Originally Posted by TimWalker

The MegaSaeculum thread.

Oh you beat me to it by 7 minutes!

A good summary:

Then, The Grey Badger proposed an addition to this:

1. Divisive Awakening => Mild Crisis (Unraveling) [War on Terror]
2. Intellectual Awakening => Revolutionary Crisis (Crisis) [US Revolution]
3. Spiritual Awakening => Divisive Crisis (High) [Civil War]
4. Mild Awakening => Triumphant Crisis (Awakening) [WW2]

Also, the Political Archetypes thread has some of the best visual representations about how the political "center" moves around relative to the mega-cycle.

I would also note from my study of history that it tends to get stuck on the authoritarian side of things, and it can be... complicated, if not messy, to get the cycle moving again.

Originally Posted by Ed S

Eric's analysis shows why its nearly impossible to prove or disprove this theory. Interpretations of history can be modified to fit many theories that historians propose. When the facts stop fitting the theory, its easy to slightly modify the theory without destroying its essence to make it fit the facts. We see this in the economics profession all the time because controlled experiments are hard to do in social science fields. In one interpretation, the abolition of slavery could be interpreted as implementing a new system. On the other hand, it can be interpreted as tearing down an institution rather than building a new one. If it is interpretated as of advancing to a new system, then one can argue that there is just one type of cycle and no dual atonement/advancement cycles exist. However, if abolishing slavery is thought of as tearing down an institution, then in a sense both the Confederacy and Union were attempting to tear down an institution. The Confederacy was trying to tear down the Union and the Union the institution of slavery. But from another perspective, the Confederacy could say that they were just like the Revolutionaries back in 1776.

I would argue that indeed for the Confederacy the issue was about slavery and State's Rights was just pretext to preserve slavery. However, for the union, the issue was about preserving the Union. Had Lincoln made slavery the issue, he would have gotten little support in the North for the war; that is why Lincoln waited so long to free the slaves.

Personally, I believe that we go through natural stages of development that causes cycling. When we have a revolution in response to a crisis, it is just natural that once the revolution is over, we need a period of normalcy, of getting on with our lives. But as time goes on, and the revolution fades from our memories, and we start questioning whether we are on the right course or not. However, there is a lot of uncertainty in the world and events are random. Thus, in 1,000 years I believe we will see alot of irregularity in the cycles. Right now it is easy to see cycles because we can make up a story to fit the facts, but whether the story holds true as additional facts come is questionable.

Perhaps, there are both deterministic and random components to cycles. May the be big difference in this crisis from the Great Depression is simply the type of leaders we have elected. FDR was a bold leader who used the bully pulpit of the presidency well. Obama is more like Eisenhower, a cautious leader who will not make a bold move unless it is carefully thought out. Moreover, the reforms of the New Deal actually worked, making the financial crisis more like the Panic of 1907 rather than the Great Depression. Thus, reforming the system is harder today. In addition, the Great Recession started just a few months before Obama took office, while the Great Depression was already 4 years old when FDR took office. Therefore, no one could blame FDR for the Depression (although it seems like conservatives are having some success today for blaming FDR)

This is a good point, and a lot of history can be summed up simply with the idea that "every solution creates a new set of problems". That's pretty much what the cycles are about, finding solutions to problems, implementing them and then being confronted with new problems as a result and dealing with them in the next cycle.

While I do see some value in looking at things in terms of a double cycle, the sample size is too small to draw any broad sweeping conclusions. Also, I don't like to look at things as "advancing forward" versus "taking a step back". One person's step forward is another person's step back. For example, many conservatives associate modern liberalism with what old conservatism used to be, namely big government and absolute rule. The definitions of liberalism and conservatism changed in 1890s, and in many respects, reversed meanings.

I have observed alternating Crises eras, as discussed in the Civil War cycle thread. Namely that Hero Generations alternate between private and public types. For example The Glorious was focused on building private empires, The Republic focused on building a more central governmental empire, The Gilded focus on building private empires, and the GIs focused on building a more powerful central governmental empire.

One of the things I've come to realize is that politics often overshadow the actual reasons for the cycles and what they represent. Politics actually plays a much smaller role in crises than most people think. It's not really an issue of the left or right "winning" the crisis, especially since the definition of what it means to be left or right is always changing and rarely ever agreed upon. The cycle is really determined by economics. As the economy changes, so must we, and adapting to those changes is often painful, and wars are fought over it. When it comes right down to it, crises occur because there comes a point where we must adjust to the new economy.

