3 ms·

Worth noting that not only was Spengler a key intellectual figure in promoting fascism (despite his later private opposition to Nazism), his 'Cesarian age' conc

by dbspin 6y ago

Worth noting that not only was Spengler a key intellectual figure in promoting fascism (despite his later private opposition to Nazism), his 'Cesarian age' concept - predicting a dictatorship to succeed democracy - is at the root of much neo-nazism today. Specifically occult nazi ideologues like the Order of the Nine Angles have referenced his work in their eschatology. Not sure that promoting the work of an anti-modern, anti-semetic, pro-facist, who's eschatology directly assaults democracy is useful or necessary.

natmaka 6y ago
> predicting a dictatorship to succeed democracy Polybius take on this is a permanent anacyclosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Orwell's take on anacylosis (in both Animal Farm and 1984, as well as Homage to Catalonia) is that twentieth century democracy decays not to ochlocracy but back to oligarchy, in the case of Animal Farm, and aristocracy, in the case of Goldstein (who discusses the pragmatics of halting the cycle) within 1984. Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    Direct democracy just means that the majority rule on minority. Representative democracy is just plain oligarchy, with moral justifications on top.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Majority rule is not necessarily a feature of democracy, but may be a feature of first past the post voting with only two parties. I like how we (a vibrant multiparty democracy) do referenda: the referendum text gets put on the ballot, the current government makes a counterproposal "yes, we agree X is a problem but we believe Y is a better solution", and we get to vote either (a) for the referendum proposal, (b) for the government proposal, or (c), the most common option, to leave well enough alone. Sili im mebi na ta bek, mogut fo na du im gut.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    In many nations rich people used to be extremely powerful, having their own armies, judicial corps... While remaining powerful, they are much less so than 1 to 4 of centuries ago. Nowadays a tax raise or police blunder triggers very politically determinant reactions from fickle crowds (France, USA...). IMHO during the past century the power went to the richest people (oligarchy) in way less zones than to mobs installing an "absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process". Think China, USSR, many countries in South-America, even many "democratic" Western nations... I'd say Polybius was right on this one.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      True, these days we only have PMCs, various poorly-regulated milita, and judges appointed by interest group campaign, so unlike the old days they're only rented, not owned. (pace the Кадыровцы) I don't know enough about china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), many countries in South America had juntas, etc. Even somalia seems to be less an anarchy and more tribally organised. Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0
      - natmaka 6y ago
        In USSR it seems to me that "mobs installing an absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process" is an adequate description. Were Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky et al. oligarchs? Some politicians, in the USSR then in Russia, get rich this way, indeed, but are they the ultra-rich, and do they own a large fraction of the total wealth? I doubt so. Same for China: Mao and his followers weren't rich, and AFAIK rich Chinese are indigent compared to Emperors and their family/suit, and not very politically powerful. Juntas were composed of high-ranking military, who AFAIK weren't rich (most came from the middle-class) nor became so. Tribalism isn't oligarchic. The recent pertinent exception are banksters, however their power (albeit non-neglectable) seems rather limited and focused on some Western nations (the 'Old Core').
        6y ago

by dbspin 6y ago

natmaka 6y ago

> predicting a dictatorship to succeed democracy Polybius take on this is a permanent anacyclosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

082349872349872 6y ago
Orwell's take on anacylosis (in both Animal Farm and 1984, as well as Homage to Catalonia) is that twentieth century democracy decays not to ochlocracy but back to oligarchy, in the case of Animal Farm, and aristocracy, in the case of Goldstein (who discusses the pragmatics of halting the cycle) within 1984. Looking back on that century with a couple of decades' distance, I'd say oligarchy.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  Direct democracy just means that the majority rule on minority. Representative democracy is just plain oligarchy, with moral justifications on top.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Majority rule is not necessarily a feature of democracy, but may be a feature of first past the post voting with only two parties. I like how we (a vibrant multiparty democracy) do referenda: the referendum text gets put on the ballot, the current government makes a counterproposal "yes, we agree X is a problem but we believe Y is a better solution", and we get to vote either (a) for the referendum proposal, (b) for the government proposal, or (c), the most common option, to leave well enough alone. Sili im mebi na ta bek, mogut fo na du im gut.
- natmaka 6y ago
  In many nations rich people used to be extremely powerful, having their own armies, judicial corps... While remaining powerful, they are much less so than 1 to 4 of centuries ago. Nowadays a tax raise or police blunder triggers very politically determinant reactions from fickle crowds (France, USA...). IMHO during the past century the power went to the richest people (oligarchy) in way less zones than to mobs installing an "absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process". Think China, USSR, many countries in South-America, even many "democratic" Western nations... I'd say Polybius was right on this one.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    True, these days we only have PMCs, various poorly-regulated milita, and judges appointed by interest group campaign, so unlike the old days they're only rented, not owned. (pace the Кадыровцы) I don't know enough about china to say (but do know they have billionaires and hedge funds, à la the Quantum Fund), USSR had its nomenklatura (several of whom went on to literally be called oligarchs in the FSU), many countries in South America had juntas, etc. Even somalia seems to be less an anarchy and more tribally organised. Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTU2He2BIc0
    - natmaka 6y ago
      In USSR it seems to me that "mobs installing an absence or impairment of a procedurally civil and democratic process" is an adequate description. Were Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky et al. oligarchs? Some politicians, in the USSR then in Russia, get rich this way, indeed, but are they the ultra-rich, and do they own a large fraction of the total wealth? I doubt so. Same for China: Mao and his followers weren't rich, and AFAIK rich Chinese are indigent compared to Emperors and their family/suit, and not very politically powerful. Juntas were composed of high-ranking military, who AFAIK weren't rich (most came from the middle-class) nor became so. Tribalism isn't oligarchic. The recent pertinent exception are banksters, however their power (albeit non-neglectable) seems rather limited and focused on some Western nations (the 'Old Core').
      - 6y ago