I don't see how any thinking adult can take Turchin's pronouncements seriously. Much of it seems like Hegel warmed over with a touch of elitist bigotry thrown in. I don't know if Hegel is still being taught in college these days; I haven't sat in a college classroom since the early 80s. Hegel's theories actually make sense to me: "thesis…
I don't see how any thinking adult can take Turchin's pronouncements seriously. Much of it seems like Hegel warmed over with a touch of elitist bigotry thrown in. I don't know if Hegel is still being taught in college these days; I haven't sat in a college classroom since the early 80s. Hegel's theories actually make sense to me: "thesis, synthesis, and antithesis"--and then rewind and start again. I think Woody Allen embraced that theory when he made "Bananas" and "Sleeper." That pattern is consistent with human nature in large societies. The assumption that "non-elitists" are violent and elitists are non-violent is tellingly typical of bigoted behavior (positive and negative stereotyping). But the Hegelian model doesn't resort to stereotyping. It simply notes that at whatever point one hops on the carousel of a given civilized society, depending on how far along it is from a relatively stable status quo, that citizen becomes a part of the grand whirling dance. Lord Acton encapsulated it even more succinctly: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Once we arrive at the point where the corrupt ruling class sufficiently enrages the rest of us, either the put-upon citizenry will organize and pull down the ruling class--OR the ruling class will have become so corrupt and evil that it will implode upon itself. Either way, the cycle starts anew. What's almost impossible to predict is exactly how long the process will take, considering all the unpredictable variables involved.
>>The assumption that "non-elitists" are violent and elitists are non-violent is tellingly typical of bigoted behavior (positive and negative stereotyping)<<
It's an assumption made about methods of control, no? "Elitists" traditionally dominate the flow of information (media, education, etc) that change the balance of power over time. Leaving their adversaries with only one recourse for changing the balance of power: violence.
Although I would agree with you that elitists/non-elists is a false binary.
They are not violent. They pay others to be violent. There were a large number of out of town people in Minnesota during the George Floyd event. The police and the media were commenting on it the first day. Then the media stopped talking about it. Completely.
I think we are there. The elite has its own rules, then the rest of us pay lawyers because we said the wrong pronoun.I am glad I live far from the big cities, so I believe I am somewhat safe. I really do wonder what is the event that will cause the explosion; Trump win or loses, lack of basic food, high interest rates, someone else gets away with financial fraud, government defaults, what exactly will light the fuse.
I don't see how any thinking adult can take Turchin's pronouncements seriously. Much of it seems like Hegel warmed over with a touch of elitist bigotry thrown in. I don't know if Hegel is still being taught in college these days; I haven't sat in a college classroom since the early 80s. Hegel's theories actually make sense to me: "thesis, synthesis, and antithesis"--and then rewind and start again. I think Woody Allen embraced that theory when he made "Bananas" and "Sleeper." That pattern is consistent with human nature in large societies. The assumption that "non-elitists" are violent and elitists are non-violent is tellingly typical of bigoted behavior (positive and negative stereotyping). But the Hegelian model doesn't resort to stereotyping. It simply notes that at whatever point one hops on the carousel of a given civilized society, depending on how far along it is from a relatively stable status quo, that citizen becomes a part of the grand whirling dance. Lord Acton encapsulated it even more succinctly: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Once we arrive at the point where the corrupt ruling class sufficiently enrages the rest of us, either the put-upon citizenry will organize and pull down the ruling class--OR the ruling class will have become so corrupt and evil that it will implode upon itself. Either way, the cycle starts anew. What's almost impossible to predict is exactly how long the process will take, considering all the unpredictable variables involved.
I think we almost there!
>>The assumption that "non-elitists" are violent and elitists are non-violent is tellingly typical of bigoted behavior (positive and negative stereotyping)<<
It's an assumption made about methods of control, no? "Elitists" traditionally dominate the flow of information (media, education, etc) that change the balance of power over time. Leaving their adversaries with only one recourse for changing the balance of power: violence.
Although I would agree with you that elitists/non-elists is a false binary.
They are not violent. They pay others to be violent. There were a large number of out of town people in Minnesota during the George Floyd event. The police and the media were commenting on it the first day. Then the media stopped talking about it. Completely.
I think we are there. The elite has its own rules, then the rest of us pay lawyers because we said the wrong pronoun.I am glad I live far from the big cities, so I believe I am somewhat safe. I really do wonder what is the event that will cause the explosion; Trump win or loses, lack of basic food, high interest rates, someone else gets away with financial fraud, government defaults, what exactly will light the fuse.
Any of the above!