So what can we say? Situation Normal - all effed up!
Enjoy this phenomenon called life. You only get one.
It's very easy to forget that the revolutions of Britain, France, America, Russia; it happened just a few generations ago, and upended most of the political landscape (even in countries that didn't see actual revolutions). I think what is happening is most of our modern institutions are all of roughly the same age, and after initial idealism and momentum have roughly at the same time begun to ossify and show cracks as people have started taking them for granted.
This is the first time anyone has attempted democracy on this sort of scale. Looking back we've had republics with longevity, we've had autocratic dynasties with longevity. But democracy? Besides Athens, which had a very different shape of political system, this is really a first. It's a huge political experiment, the long-term viability of which is being determined here and now by our ability to keep our shit together.
You can even see this right now, where countries do not consider themselves to be as old as the current government's age, but much older. For example, most Italians will not consider Italy to be "started" at the Republic in '46, or even the Unification in 1861, but that the country is much, much older.
Egypt, even though it was still intact by the times of Socrates, has had a number of changes and shake-ups, rises, falls, attempts to change the ancient state religion, etc.
Britain had the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Magna Carta which amounts to a major revolution was enacted in 1215, and the Norman conquest happened in 1066. All these major events hardly occurred "a few generations ago".
I'm afraid that the idea of things largely unchanging in the past comes from our poor knowledge of history, compared to recent events.
> Egypt, even though it was still intact by the times of Socrates, has had a number of changes and shake-ups, rises, falls, attempts to change the ancient state religion, etc.
There were some dynastic changes and bumps along the road, absolutely, but my point is the overall shape of Egypt was remarkably stable even through the Persian conquest.
Nothing comparable to modernity.
You're right that there's nothing comparable to the modern era: the modern era hasn't existed long enough to have collapses that total. I think you are not applying the same level of scrutiny to ancient societies as you are to modern ones.
You have a very flexible definition of "unchanged" then. The Catholic Church pre-Charlemagne is going to be very different from Saeculum Obscurum-era, itself different from Investiture Crisis-era, itself different from the one familiar in the Late Medieval, different from Counter Reformation-era one. It's absurd to me that you think the first time it changes significantly is Vatican II!
> Ancient Egypt was already thousands of years old when Socrates harassed aristocrats in Athens.
My knowledge of Ancient Egyptian history is extremely poor, but what little I do know strongly suggests that considering it as a single stable form of government for thousands of years is even worse an error than claiming the Catholic Church was so stable and unchanging. Perhaps akin to saying that the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, and modern Germany are all one single country that has lasted for 1200 years (because they're all called Germany).
If anything, Egypt is one hell of a counter example of institutional stability. I would also make the pedantic quibble that the HRE never called itself "Germany" until the term was incorporated into part of its much longer official title in the late 1400s. English usage started in the 1500s. It's not to say that the concept of "Germany" or "Deutschland" didn't exist, but pre-Westphalia it's difficult to make truly apt comparisons to conceptualizations of states today, and the term equivalent to Germany was used, intermittently at that, from Charlemagne's death for the next 700 years somewhat like the status of Scotland or Wales within the UK today, as in, it coexisted with the HRE as an part but not considered to have referred to the whole until the HRE lost its non-German territories an that was pretty much all that was left.
That's a bit of a myth, thrown around a lot but not quite true. It has existed in some form, but by no means remained changeless. The doctrine is substantially similar but then we can say the same thing about Judaism. Here, we're really talking about the organization, which has many issues:
-The East-West schism in 1054 tore the Catholic Church in half.
-Then there was another schism about 500 years later when Martin Luther & subsequent Reformation really splintered things, sparking many violent conflicts over the centuries. I'm sure many Catholics felt like things were falling apart then.
In lesser events that still made people feel things were falling apart:
-Rome was taken & Pope Pius was imprisoned in the Vatican during the Italian Reunification in 1870 there was probably a similar feeling.
-After Vatican II from 1962-1965 I know from my own relatives that they felt (and still feel) that the catholic church began to fall apart.
-The last few decades with countless child abuse scandals.
Clearly, that was your point. It's just completely wrong given things like the Gregorian Reform.
