ITT staged theories of history

[Cain]

I find these patterns fascinating, if somewhat futile in their predictions.

=========================

Saecular theory (Strauss & Howe)

1. High -- a spring of extreme conformity, communal focus, large-scale planning and building, economic security, institution-building, and extreme optimism. What was once radical now becomes firmly codified establishment dogma throughout the culture. As it ends, people become more sophisticated and curious about the world. (1945-1964)

2. Awakening -- a summer of social experimentation, expansion of individual rights, inner-directed growth, devaluation of old establishment institutions, emergence of a new set of social ideals. Old dogma is destroyed; and the dominant values and aspirations of the next era emerge before disillusionment eventually sets in. (1890-1910, 1964-1980)

3. Unraveling -- an autumn of institutional and infrastructure neglect, culture wars, economic bubbles, sex scandals, drug prohibitions, fanatic religious movements, political corruption, runaway corporatism, and general decadence. With the old consensus intellectually, economically, culturally, and physically in tatters, things begin to fall apart, preparing the way for the new. (1910-1929, 1980-2001)

4. Crisis -- a winter in which the world is politically, economically, and physically (and usually violently) remade, with a new establishment and new institutions built around the ideals and values that emerged during the previous Awakening. Individual rights are at low ebb. Attention is outer-directed as communal priorities, teamwork, and conformity re-emerge, and people re-engage with the larger society. (1773-1794, 1844-1865, 1929-1945, 2001-2020?)

--------------------------------

Marxist theory of history

In a broad outline, Marx recognized seven distinct epochs of human history, each corresponding to a particular mode of production:

1. The Foraging Mode of Production. Marx himself called this mode "primitive communism". Human society is seen as organized in traditional tribe structures, typified by shared production and consumption of the entire social product. As no permanent surplus product is produced, there is also no possibility of a ruling class coming into existence. As this mode of production lacks differentiation into classes, it is said to be classless. Palaeolithic and Neolithic tools, pre- and early-agricultural production, and rigorous ritualized social control have often been said to be the typifying productive forces of this mode of production. However, the foraging mode of production still exists, and often typified in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies. Past theories of the foraging mode of production have focused on lack of control over food production (Meillassoux, 1973). More recent scholarship has argued that hunter-gatherers use the foraging mode of production to maintain a specific set of social relations that, perhaps controversially, are said to emphasize egalitarianism and the collective appropriation of resources (Tim Ingold, 1987, 1988; Robert Kelly, 1995).

2. The Asiatic mode of production. This is a controversial contribution to Marxist theory, initially used to explain pre-slave and pre-feudal large earthwork constructions in China, India, the Euphrates and Nile river valleys (and named on this basis of the primary evidence coming from greater "Asia"). The Asiatic mode of production is said to be the initial form of class society, where a small group extracts social surplus through violence aimed at settled or unsettled band communities within a domain. Exploited labour is extracted as forced corvee labour during a slack period of the year (allowing for monumental construction such as the pyramids, ziggurats, ancient Indian communal baths or the Chinese Great Wall). Exploited labour is also extracted in the form of goods directly seized from the exploited communities. The primary property form of this mode is the direct religious possession of communities (villages, bands, hamlets) and all those within them. The ruling class of this society is generally a semi-theocratic aristocracy which claims to be the incarnation of gods on earth. The forces of production associated with this society include basic agricultural techniques, massive construction and storage of goods for social benefit (granaries).

3. The classical mode of production. It is similar to the Asiatic mode, but differentiated in that the form of property is the direct possession of individual human beings. Additionally, the ruling class usually avoids the more outlandish claims of being the direct incarnation of a god, and prefers to be the descendants of gods, or seeks other justifications for its rule. Ancient Greek and Roman societies are the most typical examples of this mode. The forces of production associated with this mode include advanced (two field) agriculture, the extensive use of animals in agriculture, and advanced trade networks.

4. The feudal mode of production. It is usually typified by high feudalism in Western Europe. The primary form of property is the possession of land in reciprocal contract relations: the possession of human beings as peasants or serfs is dependent upon their being entailed upon the land. Exploitation occurs through reciprocated contract (though ultimately resting on the threat of forced extractions). The ruling class is usually a nobility or aristocracy. The primary forces of production include highly complex agriculture (two, three field, lucerne fallowing and manuring) with the addition of non-human and non-animal power devices (clockwork, wind-mills) and the intensification of specialisation in the crafts--craftsmen exclusively producing one specialised class of product.

5. The capitalist mode of production. It is usually associated with modern industrial societies. The primary form of property is the possession of objects and services through state guaranteed contract. The primary form of exploitation is wage labour (see Das Kapital, wage slavery and exploitation). The ruling class is the bourgeoisie, which exploits the proletariat. Capitalism may produce one class (bourgeoisie) who possess the means of production for the whole of society and another class who possess only their own labour power, which they must sell in order to survive. The key forces of production include the factory system, mechanised powered production, Taylorism, robotisation, bureaucracy and the modern state.

