Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

And "Utopia" pretty much nails it to the wall, doesn't it? For The Bolshevik wasn't a Crisis... it was the climax of an Awakening, a down-with-the-establishment countercultural revolution. World War 2 was a Crisis for Russia just like it was for everyone else involved in it, or affected by it. As with the rest of Europe, the 4T ended a few years after it did in America because the Continent... Russia included... was so devastated. This explains why their next 2T didn't begin until 1968 or so (Prague Spring) and how didn't end until the breakup of the Soviet state in 1989-91. Right now Russia is still in a mid-to-late 3T, which explains the apparently kick-ass-yuppie business climate Justin describes in St. Pete... perhaps analagous to our own late '90s dot-com bubble.

Nah, the Bolshevik Revolution was way too profound to be a 2T. Remember, Awakenings are about a younger generation rebelling against the civic system established by their elders. The system is weakened as a result, but not wholly cast aside. The Bolshevik Revolution was a classic Crisis uprising of the masses - like the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Mexican Revolution... The effects were profound and set the course for the next 74 years (a saeculum) in Russia.

And the Prague Spring, from what I can tell, was a 2T not in the Soviet Union but in some of its neighbors (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.). These were the neighbors for whom WWII was a true 4T. For most of the Soviet Union (including Russia), the Soviet 2T was rather tame because it was stifled by the leadership, and came after an especially unpleasant 1T.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Wake up son! It's 2007. It's not the time to be upbeat.

Have no illusions about the coming crisis. It will be hard, dirty, and incredibly difficult. We'll have numerous friends and family dead or horribly injured, with us possibly being one of them. The poverty rate will rise and we should expect riots across the country.

That is the best case scenario.

I'm not buying the John Xenakis school of thought. The coming crisis does not have to be some genocidal conflict or a raging civil war that tears the country apart (especially not in a democratic country like our own). Granted, crises can be traumatic experiences (and they often are), but they don't need to be orgies of human misery and nightmarish choas. As long as the crisis is alarming enough that it incites institutional change - that is all that's necessary.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What difference does that make?
Do you somehow claim that America is peopled exclusively by the New Democratic Man?

No, I'm saying Anglo-American society has a degree of immunity from wannabe dictators.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

I'm not buying the John Xenakis school of thought. The coming crisis does not have to be some genocidal conflict or a raging civil war that tears the country apart (especially not in a democratic country like our own). Granted, crises can be traumatic experiences (and they often are), but they don't need to be orgies of human misery and nightmarish choas. As long as the crisis is alarming enough that it incites institutional change - that is all that's necessary.

Exactly. What marks a 4T is not Xenakis's supposed wave of genocidal madness, it is the creation of a new institutional order and the rebirth of optimism after the old institutions fail. That is why I cannot accept Xenakis's nonsensical contention that the English Civil War was a 4T.

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly. What marks a 4T is not Xenakis's supposed wave of genocidal madness, it is the creation of a new institutional order and the rebirth of optimism after the old institutions fail. That is why I cannot accept Xenakis's nonsensical contention that the English Civil War was a 4T.

Nope, but the proximity of Ragnarök and Odin as per the ancient Futharrk
are a good indicator. Strauss and Howe left out the Norse legend which matches a 4T...

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

I'm not buying the John Xenakis school of thought. The coming crisis does not have to be some genocidal conflict or a raging civil war that tears the country apart (especially not in a democratic country like our own). Granted, crises can be traumatic experiences (and they often are), but they don't need to be orgies of human misery and nightmarish choas. As long as the crisis is alarming enough that it incites institutional change - that is all that's necessary.

I completely agree, and this is why I still believe (with maybe 80% certainty) that the Soviet collapse was a 4T - not in Czechoslovakia or Poland or Lithuania, but definitely in most of the old USSR.

There is no guarantee that WWIII will break out (though the situation in Gaza is hardly encouraging), or even that the U.S. and Europe will be involved in any kind of war. The Glorious Revolution 4T only required that the old order fall, and it was an incredibly slow and mild 4T.

Originally Posted by 1990

There is no guarantee that WWIII will break out (though the situation in Gaza is hardly encouraging), or even that the U.S. and Europe will be involved in any kind of war. The Glorious Revolution 4T only required that the old order fall, and it was an incredibly slow and mild 4T.