You'd have a better argument that the Catholic Church has been largely unchanged in the nearly 1000 years since the Gregorian reform (or, even better, the 700+ years after the series of reforms starting there and running through the 13th century councils) than the 1600 years between Constantine and Vatican II. It’d still be making the qualifier “largely” do an unreasonable amount of work, though.
I don't think we can cite 1600 years of stability for the organization at all. We may do so, somewhat, for doctrine, which is an achievement, but it's also equalled or exceeded by a few other religions.
Perhaps with regards to "scale" this may be true, but in most ways I disagree. There were hundreds of democracies in the ancient world - particularly in Greece - and they all tended to break down along similar lines. The Greeks even had a term for this - stasis - which there's a body of literature about. In stasis, the norms of democratic government are slowly eroded through an escalating series of power plays (each justified by previous excesses). This in turn erodes the public trust in institutions required for society to function. Which usually ends in violence. So I think it's a mistake to assume our situation is unique.
No, it really didn't.
> Looking back we've had republics with longevity, we've had autocratic dynasties with longevity. But democracy? Besides Athens, which had a very different shape of political system, this is really a first.
Modern democracies are almost entirely representative democracies, more like historical republics (and in fact, many of them are explicitly republics, though some are technically limited monarchies) than classical democracies.
In short: sometimes things aren't falling apart.
For a few decades we enjoyed one of the great periods of peace and prosperity. That was surely doomed to end eventually, but I wish it could last a while longer.
Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes. Most of the "developing world" developed. Marginalized groups gained new civil rights. China and India rose to become great powers even as their former colonial masters, though declining, still enjoyed peace and prosperity.
Recognizing that there is still a lot of injustice and inequality in the world doesn't require denying all the progress that has been made.
And recognizing that we've made process shouldn't make us believe that we've done enough. Recognize what we've (or they've) achieved, be proud about it but never loose focus on making "it" even better.
(I'm just adding to your comment, not disagreeing)
> Former colonies threw off their colonial yokes.
While I don’t disagree that decolonization was progress, it ironically came at the cost of the peace that had been imposed on the colonies by their former colonial masters. Many of the world’s most conflict-stricken areas today are ex-colonies still in the process of stabilization.
The dirty secret of peace is that it is often imposed by a dominant power. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. These were peaceful times because of intense power asymmetry.
What is this "peace" you speak of? I think you want to take a closer look at the oppression that was endemic to colonization and occupation of foreign lands. One of the worse examples is Belgium's colonization of the Congo:
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king...
If an African laborer didn't produce rubber (for example), it was common to chop off a hand (his own or a family member's) to encourage him to work harder.
Congo may be on the worse end of the spectrum of colonization, but it is hardly a singular example.
If it’s literally in the name it’s not a secret. Competition for monopolies on violence are bloody. When we can sidestep that contest, we get a lasting peace.
Hard times make strong men
Strong men make good times
Good times make weak men
And weak men make hard times.
Some real life examples I've pointed too are the ghurkas in WW2 or Russian hackers.
The "Defining a generation" section is fairly short and describes the theory, and the "Timing of generations and turnings" section maps the theory onto the past ~500 years.
(Edit: got the indentation wrong, I thought the comment I was replying to was on the quote, not the "it's BS" reply. I don't think this is BS, at least not completely.)
But let's move on: what do you mean with "strong men"?
If you mean some sociopath/callous/ruthless emperor or dictator capable of starting massive wars - it hardly constitute creating good times.
If you mean men that are successful in current society... then very very few billionaires came from a childhood of hardship and poverty.
If you mean men that are capable of taking good decisions while facing difficulties and the stakes are high... then you are describing good education and good mental health, which are does in now way comes from "hard times".
All modern pedagogy and psychology sciences indicate that hardships create a lot of broken people and a few hardened narcissists.
If you mean that affluent and decadent societies become self absorbed and weaken as a whole - then I would tend to agree... but the term "strong men" would be profoundly misleading.
Really depends on who you ask in the field of psychology. There have been several perspectives contrary to what suggest (e.g., humanistic psychology, positive psychology, post traumatic growth, etc) and I don’t agree that “all modern pedagogy and psychology sciences” suggests that hardships yield nothing but broken people and narcissists.
