3 ms·

One of the most important lessons of classical history is that no form of government is suited to all peoples at all times. When a democracy degenerates into t

One of the most important lessons of classical history is that no form of government is suited to all peoples at all times. When a democracy degenerates into tribalism, it enters into a period of conflict until somebody manages to transcend the tribal conflicts. This individual has the potential to become a king if he so desires. The king remains in control for his lifetime and his son will likely also hold real power but eventually you get a king who doesn't want to be bothered with the business of government when he can be doing other things like hunting in his personal forests. So the king relinquishes most of his power to the nobility and you get an aristocratic government. This aristocratic government, at first, wants to rule for the good of the people. Eventually, after several generations, it serves its own interests instead creating a crisis. At this point, the king can re-assert real power and restore an absolutist monarchy. Or the wealthier portion of the common people can decide they want some power too and gradually get some of it from the nobles. Once the wealthier portion of the common people have power, the general logic of democracy is to expand the suffrage. This is a one way ratchet because no politician can hope to win elections running on reducing suffrage. So you gradually end up with a mass democracy. Eventually, this mass democracy degenerates into tribalism and the cycle repeats itself. This cycle, which was recognized by Polybius and called anacyclosis, played itself out in both Athens and Rome in antiquity. It is likely playing itself out yet again in our own time. Because human nature doesn't change and all governments degenerate.

thom 2y ago
An irony of Polybius’s writings is that he complimented Rome on its balanced constitution which had the appearance of holding all these forces at bay (the consuls with limited monarchical powers, the senate representing the aristocracy, the tribunes the people and army etc), but he stopped writing at the exact moment the tide began to turn. With Amazon Prime’s new Roman series I’ve just been rereading Tacitus, who sees the collapse as equally inevitable: That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious, at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars. Then rose C. Marius, sprung from the very dregs of the populace, and L. Sulla, the most ruthless of the patricians, who perverted into absolute dominion the liberty which had yielded to their arms. After them came Cn. Pompeius, with a character more disguised but no way better. Henceforth men's sole object was supreme power. Legions formed of Roman citizens did not lay down their arms at Pharsalia and Philippi, much less were the armies of Otho and Vitellius likely of their own accord to abandon their strife. They were driven into civil war by the same wrath from heaven, the same madness among men, the same incentives to crime. That these wars were terminated by what we may call single blows, was owing to want of energy in the chiefs.
derdi 2y ago
> This cycle, which was recognized by Polybius and called anacyclosis, played itself out in both Athens and Rome in antiquity. Could you be more explicit about Rome please? From what I know, the transition from Roman kings to the Republic doesn't match the pattern you describe. Neither does the fall of the Western Empire. In neither case is there a transition from kings to aristocratic rule to democracy.
throwaway14356 2y ago
my theory is that we have to keep repeating this until a stable formula is found. It probably wont be any good but i think given enough time it will happen. if we excessively simplify the problem is people acting in their own interest rather than that of the system. If you want to build something you do have to put building it first or else you are just dishonest. imho if you want results you have to exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute. The system must be such that those who expect others to organize everything don't become victims. perhaps just ask them if the thing is working with some kind of punishment and rollback logic.
- ziggyzecat 2y ago
  > exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute Exclusion comes with the brutal side-effect that the excluded people become ignorant towards and alienated from their own kind and thus accept any cost of punishment and negative consequences, including their own suffering! It's crazy. This then becomes the base and nourishment for extremists and their marketing strategies.
- em-bee 2y ago
  the problem is that the form of government doesn't really matter. if a lot of people are corrupt and greedy or selfish then even the most well meaning forms of government will fail. but if all people including the leaders are doing their best to be good and supportive of each other then even a dictatorship will be beneficial to everyone. so instead of focusing on the form of government, what we really need to focus on is to educate everyone to become better people. i made a similar argument before in response to an article by peter kropotkin titled "are we good enough?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644561
  - throwaway14356 2y ago
    Seems a noble plan but you will always have some good and some bad players. The form does matter as you can set things in stone to safeguard and make it impossible for future generations to rule themselves. I think we can pay people to study election programs and pay for getting an (otherwise unimportant) diploma. We are currently some place at 0% of the voters knowing more than 0.1% of the programs. Much progress to be made for very little money.
skybrian 2y ago
Saying “people don’t change” doesn’t give you a crystal ball. The vast differences in technology, economics, beliefs, and the structure of society mean that whatever supposedly universal cycles you see in ancient history aren’t going to apply neatly.
bwestergard 2y ago
This theory does not seem like a good fit for most societies across most of the world across most of the historical record. It may tell us something about city states in antiquity around the Mediterranean. How, for example, could it even explain the middle ages in Europe?
ziggyzecat 2y ago
> Eventually, this mass democracy degenerates into tribalism and the cycle repeats itself. Well, given my personal ignorance since the moment I more or less understood (the) "complexity, invisibility, incentives, and politically motivated cognition", I can safely speak for millions of smarter and more capable people (apologies, nevertheless) that this degeneration and succeeding repetition is the failure of the smart crowd. They, the smart and intelligent crowd, and we, people with capable but less trained & thus less powerful brains, fail to keep the echo and hall going. We'd rather balance work/life, and hustle up side projects than pick up the fight against the aristocracy and politicians, who are, with everything that is (and always has been) going on, mocking and provoking the smart crowd and quite literally defecating all over the place, which is, kind of, sorry for the sentimentality, our home & garden, too ... It's not a programmed cycle, not an infinite loop, there are plenty of distinguished and graceful ways to handle all the errors, warnings, negative effects and shitty outcomes, that, for the sake of completeness, create just as much or even more (and more meaningful) work. ... and a great many people to handle the foundational work.