Yah, though the Glorious Revolution was preceded by the English Civil War, which was rather harsh for an alleged 3T. To my mind, the issues of the time and willingness of various folks to fight over them had been pretty well hashed over by the time of the Glorious, which might be more of a reaction to Cromwell's excesses than a 4T war.

Still, there are other examples of governments that recognized a need to transform, and did not attempt to fight said changes. It could happen again.

If you want to object to Generational Dynamics, then do so in the proper thread, and actually provide some reasoning.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

I'm not buying the John Xenakis school of thought. The coming crisis does not have to be some genocidal conflict or a raging civil war that tears the country apart (especially not in a democratic country like our own). Granted, crises can be traumatic experiences (and they often are), but they don't need to be orgies of human misery and nightmarish choas. As long as the crisis is alarming enough that it incites institutional change - that is all that's necessary.

Yah, I'm getting tired of no one exploring the possible rosey scenarios as far as the course of, and the outcome of the Crisis.

For several years now, especially since Katrina, its been doom and gloom. I can't seem to formulate a happy ending even in my own mind and its because of all of this negativism. Our poster here HAS NO PROOF that things will be as bad as they say or that we are at the end of our national prosperity or will vanish, nor does the evidence today neccessarily even lead in that direction.

If its not terrorism, its peak oil or an economic crash or China will invade or we have no industry left, yada, yada, yada.. PLEASE STOP.

In human history, and during the history of our nation, we have experienced all of these kinds of things already: religious violence / terrorism (slavery/civil war), scarcity of resources (dust bowl) economic collapse (the great depression) and we survived and went on to bigger and better things.

Now, there is no guarantees that we will come out on top, but neither is there proof that we will vanish.

Please lighten up. You're scaring the Millenials and Homelanders!

Do you somehow claim that America is peopled exclusively by the New Democratic Man?

Yes, I'm saying Anglo-American society has a degree of immunity from wannabe dictators.

I presume the part before the comma in your answer was a typo. I fixed it in the above (underlined) to not contradict the rest of your sentence.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yah, I'm getting tired of no one exploring the possible rosey scenarios as far as the course of, and the outcome of the Crisis.

For several years now, especially since Katrina, its been doom and gloom. I can't seem to formulate a happy ending even in my own mind and its because of all of this negativism. Our poster here HAS NO PROOF that things will be as bad as they say or that we are at the end of our national prosperity or will vanish, nor does the evidence today neccessarily even lead in that direction.

If its not terrorism, its peak oil or an economic crash or China will invade or we have no industry left, yada, yada, yada.. PLEASE STOP.

In human history, and during the history of our nation, we have experienced all of these kinds of things already: religious violence / terrorism (slavery/civil war), scarcity of resources (dust bowl) economic collapse (the great depression) and we survived and went on to bigger and better things.

Now, there is no guarantees that we will come out on top, but neither is there proof that we will vanish.

Please lighten up. You're scaring the Millenials and Homelanders!

The apparent expectation (hope?) among some for a Great Economic Purge in which tens of millions of Americans are reduced to begging for cheetos and ground round is kind of troublesome to me.

I lament the inattention of both major political parties to the condition of middle and working class people (let alone the poor) but my hope is that some sensible reforms come without mass suffering.

Double post

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I presume the part before the comma in your answer was a typo. I fixed it in the above (underlined) to not contradict the rest of your sentence.

??? ??? ???

Originally Posted by Odin

??? ??? ???

The first part of your answer, "No" was directly contradicted by the second part of your answer, "...Anglo-American society has a degree of immunity..."

Either one of those parts was a typo, or you didn't realize the incoherence of your answer even as you were typing it. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and to assume the former; and typos are generally shorter rather than longer, so that's where it must have been.

Originally Posted by 1990

Nah, the Bolshevik Revolution was way too profound to be a 2T. Remember, Awakenings are about a younger generation rebelling against the civic system established by their elders. The system is weakened as a result, but not wholly cast aside. The Bolshevik Revolution was a classic Crisis uprising of the masses - like the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Mexican Revolution... The effects were profound and set the course for the next 74 years (a saeculum) in Russia.