However, I generally agree with the idea that sayings like “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” are a bit silly (they ignore the fact that what doesn’t kill you can severely weaken you for life).
I just don’t think it’s particularly helpful to take things to the other extreme either.
It's pretty much the definition of fascism - a delusional paternalistic idiot infecting everyone around him with his own neuroses and narcissism, in the name of "patriotism" and "respect."
The terms fascist and nazi seem to have lost all meaning nowadays…at least to the far left.
This makes for poor debates, where there is little nuance, fuzzy scales and hardly meaningful communication.
Fascism is a collectivist authoritarian system with regulated commerce rather than direct state control, often co-occurring with systemic racism.
The reason people don’t want to be honest about the definition is that it’s the platform of modern Democrats, who are gaslighting by calling everyone else a “fascist”:
Democrats are collectivist authoritarian.
Democrats are pushing for regulated commerce.
Democrats are rebuilding systemic racism, from rationing healthcare [2] and government aid [1] based on race to attempting to repeal civil rights laws in WA [4] and CA [3].
Democrats took to the street in acts of arson, violence, and murder to terrorize the public ahead of an election — the modern Brownshirts. [5]
Democrats are fascist.
Sources:
https://nypost.com/2021/06/15/farmers-upset-with-bidens-amer...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based...
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Pr...
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1000,_Affirmat...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/everybody-down-wha...
That's the clearest definition of fascism I've ever heard. Where's it from?
If you read about fascism, their proponents viewed it as “Marxism 2.0” — where they could leverage the socialist ideas of collectivist authoritarianism without the problems encountered by the original Marxist revolutionaries with total state control of commerce.
A unified populace where “everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
Mussolini himself said "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power".
I'm italian, my grandfather was drafted in the balilla first at 14 and the fascist army later. And his stories of the time were all about the violence, the machismo, the open contempt for the gay, the jewish, any other minorities. That's fascism, no matter if it doesn't match your clinical idea of what fascism should or shouldn't be.
And yes, they were as silly and ridiculous as the tiki torches guys or the Jan 6 coup guys. Until they were fully in power. Then everybody stopped laughing, or wondering if they were really dangerous or not.
And to be quite honest with you, worry not - I think we'll find very, very soon how close those are compared to US democrats to actual fascists(tm).
Your link for this sweeping generalization is a single shooting in seattle months before the election of someone not old enough to vote.
> "Strong men" make fascism, not good times.
They’re not even referring to any person or distinct group of people. The statement is so overly broad that it could cover BILLIONS of people.
You’re making a mockery of the atrocities committed by actual nazis and fascists. You know what those guys did right?
You would never tell an Auschwitz survivor:
“yeah, the strong males are just like the nazis!”
Imagine how fucked up that would feel from their side.
No idea how fucked up my gramps were, but by their direct account, yes that "strong males" attitude we're talking about was quite a fascist trait.
Wtf does “strong man” even mean? Is every blue collar worker, athlete, law enforcement, first responder, military personnel…etc a fascist to you?
Why not go a step further and just say all men are fascist? Are all the food eaters fascist too? I mean all the fascist ate food after all!
It's well documented by historians.
TheOtherHobbes is using the term correctly.
To the naysayers: I recommend you travel and visit museums.
That doesn't make water bad.
I wish for people to be strong, just like I wish them good health, because it's a quality that makes for a happier life.
If one has the strength of character not to be pressured to do bad things, you get less fascists, not more.
Original comment says:
> "Strong men" make fascism, not good times.
You’ve brainwashed yourself if you believe “Strong man” = Fascist.
Strength is the ability to apply force, it's the quality of solidity, the potential for resistance, etc.
E.G: it takes strength to not act on fear and hate. Gandhi is considered a man of great strength.
Search for this saying on twitter, for example. It's been co-opted as fascist propaganda.
I take it as hard times make it clear what’s important and inspire people to work towards that.
In good times people forget.
Take note of your own phrasing: it automatically excludes him from that group.
We don't need strong men during good times and we don't need weak men during bad times.
Although now we are in neither a good nor bad time. What kind of men do we need?
