Discussion of thr Cycle of History. (Or is America doomed to suffer under an American Ceasar?)

[Lord Sovereign]

To my mind, the fundamental issue of cyclical history lies in one of its great proponents: Spengler. When he drew up his version of the cycle, he wasn't doing it out of genuine historical interest, but almost as self therapy for how Germany and his beloved "Prussian Socialism" were defeated by what was the anti-christ to him: merry old England and its parliament.

His thesis was also heavily contingent on Germany being the new Rome. Indeed, he despised America and thought it would succumb to Prussian Socialism.

Given that he got quite a bit badly wrong (not limited to initially supporting the Nazis because he thought Hitler might be the German Caesar. This being an error he, to his credit, bitterly regretted very quickly. As in, to the point he became such an outspoken critique of the regime that the Nazis would have killed him if he didn't die of cancer in 1936) due to a lot of emotional baggage clouding his judgement.

To my mind comparisons to the past should not serve as predictions of the future, but as warning. The Roman Republic faced similar issues to what we have today, failed to deal with them, then crashed and burned. There's a lesson in there for us.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, history is a ballad always being sung. It must have certain structure and rhyme, but it doesn't cycle.

 

[Cherico]

To my mind, the fundamental issue of cyclical history lies in one of its great proponents: Spengler. When he drew up his version of the cycle, he wasn't doing it out of genuine historical interest, but almost as self therapy for how Germany and his beloved "Prussian Socialism" were defeated by what was the anti-christ to him: merry old England and its parliament.

His thesis was also heavily contingent on Germany being the new Rome. Indeed, he despised America and thought it would succumb to Prussian Socialism.

Given that he got quite a bit badly wrong (not limited to initially supporting the Nazis because he thought Hitler might be the German Caesar. This being an error he, to his credit, bitterly regretted very quickly. As in, to the point he became such an outspoken critique of the regime that the Nazis would have killed him if he didn't die of cancer in 1936) due to a lot of emotional baggage clouding his judgement.

To my mind comparisons to the past should not serve as predictions of the future, but as warning. The Roman Republic faced similar issues to what we have today, failed to deal with them, then crashed and burned. There's a lesson in there for us.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, history is a ballad always being sung. It must have certain structure and rhyme, but it doesn't cycle.

Spengler is one of those guys that gets the generalities right but the speficis wrong.

Which happens to the best of us, there were some differences this cycle for the pelopensian war analogue well in our version of it the Athens equivelent won instead of the Spartan one. And that resulted in some pretty amazing progress as in historically impressive shit that future generations will respect after the current western civilization dies.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Spengler is one of those guys that gets the generalities right but the speficis wrong.

The little details make the biggest difference. After all, rivets and the bolts keep a battleship afloat. Without them, it sinks.

Not to dismiss Spengler outright of course. He was a very learned and intelligent man, but we should keep his bias and how it affected his thesis in mind. There is plenty of wisdom to pull out of it regardless.

 

[Cherico]

The little details make the biggest difference. After all, rivets and the bolts keep a battleship afloat. Without them, it sinks.

Not to dismiss Spengler outright of course. He was a very learned and intelligent man, but we should keep his bias and how it affected his thesis in mind. There is plenty of wisdom to pull out of it regardless.

The problem with historical cycles is that the instrements do change as do some of the notes, but for the most part the grand sweeping effects remain the same unless something big happens to upend the table.

The noted example of the Indian verson of Alexander the great being so fucking badass that he created the universal empire 300 years early is a noted example.

 

[Skallagrim]

To my mind, the fundamental issue of cyclical history lies in one of its great proponents: Spengler.

I'd advise against conflating macro-history and Spengler. And especially against doing it on the basis that Spengler had incorrect ideas based on the limitations of his own intellectual context. It's a bit like saying the theory of gravity is wrong "because Newton was a weird occultist with loads of crazy notions, and also Einstein proved that things were more complicated".

Those statements are true, but they don't invalidate the big idea. They tell us that the specific notions of one guy aren't always accurate, and that the big idea (like all ideas) will always be in need of further refining.

The British historian Toynbee is the anti-thesis of Spengler in regards to paractically all the points you mention here (and some others we've discussed in another thread recently), but reached an almost identical conclusion about macro-history. And as far as refinement goes, Riencourt wrote a decent follow-up to Spengler that takes a lot of events after Spengler's death into account and gives America the more prominent place that (with the benefit of hindsight) we can see it deserves.

Spengler is one of those guys that gets the generalities right but the speficis wrong.

The little details make the biggest difference.

In macro-history, the details don't make the big difference. That's absolutely a key thing to grasp. The whole thesis is about patterns and trends, not about specific realisations thereof. To macro-history, it doesn't matter whether America or England or Germany or France became the hegemonic power in the West-- only that one of of them would, through a fairly predicatable sequence of developments, within a reasonably set span of time.

You can basically outline the whole model without naming one specific country or person or event. Just say what general developments always occur, divided into which identifiable phases, which take roughly how long, for which underlying reasons, relating to each other in what causal manner.

You can add some general observations (such as noting that the country or faction that forms the hegemonic authority set to create the universal empire is almost invariably a newly-ascendant one hailing from the culture's periphery), still without naming any specifics.

In fact, naming historical examples only serves to illustrate and demonstrate that they fit the general model. The particulars are the proof of the universals, as it were. (Plato says hi.)

The truth is, anyone who tries to predict the specifics will be wrong. Maybe he'll be right a lot (Spengler actually was right a lot), but -- as the posts I'm replying to prove -- that doesn't matter, because everyone will forever hold the things you got wrong against you.

