Recent times were largely the result of an unusually unipolar (read: US) world after the USSR collapsed.
In more normal bi- or multi- polar periods (50s - 90s), international order often submitted to great power politics. What was right or legal was less important than who wanted what.
I'd argue the good times were a result of the massive transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the middle classes that was caused by the two world wars. Since the neoliberal shift of politics in Western powers in the 70s, we have been on a slow return back to the crazy levels of inequality that rival any of those ever seen prior to 20th century. We are now reaping what was sown by the Thatcher/Reagan privatisation and financialisation of everything in the economy. Takes a while for the effects to really kick in but I think much of the geopolitical dynamics we are seeing can be traced back to this.
It’s used as a common far-right/neo-fascist dog whistle, and to justify their ideology and actions. It’s vaguely based on the idea of cyclical history (which is of course not true), as presented by Oswald Spengler and others during the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
I seriously think declaring something "far-right dog whistle" is a leftist dog whistle, signaling good progressives should oppose that something. After saying this, usually no serious arguments are given. Because they are not needed after declaring an idea the enemy.
Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.
Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.
Cyclical history as theorized by Spengler and other is a fringe type of historical analysis rejected by historians. And it is actively used as a neo-fascist dog-whistle. That’s not a way to show my moral superiority, it’s what they do.
Cyclical history isn't false. Population boom/bust cycles exist in humans just like they do in every other animal. Humans reach the carrying capacity of their environment and then reach out via war for more resources.
Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.
"Cyclical history" as theorized by Spengler and others during the 20th century is a whole set of bullshit. That's what my comments are explicitly about, I don't understand how people can miss this.
I agree that it's sort of a fashy dog whistle, but the concept of cyclic history did not originate with Spengler. This was probably the dominant view of the nature of time and history up until at least the last thousand years, maybe later.
I don't think you should be downvoted for saying what you said, but I feel that you missed the point my comment was trying to make.
My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.
I actually read most of this, but i think it only debunks a strawman.
From my reading of history, the typical pattern is:
- Some set of tribes exist on the fringe of civilization (if one already existed). They have access to the bare minimum resources for survival. These are not strong men, yet, but relatively weak savages, probably not even worth conquering by the civilization closeby. What they do have, is an every-day reminder to stay efficient in what they do, so they don't starve to death.
- After a while, one or a few of these tribes grow in competency and competitively useful cultural values. (Often, but not necessarily military.) They start trading with the nearby civilization, and learn from them, but maintain their focus on what is essential for survivial. Also, during this phase, this population is still facing survival pressures, often military ones. Gradually, these people become "strong", meaning they have competencies and a culture that makes it increasingly effortless to survive and prosper. Much of this comes from becoming cultured in ways that increase productivity or martial prowess.
- Only at this stage, when survival is no longer a concern (and especially if all competetion has been eliminated), does the weakening stage start. Gradually cultural values seep in that reduce productivity/efficiency of the population. Meanwhile, essential survival skills fade to the background and are forgotten. Still, during most of this phase, this more civilized population has economic advantages and perhaps access to specialists that allow them to fend off nearby populations, often for centuries.
- Eventually, though, some event (or series of events) occur that bring a shock to the sturcture of this civilization. Maybe a few bad harvests, maybe some barbarian invation, maybe a plague. At this point, the civilization has become brittle, and shatters easily.
I'm pretty sure I see this pattern repeat itself for the Greek, Roman, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman and many Chinese civilizations. Then there are some cases that doesn't really go through all the stages. For instance, Mongols, Huns, Goths and some others spread themselves too thin to really build their own civilization, so they inherited whatever civilizations (including their corruption) they conquerd. Similarly, Europe form about 1000AD to the end of WW2 was always in a state of countries competing against each other, so they were constantly facing survival pressures that kept most of them from becoming _too_ corrupt.
“Naturally, because this is me, the case study will be (trumpets blaring) Rome, which fought a lot of poorer, less settled peoples and is frequently used as the example of wealthy, ‘civilized’ and ‘decadent’ military failure. I’ve opted to pick these two sets of examples to start out because these periods – classical antiquity and pre-history – ought to be the periods where our Fremen perform the best, as the technological and industrial gap between them and their richer ‘civilized’ opponents is the smallest – in some cases, practically non-existent.”
Comparing Rome to its enemies in this way as if “the toughness of the people” is THE variable that determined success, compared to say, coordinated mobility-based warfare tactics, is a stretch at best.
And, the quote is onjectively bs. Hard times create hardened people who create hard time for others. And suffering.Good times are created by people who care and have right values.
The hard times in Ukraine now won't make anyone better. Men in west won't be inferior for not going through it.
We were in a comfy peaceful era and yet we saw rise of extremism, neo nazis in germany, in the US even. Good times allow for forgetting the extent of what reality can be and then people start to have weird ideas when small problems come, only to react in shallow reflexes like nationalism, and war.
I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Now sure, it can all be twisted, people can be brainwashed during and after war, there can be bad wounds for long too.
> I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Yes. I too recall the many decades of peace after WWI. And the great leaders that arose in Europe after that conflict.
> And, the quote is onjectively bs. Hard times create hardened people who create hard time for others. And suffering.Good times are created by people who care and have right values.
And then you go on to express a not-so-objective viewpoint? OP is stating an idiom, a saying, a phrase. Let it be. There is nothing objective about it.
OP is stating ideology and an worldview. The one that is seems more and more wrong, the more you read about history. Generations that grew in hard times have more issues and those go away only slowly.
People regularly use this one as argument or to imply inferiority of those they look down at. Therefore, it is 100% alright to not that idiom stand.
It is originally a thesis from works of Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar from Tunisia who is considered a father of sociology and athropology..
Ibn Khalodoun had described a cycle of four generations of rulers and his theory echoes in Fourth Turning theory nowadays.
Well we certainly have a surplus of weak men. We’ve been hard at work creating them here in the West. I don’t suppose anyone who requires a safe space or trigger warnings is going to volunteer to defend the moral high ground they love so much.
We (the west) are not what we once were. I’m so sorry Ukraine.
What an ignorant and unempathetic take. The West is evolving in the right direction and we should be doing everything we can to recognize more of the human condition (intersectionality, gender identity, institutional racism, etc).
Dismissing those efforts because of a vocal few or because it's people you don't like is a disservice to those actually struggling.
PS: I agree about the feeling of infaillible institution and international order..