getting ready for a scrap and getting your house in order is not enough invalidate arguments of someone's golden age.

[Jacob]

It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless. It's everybody's golden age right now. Or nobody's has come yet.

If I were to offer my thoughts of what a golden age is, it has several of these characteristics:

- A spike in cultural expression in various branches of the arts and sciences that not only influences neighbours, but also has significant impact on how descendants of that culture view themselves.

- General economic affluence compared to what went before and what came after.

- Generally well functioning social structures.

- A general sense of optimism about the country/ culture can achieve and its destiny.

Obviously, that's fairly abstract. In many cases I suppose it comes down to whether you can construct a narrative that supports those sort of points and minimizes tension, conflict and counterpoints (or incorporates them into the narrative somehow).

As with most of those kind of things, whether you label something a "golden age" or not will probably show as much about your values and perceptions than it does about that particular period in history.