In the 1690s, the crisis was centered around establishing the colonies as adapting to an independent and self sustaining agrarian economy. In the 1780s, the crisis centered around the economy becoming a capitalist agrarian economy regulated loosely by its own central government. In the 1860s, the crisis centered around the nation moving into an industrial economy. In the 1940s, the crisis centered around the economy moving into a military industrial complex with a much more centrally regulated industrial economy. Finally this cycle, which will probably reach its climax in the 2020s, is centered around adjusting to a more technological and automated economy in which the human workforce is becoming increasingly obsolete.

These changes happened, and will continue to happen regardless of which political ideology wins in the end. The politics are largely irrelevant. It is the economy, in particular the market, that really dictates the major changes society undergoes. The more the economy introduces technological advancements, the more drastic the change to our lives and the more noticeable the crises.

There seems to be a correspondence between Awakening type (Apollo vs. Dionysus) and whether a Civic generation is "public" vs. "private." "Private" may be the default position of Civics following a Dionysus 2T - without an overarching vision(s) of worldly transformation, what else could they be?

Gianthogweed's theory of "private" orientated Civics would seem to correspond to the two lifetime cycle.

book - copyright 2010. 2014 How to Survive the Next World Crises by Nicholas Boyle. "...It is striking how reglarly, over the last 500 years, the character of a new century has been laid down by some event, both decisive and symbolic, occurring in the middle of the second decade: the Ninety-five Theses, which began the Reformation in 1517; the outbreak of the Thirty Years War in 1618, which began a century of reliious and civil strife; the death of Louis XIV an the establishment of the Hanoverian succession in England in 1715, which, together with treaties ending the war of Spanih succession, set the scene for an eighteenth centuryof the European Enlightenment and British imperial expansion; the final defeat of Napoleon, and the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, which ushered in an age of peace and industrialization in Europe; the slide into 75 years of hot and cold world war in 1914...by 15 or 20 years into each new century, those born in the last decades of the old - say, in the '80s - are mature and influential enough to dispense with the heritage of the epoch that they never felt was their own. They are the parents, making the world that will be inhabited by their childer - the generation that will live all its life in the new century - and whatever they do, hindsight will have to regard it as typical of the new age. To put it another way: if the new century is to have a character at all, it will have to be established by the time it is 20 years old....So what will be the great event between 2010 and 2020, probably around 2015, will both symbolize and determine the character of the twenty-first century? Will it be a disaster of the magnitude of 1618 or 1914, or the relatively benign conjuncture of 1715 and 1815? Whichever it is, it is likely that the present turmoil in the world economies is leading up to the Great Event, which will either resolve the crisis of the net seven years or so or mark its catastrophic conclusion."

It has been suggested that this 4T will resemble the Glorious Revolution

There seems to be another variation-regional culture vs. regional culture.

American Nations by Colin Woodard. Quoting from the chapter Cultural Clash: "The cultural wars of the 1990s and 2000s were in essence a resumption of the sixties-era-struggle, with a majority of people in the four northern nations generally supporting social change and overwhelming majority of those in the Dixie bloc defending traditional order. (Opinions in El Norte and the Far West varied, based on the issue on hand.) Northern alliance campaigns for civil liberties, sexual freedom, women's rights, gay rights, and environmental protection all became divisive sectional issues, just as Dixie's promotion of creationism, school prayer, abstinence-only sex education, abortion bans, and state's rights did."

Originally Posted by TimWalker

American Nations by Colin Woodard. Quoting from the chapter Cultural Clash: "The cultural wars of the 1990s and 2000s were in essence a resumption of the sixties-era-struggle, with a majority of people in the four northern nations generally supporting social change and overwhelming majority of those in the Dixie bloc defending traditional order. (Opinions in El Norte and the Far West varied, based on the issue on hand.) Northern alliance campaigns for civil liberties, sexual freedom, women's rights, gay rights, and environmental protection all became divisive sectional issues, just as Dixie's promotion of creationism, school prayer, abstinence-only sex education, abortion bans, and state's rights did."

Yes; although I would correct his statement though in two respects; the culture wars were not a resumption but a continuation, since they had never ended since the sixties; and "environmental protection" is not a "cultural" issue.