6. The socialist mode of production. Since this mode of production has not yet come into effect, its exact nature and whether it will exist remains debatable. Some theorists argue that prefiguring forms of socialism can be seen in voluntary workers' cooperatives, strike committees, labour unions, soviets and revolutions. The socialist mode of production is meant to be a society based on workers' control of all production, with a property form equating consumption with productive labour. The key forces of production are similar to those in capitalism, but changed in their nature due to workers' control and collective management. Additionally, the merging of mental and manual labour is meant to increase the level of productivity and quality of the productive forces. The primary ruling class of this mode is meant to be the working class. The primary form of exploitation is meant to be self-exploitation - in other words, the exploitation of some people by others (the "exploitation of man by man") is meant to be abolished.

7. The communist mode of production. Since it refers to the far future, it is a highly debated theoretical construct. Some theorists argue that prefiguring forms of communism can be seen in communes and other collective living experiments. Communism is meant to be a classless society, with the management of things replacing the management of people. Particular productive forces are not described, but are assumed to be more or less within the reach of any contemporary capitalist society. Despite the imminent potential of communism, some economic theorists have hypothesised that communism is more than a thousand years away from full implementation while others argue that it will never be realized at all.

--------------------------------------

Illuminati theory of history

The first stage, Verwirrung or chaos, is the point from which all societies begin and to which they all return. It is, so to speak, the natural condition of humanity—an estimation which the reader can confirm by closely observing his neighbors (or, if he has the necessary objectivity, himself).

The second stage, Zweitracht, begins with the appearance of a ruling or governing class. This is the Antithesis of chaos, of course, and leads directly into discord when the servile class discovers that its interests are not the same as the interests of the ruling class.

The third stage, Unordnung or confusion, occurs when an attempt is made to restore balance or arrive at the Hegelian Synthesis.

The fourth stage, Beamtenherrschaft or bureaucracy, represents the Parentheses that occur when the Hegelian Synthesis does not succeed in reconciling the opposites.

The fifth stage, Grummet or aftermath, represents the transition back to chaos. Bureaucracy chokes in its own paperwork; mind is at the end of its tether; in desperation, many begin to deny the logogram and follow the biogram, with varying degrees of success.

---------------------------------------------

The Classical Greek conception, via Hesiod


The Golden Age is the only age that falls within the rule of Cronus. It is said that men lived among the gods, and freely mingled with them. Peace and harmony prevailed during this age. Humans did not have to work to feed themselves, for the earth provided food in abundance. They lived to a very old age but with a youthful appearance and eventually died peacefully. Their spirits live on as "guardians". Plato in Cratylus (397 e) recounts the golden race of men who came first. He clarifies that Hesiod did not mean men literally made of gold, but good and noble. He describes these men as daemons upon the earth. Since δαίμονες (daimones) is derived from δαήμονες (daēmones) (=knowing or wise), they are beneficent, preventing ills, and guardians of mortal men.

The Silver Age and every age that follows fall within the rule of Cronus' successor and son, Zeus. Humans in the Silver age lived for one hundred years as infants. They lived only a short time as grown adults, and spent that time in strife with one another. During this Age humans refused to worship the gods; Zeus destroyed this race for its impiety. After death, humans of this age became "blessed spirits" of the underworld.

Men of the Bronze Age were hard. War was their purpose and passion. Not only arms and tools, but their very homes were forged of bronze. The men of this age were undone by their own violent ways and left no named spirits but dwell in the "dank house of Hades".

The Heroic Age is the one age that does not correspond with any metal. It is also the only age that improves upon the age it follows. In this period lived noble demigods and heroes. It was the heroes of this Age who fought at Thebes and Troy. This race of humans died and went to Elysium.

Hesiod finds himself in the Iron Age. During this age humans live an existence of toil and misery. Children dishonor their parents, brother fights with brother and the social contract between guest and host (xenia) is forgotten. During this age might makes right, and bad men use lies to be thought good. At the height of this age, humans no longer feel shame or indignation at wrongdoing; babies will be born with gray hair and the gods will have completely foresaken humanity: "there will be no help against evil."


More?

[Chairman Risus]

Interesting read.  If you have more, go ahead and post it.

[Golden Applesauce]

Now, when these theories/models of history were proposed, how many of their authors put the current times as the crisis/decadence/struggle times?  It seems like any period of time could fall into any of Strauss and Howes's theory; one person's expansion of individual rights is another's decadence.

History does seem kind of cyclical, in the sense that you can get all the planets to orbit the earth if you add enough epicycles.

[e]

Is there any reason Strauss & Howe were able to come up with 4 periods of "crisis" but only one of "high"?  It seems like if they're claiming this shit is cyclical, they'd be able to come up with the same amount of each (roughly) corresponding to each set of thingies.

My brain isn't working right again, so pardon my incomprehensible babbling.

[Requia ☣]

Um, it looks like 2 good and 2 bad with the S&H model.