And the Prague Spring, from what I can tell, was a 2T not in the Soviet Union but in some of its neighbors (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.). These were the neighbors for whom WWII was a true 4T. For most of the Soviet Union (including Russia), the Soviet 2T was rather tame because it was stifled by the leadership, and came after an especially unpleasant 1T.

What happended to Russia during WW1, if Russia was in a 4T then the nation would have for the duration of the war left behind their political arguements and rallied behind the Tsar and Mother Russia. The Tsar's regime was nothing like Lenin's or let alone Stalin's.

Instead it hasten the overthrow of Tsar during the February Revolution, then for a while an Democratic Republic was established, however the Bolsheviks managed overthrow the provisional government during the October revolution helped by the people wanting an end to the war and bread. The Bolsheviks faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the White Palace in St Petersburg and take it over.

The whole story of Russia from 1905 revolution to End of WW2 shows an society going from the middle of a 2T to end of a 4T.

Originally Posted by Millennial_90'

The writer of this article claims that after an economic crisis occurs, trust will reemerge as a virtue for business leaders, and Millenial workers will become prone to work for more "conventional" and "stable" coorporations. It appears as if the Business World will soon undergo a stunning organizational transformation - in what could be a throwback to the "civic-minded" and "enlightened" cooperations of the 1950s.

http://www.prudentbear.com/articles/show/2036

Trust is the cornerstone of a civil society. The alternatives are either anarchy or terror, one which implies no society and the other tragedy that devalues the accomplishments.

In a 4T, large organizations must rebuild the trust that those organizations sacrificed for quick gain -- or wither. It is not enough to ask the sales staff to become more submissive; it is necessary that those even at the apex of power consider the optimum for people other than themselves.

I have little discussed monetary policy... but the effectiveness of cheap money in creating prosperity or at least its illusion has run its course. Cheap money seems to be a characteristic of a 3T; in the end it supports speculation that does as much harm as good. That subprime lending has become commonplace indicates that cheap money in the end finances rip-offs instead of the common good. That it has begun to fail indicates the end of the effectiveness of cheap money. 'Conservative' 3T leaders promote cheap money because a bloated money supply (in a time of stagnant wages) is far more attractive than an expansion of government activity to the Right. When cheap money facilitates economic growth (or at least rising valuations) Big Business need not concern itself with the public welfare.

More typical of a 4T are shoestring entrepreneurialism (because forming a business with cheap inventory and equipment rescued from liquidation sales, cheap real estate, and competent help that works for low wages is comparatively easy in a 4T -- and other alternatives are impossible or cut off)... and big government projects. In a 4T every transaction becomes a more laborious deal because customers are pinching pennies to survive.

Giant corporations -- even banks, the recording industry, and the oil industry -- will need to show that they can serve some public interest other than enrichment of owners and executives.

Originally Posted by Tristan

What happended to Russia during WW1, if Russia was in a 4T then the nation would have for the duration of the war left behind their political arguements and rallied behind the Tsar and Mother Russia.

Russia in 1914 was nothing like the US in 1941. The army was so inadequitely equipped that Russian solders stood in line to use rifles. When the man on the front was killed, the one behind him picked up the rifle and started using it. The nobility had never shown any concern for the peasents and the government was so corrupt and incompetent that Rasputin welded real power.A horribly bad government will not be rallied around in a 4t, it will be overthrown. The civics are not going to regenerate a system they don't believe in, they'll tear t down. In large numbers, angry young organized civics are a lot more dangerous to a bad government than a bunch of angry young individualistic idealists.

the people wanting an end to the war and bread.

Excatly. Czarist Russia offered nothing good to the peasents, and the war offered only one escape, death. They had no realistic expectations of the old regieme making things right.

The Bolsheviks faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the White Palace in St Petersburg and take it over.

During the Russian civil war, the whites never got substantial peasent support because they were nobility lead and offered no hope of a better life for the peasents. Had the whites offered western european style reforms, Lenin very well could ave been a footnote in Russian history. The reds offered hope, which was more than what the peasents had going into the revolution. And that made a difference.

Originally Posted by Tristan

What happended to Russia during WW1, if Russia was in a 4T then the nation would have for the duration of the war left behind their political arguements and rallied behind the Tsar and Mother Russia. The Tsar's regime was nothing like Lenin's or let alone Stalin's.