You can see in modern Russia what decades of strongman rule, first in the USSR and then under Putin, looks like: Idiot conscripts hyped up on moronic propaganda getting blasted by an actual military fielded by a so-called "decadent" Western nation, with their ships being sunk by land-based weapons (and if you don't get why that's pathetic, you're not worth talking to) and their economy being destroyed by those "decadent" nations deciding to not buy from them anymore.
Strongmen create good times? Briefly, maybe, but get out before the piper demands to be paid, if anyone will have you.
Also the political perspective, what the left would characterise as good times the right would probably characterise as bad, and visa versa. At that point its no longer strong and weak men, but men of one camp and men of another.
You mean Ukraine? I would hardly say that the current situation threatens the post-ww2 peace. Compare now to ww2 and the differences are huge. ww2 claimed vastly more lives, in addition to Stalin and Hitler.
When Rome fell apart -> nothing much happened.
When Bizzantium fell -> nothing much happened.
When Nazi Germany fell -> millions of ppl died.
When Earth stops sustaining human life in quite a few areas -> billions of ppl will die.
Previously we had no big impact on Earth, now we do.
I think the concern at hand (at least in the US) is that we’re on the eve of that fall or revolt, and whatever is born out of that, for good or ill, probably means a couple of really hard decades.
The most neutral way I can phrase this is that I think life is a planetary expression, more or less fundamentally inseparable from the planet on which it emerges. We may eventually be able to break those bonds but I don't think we're anywhere near as close to that as we think we are, nor do I think we should even try.
People have always migrated into the unknown in the hope of something better for the people who will call them ancestors. But they've also always been able to make certain promises: that the sun will shine on them as it does on us, that crops will grow even if they aren't the crops we know, that the air is safe to breathe, that god will hear them there. Some of those people have been wrong about some of those things, but they always had good reason to trust in them.
We don't have reason to believe any of that about anywhere other than here. It's possible to imagine a future so grim that the best chance for our offspring is for us to force them to risk these unknowns. It's our responsibility to prevent that choice being necessary.
We can imagine things that could change this calculation. FTL, centuries-long human cryogenics, cross-lightyear microbiology. These are fantasies. If these powers are ever in anyone's grasp, that people will be fundamentally different from what we are, even if they came from us. I don't know what will be right for them and I have no claims on what they do.
Focusing on those far off fantasies of another people is a failure to appreciate our place here, the cosmic gift we've been given with our solar system. It is an understandable weakness but we should fight it. We have enough future in front of us as ourselves, we should leave the unrecognizable far depths of it to the unrecognizable people who will inhabit it.
There are countless ways human civilization, if not the human species, can come to a rather abrupt end: supervolcano explosion blotting out the sky, directed gamma ray burst destroying the atmosphere ( hypothesized as one of the reasons for the great ordovician extinction ), comet impact acting similar to the supervolcano, random evolution creating a supervirus, and so on. And the countless ways we might manage to kill ourselves go without saying: nuclear war, nukes, deploying weaponized viruses, even far more innocuous things like fertility < 2.5 for too long.
Many of these causes can, have, and will happen abruptly.
It's chilling but correct that so much of the language around this concept talks of colonies, because that is what we're discussing. Other lives, kept far away, for some benefit to ourselves, but not to them.
Until we can present a plausible vision for "the good life" in space, away from the earth that birthed us, we should not be pursuing this goal. If we end then so be it. We have many other means to reduce that possibility, much more accessible, that we're refusing to use right now. Let's pick up that shovel and see how far we can get first.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Once we get humans living far enough apart that information about pandemics travels faster than pandemics do, then we should be largely invincible, barring suicide from ennui.
The larger our sub-galactic civilization, the more resilient it becomes to things like total war, total political revolution, etc.
It's really hard to be a galactic emperor at multi light-year distances. By the time you wipe out half the population of the empire, the other half will have doubled.
It's easily conceivable that 100 decades from now we could do this too.
GP said "there can't be any human civilizations that last indefinitely" and in response I gave an easily conceivable version of how human civilizations can last indefinitely.
It's been over 50 years since humans last set foot on the moon. While there's hope that man will land on the moon again by 2025, success is not assured, and a catastrophic accident could set manned space missions back by decades.