The cultural and the economic get lumped together sometimes in peoples' minds though, because the current southern nations' attachment to the trickle-down theory (neo-liberalism) is probably a cultural one (belief in self-reliance, etc.), even though it is an entirely economic issue, and it has been the most divisive issue at least since 1980, and a big part of the national divide going back many decades. In fact it goes back at least to the 1890s, but the views between the sections have shifted to the opposite since then. The racial divide may be one factor in why the sections have shifted their positions on neo-liberalism since the sixties.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes; although I would correct his statement though in two respects; the culture wars were not a resumption but a continuation, since they had never ended since the sixties; and "environmental protection" is not a "cultural" issue.

The cultural and the economic get lumped together sometimes in peoples' minds though, because the current southern nations' attachment to the trickle-down theory (neo-liberalism) is probably a cultural one (belief in self-reliance, etc.), even though it is an entirely economic issue, and it has been the most divisive issue at least since 1980, and a big part of the national divide going back many decades. In fact it goes back at least to the 1890s, but the views between the sections have shifted to the opposite since then. The racial divide may be one factor in why the sections have shifted their positions on neo-liberalism since the sixties.

When mentioning the views between sections having shifted, are you referring to the fact that the South at one time was staunchly Democratic, but since the Dems took on the progressive social issues in the 1960's they turned equally staunchly Republican? And, in today's USA there was an editorial stating that increasing economic inequality could well be a prelude to social unrest. What do you all think here? I am amazed it has gone as long as it has with a bare minimum of unrest until maybe fairly recently. Especially concerning how much more people want and feel they have to have now. Which may be why they would draw the line at having the depravity of the first Great Depression. And every year at this time we are told that holiday retail sales are always predicted to exceed the previous year. Somehow this doesn't sound like much depravity to me.

For the record, "depravity" and 'deprivation" do not mean the same thing. Different roots.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

For the record, "depravity" and 'deprivation" do not mean the same thing. Different roots.

From "Officer Krupke" in West Side Story

Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.

Funny, though in this case I would say that many people feel deprived on account of them's being depraved.

Edited to Add, but refreshingly normal, PB. Keep it up.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

When mentioning the views between sections having shifted, are you referring to the fact that the South at one time was staunchly Democratic, but since the Dems took on the progressive social issues in the 1960's they turned equally staunchly Republican?

Yes, and earlier the West seemed to shift in the same way compared to the populist era of the 1890s/1900s, though maybe just from inertia. In the old days the northeast supported the Republican wealthy fat cat industrialists; not anymore.

I guess today people have just enough so they don't rebel from desperation. However, this 4T is just getting underway.

My own suspicion is that we are at an early stage of this 4T.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

My own suspicion is that we are at an early stage of this 4T.

We still are. The Regeneracy has not clearly taken its course. Only when we divest ourselves of the bad 3T habits in mass culture, education, business, and politics are we into the undeniable recovery from the recent Degeneracy. We may be in the beginning now.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Funny, though in this case I would say that many people feel deprived on account of them's being depraved.

Edited to Add, but refreshingly normal, PB. Keep it up.

Maybe we need to do something about the pervasive deprivation in America -- and not only economic deprivation. We have much depraved behavior among economic elites who have never known any real hardship. Even the elites of the GI could not evade the Great Depression (if born before 1920) or World War II as soldiers.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We still are. The Regeneracy has not clearly taken its course. Only when we divest ourselves of the bad 3T habits in mass culture, education, business, and politics are we into the undeniable recovery from the recent Degeneracy. We may be in the beginning now.

No, we are no where near a Regeneracy yet. We still have to decidde what direction that will take. After all, we're having the secessin discussion again, so there is an agreement that we're broken. I'm not sure we've even identified a possible solution set because, frankly, we have no idea what it means to be fixed.

Don't forget external factors, either. The bit in the Middle East is still playing out, as is the Eurocrisis, and I think the East Asian powers have only just started/will soon be starting theirs. We're still waiting to see what this is going to look like, and which crazy fantasies are going to make it to the quarter and semi-finals.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Don't forget external factors, either. The bit in the Middle East is still playing out, as is the Eurocrisis, and I think the East Asian powers have only just started/will soon be starting theirs. We're still waiting to see what this is going to look like, and which crazy fantasies are going to make it to the quarter and semi-finals.