Yeah. Just like the Colonies rallied together under the Union Jack during the 1776 4T; or just like the Confederacy and Union rallied together during the 1850s 4T; or just like the Dems and Pubs are rallying together during the current 4T.

The 4T is called a Crisis for a reason. The beginning of it sees the crashing down of social chaos and it isn't until the very end that the crumbs finally get shaken out and things start coming together. Is that the misconception that keeps people incorrectly analyzing foreign turnings?

The Bolsheviks faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the White Palace in St Petersburg and take it over.

Wow.
You really don't know much about world history, do you? The 1905 Revolution was a classic "sound-and-fury, accomplishing nothing" 3T uprising. The Civil War/Revolution (it's divided into the two parts). At the end, nothing changed; though the shape of the final crumbling of the existing order was pretty well laid out.

And as for the Civil War? I'll just grab a little excerpt from the Wikipedia article for you

At the end of the Civil War, Soviet Russia was exhausted and near ruin. The droughts of 1920 and 1921 and the 1921 famine worsened the disaster. The war had taken an estimated 15 million lives, including at least one million soldiers of the Russian Red Army and more than half a million White soldiers who died in battle. Fifty thousand Russian Communists were killed by the counter-revolutionary Whites, and 250,000 civillians were killed by the CHEKA. Millions more were also killed by widespread starvation, epidemics, wholesale massacres by both sides, and even pogroms against Jews in Ukraine and southern Russia. The economic loss to Soviet Russia was 50 billion rubles, or 35 billion in current U.S. Dollars. The industrial production value descended to 4-20% of the value of 1913.

Justin:

Yeah. Just like the Colonies rallied together under the Union Jack during the 1776 4T; or just like the Confederacy and Union rallied together during the 1850s 4T; or just like the Dems and Pubs are rallying together during the current 4T.

Those 4T's were civil wars (The American war of independence was a Civil War). Imagine if the US in 1860 was attacked by Britain or France in 1776.

You really don't know much about world history, do you? The 1905 Revolution was a classic "sound-and-fury, accomplishing nothing" 3T uprising. The Civil War/Revolution (it's divided into the two parts). At the end, nothing changed; though the shape of the final crumbling of the existing order was pretty well laid out.

I was referring to the October Revolution and how the Bolsheviks gained power intitally. Not what happened afterwards.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Russia in 1914 was nothing like the US in 1941. The army was so inadequately equipped that Russian solders stood in line to use rifles. When the man on the front was killed, the one behind him picked up the rifle and started using it. The nobility had never shown any concern for the peasents and the government was so corrupt and incompetent that Rasputin welded real power.A horribly bad government will not be rallied around in a 4t, it will be overthrown. The civics are not going to regenerate a system they don't believe in, they'll tear t down. In large numbers, angry young organized civics are a lot more dangerous to a bad government than a bunch of angry young individualistic idealists.

What happened in Russia is that the failing war, contributed with economic hardship destroyed popular support in the regime. The same thing happened in Germany and Austria-Hungary during WW1. Nothing like that occurred in the last stages of Nazi Germany, even although it was obvious that defeat was certain.

Interesting enough like in the rest of Europe at first the war was greeted with massive enthusiasm, in Russia. 3T wars start with a lot of popular enthusiasm, but little patience. The difference between the initial mood during the starts of WW1 and WW2 is striking in nations which fought in it. During the start of WW2 there was little enthusiasm, however a lot of patience and expectation that the war would be a long one.

Clinton spurts!
Bush sucks!
Clinton Spurts!
Bush Sucks!
Clinton SPURTS!
Bush SUCKS!
CLINTON SPURTS!
BUSH SUCKS!

Meanwhile:

Originally Posted by Mr. Matt Taibbi

in Adbusters


That, in sum, is why I don’t call myself a liberal. To me the word “liberalism” describes an era whose time is past, a time when a liberal was defined more by who he was fighting against – the Man – than what he was fighting for. A liberal wielding power is always going to seem a bit strange because a liberal always imagines himself in an intrepid fight against power, not holding it. I therefore prefer the word “progressive,” which describes in a neutral way a set of political values without having these class or aesthetic connotations. To me a progressive is not fighting Mom and Dad, Nixon, Bush or really any people at all, but things – political corruption, commercialism, pollution, etc. It doesn’t have that same Marxian us-versus-them connotation that liberalism still has, sometimes ridiculously. It’s about goals, not people.