To me, prediction of specific events is an exercise in impressionism. You paint an imagined iteration of events, to illustrate the shape of things. But it's always going to be off the mark. Because the specifics can't be predicted. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying, and indeed going against the core idea of macro-history. Which is that the generalities repeat, and the specifics do not.

Spengler was at his least macro-historical when he tried to predict the specifics, and he was also at his most inaccurate (at certain points, at least) when he went down that road.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Again, you blithely ignore everything said even in my previous posts in this thread, pick some examples that you want to focus on (now snipped out of their earlier context), and want to force me into a position where I have to prove my views (again) to your satisfaction (again), by a standard set by you (again).

There is no "again". You never actually demonstrated the functional differences being irrelevant, you just claimed that broad similarities mean they are.

This started with you insisting that we are in exactly the same paradigm as the Neolithic:

And something like the industrial revolution? Not fundamental. The neolithic revolution was fundamental. That was the basis for all organised culture. And we are still living in that paradigm.

As in, literally nothing that has changed since the dawn of agriculture has altered how society operates enough to need a different model. How is this not an extraordinary claim in need of exact demonstration instead of dismissing with statements that amount to "something is still scarce" or "someone is still in charge" to ignore absolutely all particulars.

You never tried to prove your views, and always refused my standards. Are you able to break your precious cycles down into data-points to work with proximate causes behind people's in-the-period decision making, or are you just preaching your position strictly from your own framework with no care for any other?

I admit to not being able to keep every part of your arguments in mind, but you very clearly demonstrate a profound inability to understand that I have simply been trying to get you to defend your theory with no "because history" premise. The past events strictly as data to support the model, not as indicative patterns to match.

 

[Skallagrim]

There is no "again". You never actually demonstrated the functional differences being irrelevant, you just claimed that broad similarities mean they are.

This started with you insisting that we are in exactly the same paradigm as the Neolithic:


As in, literally nothing that has changed since the dawn of agriculture has altered how society operates enough to need a different model. How is this not an extraordinary claim in need of exact demonstration instead of dismissing with statements that amount to "something is still scarce" or "someone is still in charge" to ignore absolutely all particulars.

You never tried to prove your views, and always refused my standards. Are you able to break your precious cycles down into data-points to work with proximate causes behind people's in-the-period decision making, or are you just preaching your position strictly from your own framework with no care for any other?

I admit to not being able to keep every part of your arguments in mind, but you very clearly demonstrate a profound inability to understand that I have simply been trying to get you to defend your theory with no "because history" premise. The past events strictly as data to support the model, not as indicative patterns to match.

You migrate from whataboutism to strawmanning.

I speak about things fundamental to a governing paradigm, you turn that into a mock argument where I supposedly think that "literally nothing has changed at all".

This is, what, the fourth time that I've indicated that I'm done debate this with you? It's precisely because of this behaviour. Somehow, you don't get it, and keep going "REEEEEEE, you have to discuss this with me, and on my terms!!!"

And the answer is: no.

 

[Morphic Tide]

I speak about things fundamental to a governing paradigm, you turn that into a mock argument where I supposedly think that "literally nothing has changed at all".

...

nothing that has changed since the dawn of agriculture has altered how society operates enough to need a different model.

instead of dismissing with statements that amount to ... "someone is still in charge" to ignore absolutely all particulars.

E: If you don't get how this is directly shoving your face in your incomprehension of my position, then just... Put me on ignore already and actually shut up about it?

 

[Skallagrim]

Put me on ignore already and actually shut up about it?

Even in this, you pretend that you're somehow not the one deliberately perpetuating this line of conversation? Even in this, you place the responsibility fully on my shoulders, as if you're not the one who somehow can't drop it even when I've repeatedly told you that I'm not going to play your game?

Put me on ignore, if you think I'm so wrong. Or better yet, if you distrust the whole concept of macro-history so much... maybe don't linger around trying to start a shit-fight about that exact topic, in a thread about that exact topic. I know, a novel idea, but let me illustrate: I'm not a big fan of anime. As such, you don't see me in anime threads. And you certainly don't see me there trying to provoke arguments about how shit anime is, and how everybody who likes it has to justify it to me, using criteria I've determined.

You're being an ass, is what I'm saying. The burden of stopping that is on you.

 

[Bassoe]

Polish case - our gentry tried to copy Roman Republic after 1569,and,becouse of that,they feared Ceazar taking power.
Thus they did everytching they could to ensure,that our Kings would never ever had some real power.
And they succed.
Poland ceased to exist,as result of other Kings actions - but,polish Kings NEVER get real power.


USA,when was formed,knew about Poland,saw that we are falling - and tried to avoid that.
That is why strong Presidents were made,but countered by Congress and judical system.

It worked till FDR times,now USA is banana Republic hold by banksters.
Which mean,that we NEVER would have Ceasar there - banksters would not allow it.

But,state could cease to exist,just like Poland once.

I'd have used dynastic Chinese rulers who sabotaged their own nation by calling off Zheng He's exploratory voyages to prevent them from bringing back wealth that could threaten their control and the consequences thereof for their nation as a whole as an example, but yeah, Poland works too.

 

[ATP]

I'd have used dynastic Chinese rulers who sabotaged their own nation by calling off Zheng He's exploratory voyages to prevent them from bringing back wealth that could threaten their control and the consequences thereof for their nation as a whole as an example, but yeah, Poland works too.

And it worked for China almost as bad as for Poland - only difference is,that they remain as formally independent country.