I think this 4T will primarily be a navel gazing event. We seem to have little additoinal appetite for foreign adventures, after 13 non-stop years of them. I'll assume this innoculates us from looking away for at least a decade. By then, this 4T should be settled or at least well defined.

As the hegemon, we will be looked-to for help everywhere, and our economy is still #1. I just can't see us taking-on the world's heavy lifting for a while.

What did some guy say to me recently?

We're tired. That's good for now, but it won't last. The juices will flow again, and some future youth of the nation will, once again, be called-on to be cannon fodder. The best you can do is not be one of the callers.

For the life of me, I can't even remember the douchebag's name.

Nobody knows how this plays out.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, we are no where near a Regeneracy yet. We still have to decidde what direction that will take. After all, we're having the secession discussion again, so there is an agreement that we're broken. I'm not sure we've even identified a possible solution set because, frankly, we have no idea what it means to be fixed.

The specific political shape of a post-4T is not clear yet, and will be determined by what we do and decide. However, the solutions to real problems are quite clear. Alternative energy and transport, livable cities, and a new high-tech green post-industrial revolution. Conversion to a sustainable and less-militarized economy. Repeal of Reaganomics in favor of a fair progressive tax system, fair trade, appropriate regulations, affordable health care (eventually Medicare for all), investments in infrastructure and R&D, lower prices for education, support for those affected by automation, an end to many corporate subsidies, revived unions helped by better pro-union laws, etc. (much of this is probably outlined in Reich's new movie). Taking the money out of politics, and other reforms of our political system (reduced gerrymandering, more-realistic filibuster, election procedures that encourage more political parties, etc.). The only thing holding up renewed progress toward these very-clear yet long-delayed solutions, is the stubborn and needless adherence by many people in red states and some others in other heartland and southern purple states to a regressive ideology.

And I agree with your post above about this being an internal-oriented 4T, of course. We are weary of foreign adventures, and most of our foreign troubles are usually of our own making. This year (July) was the start of trends toward peacemaking, especially in the Middle East areas.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

What did some guy say to me recently?

We're tired. That's good for now, but it won't last. The juices will flow again, and some future youth of the nation will, once again, be called-on to be cannon fodder. The best you can do is not be one of the callers.

For the life of me, I can't even remember the douchebag's name.

Nobody knows how this plays out.

Douchbag reporting for duty ... and it still stands. We are a violent species, and we'll pick fights - there is no time in history when that was not the case for long. You have virtually no chance of living through this life without at least a threat of a major war, and a major war shouldn't be fought by a tiny fraction of the populous ... like the last two. Will this occur during this 4T, I don't think so, but does that matter? YOu're young, with plenty of time to watch as idocy plays out. And when it does, it will be easy to send an anonymous somebody off to die, especially if you can justify it by noting her status as a volunteer. If we reinstitute the draft, the odds of war drop dramatically. in any case:

"Better to talk-talk than fight-fight." Winston Churchill

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The specific political shape of a post-4T is not clear yet, and will be determined by what we do and decide. However, the solutions to real problems are quite clear. Alternative energy and transport, livable cities, and a new high-tech green post-industrial revolution. Conversion to a sustainable and less-militarized economy. Repeal of Reaganomics in favor of a fair progressive tax system, fair trade, appropriate regulations, affordable health care (eventually Medicare for all), investments in infrastructure and R&D, lower prices for education, support for those affected by automation, an end to many corporate subsidies, revived unions helped by better pro-union laws, etc. (much of this is probably outlined in Reich's new movie). Taking the money out of politics, and other reforms of our political system (reduced gerrymandering, more-realistic filibuster, election procedures that encourage more political parties, etc.). The only thing holding up renewed progress toward these very-clear yet long-delayed solutions, is the stubborn and needless adherence by many people in red states and some others in other heartland and southern purple states to a regressive ideology.

And I agree with your post above about this being an internal-oriented 4T, of course. We are weary of foreign adventures, and most of our foreign troubles are usually of our own making. This year (July) was the start of trends toward peacemaking, especially in the Middle East areas.

You assume success and continuity. There's no reason to assume that now. We may fracture as a nation, or stupidly destroy our economy and our standing in the world.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You assume success and continuity. There's no reason to assume that now. We may fracture as a nation, or stupidly destroy our economy and our standing in the world.

Sure; the way forward is clear; just how we actually behave and handle this 4T is not so clear.

I can make predictions though, based on my prophetic abilities and resources. It looks to me like a positive outcome.