thom 2y ago

An irony of Polybius’s writings is that he complimented Rome on its balanced constitution which had the appearance of holding all these forces at bay (the consuls with limited monarchical powers, the senate representing the aristocracy, the tribunes the people and army etc), but he stopped writing at the exact moment the tide began to turn. With Amazon Prime’s new Roman series I’ve just been rereading Tacitus, who sees the collapse as equally inevitable: That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious, at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars. Then rose C. Marius, sprung from the very dregs of the populace, and L. Sulla, the most ruthless of the patricians, who perverted into absolute dominion the liberty which had yielded to their arms. After them came Cn. Pompeius, with a character more disguised but no way better. Henceforth men's sole object was supreme power. Legions formed of Roman citizens did not lay down their arms at Pharsalia and Philippi, much less were the armies of Otho and Vitellius likely of their own accord to abandon their strife. They were driven into civil war by the same wrath from heaven, the same madness among men, the same incentives to crime. That these wars were terminated by what we may call single blows, was owing to want of energy in the chiefs.

derdi 2y ago

> This cycle, which was recognized by Polybius and called anacyclosis, played itself out in both Athens and Rome in antiquity. Could you be more explicit about Rome please? From what I know, the transition from Roman kings to the Republic doesn't match the pattern you describe. Neither does the fall of the Western Empire. In neither case is there a transition from kings to aristocratic rule to democracy.

throwaway14356 2y ago

my theory is that we have to keep repeating this until a stable formula is found. It probably wont be any good but i think given enough time it will happen. if we excessively simplify the problem is people acting in their own interest rather than that of the system. If you want to build something you do have to put building it first or else you are just dishonest. imho if you want results you have to exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute. The system must be such that those who expect others to organize everything don't become victims. perhaps just ask them if the thing is working with some kind of punishment and rollback logic.

ziggyzecat 2y ago
> exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute Exclusion comes with the brutal side-effect that the excluded people become ignorant towards and alienated from their own kind and thus accept any cost of punishment and negative consequences, including their own suffering! It's crazy. This then becomes the base and nourishment for extremists and their marketing strategies.
em-bee 2y ago
the problem is that the form of government doesn't really matter. if a lot of people are corrupt and greedy or selfish then even the most well meaning forms of government will fail. but if all people including the leaders are doing their best to be good and supportive of each other then even a dictatorship will be beneficial to everyone. so instead of focusing on the form of government, what we really need to focus on is to educate everyone to become better people. i made a similar argument before in response to an article by peter kropotkin titled "are we good enough?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644561
- throwaway14356 2y ago
  Seems a noble plan but you will always have some good and some bad players. The form does matter as you can set things in stone to safeguard and make it impossible for future generations to rule themselves. I think we can pay people to study election programs and pay for getting an (otherwise unimportant) diploma. We are currently some place at 0% of the voters knowing more than 0.1% of the programs. Much progress to be made for very little money.

skybrian 2y ago

Saying “people don’t change” doesn’t give you a crystal ball. The vast differences in technology, economics, beliefs, and the structure of society mean that whatever supposedly universal cycles you see in ancient history aren’t going to apply neatly.

bwestergard 2y ago

This theory does not seem like a good fit for most societies across most of the world across most of the historical record. It may tell us something about city states in antiquity around the Mediterranean. How, for example, could it even explain the middle ages in Europe?

ziggyzecat 2y ago

> Eventually, this mass democracy degenerates into tribalism and the cycle repeats itself. Well, given my personal ignorance since the moment I more or less understood (the) "complexity, invisibility, incentives, and politically motivated cognition", I can safely speak for millions of smarter and more capable people (apologies, nevertheless) that this degeneration and succeeding repetition is the failure of the smart crowd. They, the smart and intelligent crowd, and we, people with capable but less trained & thus less powerful brains, fail to keep the echo and hall going. We'd rather balance work/life, and hustle up side projects than pick up the fight against the aristocracy and politicians, who are, with everything that is (and always has been) going on, mocking and provoking the smart crowd and quite literally defecating all over the place, which is, kind of, sorry for the sentimentality, our home & garden, too ... It's not a programmed cycle, not an infinite loop, there are plenty of distinguished and graceful ways to handle all the errors, warnings, negative effects and shitty outcomes, that, for the sake of completeness, create just as much or even more (and more meaningful) work. ... and a great many people to handle the foundational work.