In a few years it will be half a century since the 1960s began. The Baby-Boomer generation that shaped modern liberalism will soon be moving on to the nursing home, many of its battles – for civil, gay, immigrant and women’s rights, for workplace protections, and against the Vietnam war and Richard Nixon – already won. They did a lot of good things, but their fight doesn’t always make sense anymore. In any case, you can smell something new rising out of the mess in Iraq and the changed American labor market. From among the veterans of this new bad war and the refugees of the global economy, some kind of movement is bound to arise. Who knows what that will be called – but it’s safe to say it won’t be called liberalism.

The American Left's Silly Victim Complex

Originally Posted by Tristan

Those 4T's were civil wars...

Umm. Which was my point... 4T wars need not be universally lauded, except for those that come at the end -- and those only so because all opposing voices have been silenced.

I was referring to the October Revolution and how the Bolsheviks gained power intitally. Not what happened afterwards.

Umm. 1905 was about ten years before the Bolsheviks gained power. In between there was the February Revolution (overthrowing the Tsar and the aristocratic system), and the time of the Provisional Government.
Anyway, October was effectively the first shot of the Civil War. A 'Cascade', if you want to use the developed-here terminology.

What happened in Russia is that the failing war, contributed with economic hardship destroyed popular support in the regime.

Again, I can't see how the destruction of the last remaining shreds of popular support of the existing order is anything but the kickoff of a 4T.

...at first the war was greeted with massive enthusiasm, in Russia

Like Afghanistan and Iraq in this latest US turning, you mean? Again from the Wik:
-The outbreak of war in August 1914 initially served to quiet the prevalent social and political protests, focusing hostilities against a common external enemy, but this patriotic unity did not last for very long. As the war dragged on inconclusively, war-weariness gradually took its toll. More important, though, was this deeper fragility: although many ordinary Russians joined anti-German demonstrations in the first few weeks of the war, the most popular reaction appears to have been skepticism and fatalism. Hostility toward the Kaiser and the desire to defend their land and their lives did not necessarily translate into enthusiasm for the tsar or the government.

Originally Posted by takascar2

Yah, I'm getting tired of no one exploring the possible rosey scenarios as far as the course of, and the outcome of the Crisis.

For several years now, especially since Katrina, its been doom and gloom. I can't seem to formulate a happy ending even in my own mind and its because of all of this negativism. Our poster here HAS NO PROOF that things will be as bad as they say or that we are at the end of our national prosperity or will vanish, nor does the evidence today necessarily even lead in that direction.

If its not terrorism, its peak oil or an economic crash or China will invade or we have no industry left, yada, yada, yada.. PLEASE STOP.

In human history, and during the history of our nation, we have experienced all of these kinds of things already: religious violence / terrorism (slavery/civil war), scarcity of resources (dust bowl) economic collapse (the great depression) and we survived and went on to bigger and better things.

Now, there is no guarantees that we will come out on top, but neither is there proof that we will vanish.

Please lighten up. You're scaring the Millenials and Homelanders!

I'm a long term optimist, I believe the 4T will turn out for the good. However that is not to say not so good things will occur during the 4T.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

[CENTER]Clinton spurts!
Bush sucks!
Clinton Spurts!
Bush Sucks!
Clinton SPURTS!
Bush SUCKS!
CLINTON SPURTS!
BUSH SUCKS!

No wonder they have been getting along well recently...

Originally Posted by Tristan

Interesting enough like in the rest of Europe at first the war was greeted with massive enthusiasm, in Russia. 3T wars start with a lot of popular enthusiasm, but little patience. The difference between the initial mood during the starts of WW1 and WW2 is striking in nations which fought in it. During the start of WW2 there was little enthusiasm, however a lot of patience and expectation that the war would be a long one.

When talking about popular enthusiasm for wars, one shouln't dwell entirely on cycle theory, and consider that the nature of warfare is ever changing. As weapons moved from muscle power to ever increasing dosages of explosives, the amount of destruction increases. The notion that a country can increase its wealth, territory and power by force became observably less true.

Thus, while enthusiasm for war may fluctuate with cycles, and with a people's impressions of their government, and the enemy's, do not discount people's memories of the ever increasing cost / benefit ratios of prior conflicts.