In reading various writings, it seems increasingly evident that the French Revolution (1789) was an historical error in an otherwise generally-streamlined track toward authoritarianism.
I suspect this occurred because the large capital outflows from Europe during the eighteenth century were used to fund massive expansion & wars in the new continents. The capital drain ended up resulting in the implosion of all the accumulated wealth back east "the extant order." As this worsened, it ultimately resulted in the "reset" of governmental progress in Europe/Asia as well, as the unrestrained consumerism/capitalism that came with the development of the Americas destroyed the accumulation of resources (i.e. stability) that had been the driving force behind order.
The establishment of the U.S.A. would have possibly been truncated early on in its existence, if not for another major development: the industrial revolution. This occurred almost synchronously with the establishment of the U.S.A. and allowed even MORE growth without limits (railroads, cars, etc).
This was a double-violation of the old order and is responsible for our climate predicament today. LIBERALISM is predicated on the consumers' ability to take whatever they want whenever they want regardless of the impact it has on the planet or society, on the alleged basis that material goods equate to happiness. The plague that started in the U.S.A. spread to France by 1789, and over the next 200 years, reached every corner of the planet.
But, it too had consequences. Unrestrained consumerism without thought to its benefits has destroyed the planet's ecosystem. While limitation of supposed "freedoms" under Absolutism certainly draws criticism, the balance maintained under the system was, actually, far better for the longevity of both humanity and Earth.
This is where the story begins to get interesting once more. By the 1990s, as liberalism infiltrated every corner of the planet, it became increasingly clear that access to material goods does NOT increase happiness. The situation in the U.S.A. for plebeians is essentially no better than it was in ancient Rome, despite assurances to the contrary (it is a country of obese medicated wage slaves who are driven into the ground by the demands of the labor force. participation is NOT voluntary, in fact, it is slavery by any other name).
I think that this is becoming increasingly evident to the ruling apes across the globe, which is why Absolutism is now making a fast comeback. It seems to have taken hold in the areas touched by liberalism last, that had accumulated enough "order" prior to the discovery of the Americas, and did NOT participate in its exploration/conquest (i.e., China and Russia, though Russia did have Alaska, it was empty).
As we move forward into the twenty-first century, the return of normative order in both China and Russia could be a sign that liberalism is finally running its course as environmental degradation mounts. Intellectually, it is especially vacant; the problems we address on this forum (i.e. AGW and its impacts) are inherently a RESULT of consumerism. When society's minds try to reconcile unbridled future consumerism with "a 2C warming limit," this is, in fact, impossible. The DRIVING force behind liberalism is expansion at any and all costs of the monetary system (i.e. generating more and more HEAT). There is no feasible way this can be accomplished even with massive technological improvements, in a way that 8-10 billion apes will not live like slaves in another 50 years (7 billon are in this state today).
I think we must ask ourselves: does this mean that the end of liberalism is actually a good thing? Are protectionist trade policies that reduce consumption actually bad, when that is explicitly what we should be doing on a planetary basis? And does the concerted effort from China and Russia portend a return to the established order in Europe, and its initial awakening in the United States?
I would look at the unfolding/evolving chaos as an indicator that Absolutism is on the rise. I think this is a direct response to worsening climate change as well (i.e., Japan, Germany, and FDR's unprecedented consolidation of power -- obviously the latter within the bounds of liberalism -- all occurred in the 1930s, the last time the planet was experiencing rapid global warming).
The question then becomes, was the rise of fascism in the 1930s due to an abundance of hatred and misery, or was it a temporary attempt at resetting order to the olden days out of a necessity to reduce consumption? Paradoxically, this makes the actions of Germany/USSR worse than they are viewed contemporaneously, as the genocides/slaughter/Holocaust were not borne out of "inherent evil" (though they certainly were inherently evil), rather, they were consolidations/redistributions of wealth on national scales for the purposes of the state, which is actually even more horrific as it shows *intention* and explains perfectly why ordinary citizens can acquiesce to genocide (if it benefits them, that is all that matters).
I shall expand on this further, wanted to put it out there for discussion because I feel like the existing threads on the topic are missing the forest for the trees...
