It's very interesting how something that was written millennia ago is still on topic in our current days. That is the proof human race didn't change anything, people are still the same and technology wasn't enough to change their minds and to help them to evolve.
For this reason, I don't think Bitcoin can do much to change this looping societies are involved.
A society where "everyone is and can reasonably be sovereign over his own affairs" demands that each individual is really individual and authentic, what is the opposite of the reality. Most people need someone to follow and to give them an opinion. It can be the media, religions, ideologies, friends, influential people in general, etc...
A good example of this is the forum. I have seen theoretically each person here was supposed to build their own trust list, so there wouldn't be a "king, an aristocracy, or a majority", but people didn't want to go through this path, even having the possibility and the endorsement to do so.
The "vicious circle" exists because people are fine with it, they are conniving with it. I think technology (Bitcoin is an example) can't do anything to change this reality, the only way to break the circle is to awaken the conscience inside ourselves, awakening the unconscious inner self that inhabits each one of us. This one has enough authenticity, skills and knowledge to make use of the tools around (Bitcoin is one of them) to achieve the individual sovereignty once and for all.
Topic: Anacyclosis - cycles of society/government - page 2. (Read 738 times)
Bitcoin and cryptocurrency certainly is revolutionary! Maybe the most revolutionary, as currency has always been government controled. And I agree that more than ever, there are multiple worlds of existence with entirely different values and beliefs going on at the same time. Thanks again for this informative post.
I've been long aware of this marvelous Polybious text and yes, this kind of cycle is still happening in our society.
After long periods of inconsistency, a tyrant always rise. This is maybe difficult to see nowadays, for we all live under the false impression of "freedom", but there is not freedom at all.
Two of the most powerful countries around the world are led by tyrants, as we all now. Even so, in the smallest countries with poorest economies, we have tyrants after revolutionary thoughts, as an endless circle of despair. Once the revolution is over, this is common to see how the supposedly freedom-seekers become, once again, tyrants. And every happens in an eternal cycle, from the time and Polybious and even before that.
If you study the Humankind HIstory, this is always the same.
Now, how is Bitcoin entering into this world? I don't believe the new crypto-economy will lead to an important change in this matter. Humankind has a predictable behavior, and even when important economic changes take place, the history doesn't seem to be able to escape from the eternal cycle. Our society is still in the middle ages in so many places (I can say in maybe the 60% of the globe the people still have middle-ages beliefs, such religion). We live in a different world, we live in the cyberlife, where knowledge is available to many, where we can read, we can build complex ideas. But when the hunger, the war, the ignorance, the tyranny is your way-of-life, bitcoin will suppose nothing.
Somehow, we are used to thinking about the world with our eyes, so we usually forget there are many people (most of humanity) with no access to the world we new, with no access to internet, medical service, food, water, and, of course with no clue of who Polybious is. Bitcoin is here, and it will matter to a section of the world. But just to a section.
After long periods of inconsistency, a tyrant always rise. This is maybe difficult to see nowadays, for we all live under the false impression of "freedom", but there is not freedom at all.
Two of the most powerful countries around the world are led by tyrants, as we all now. Even so, in the smallest countries with poorest economies, we have tyrants after revolutionary thoughts, as an endless circle of despair. Once the revolution is over, this is common to see how the supposedly freedom-seekers become, once again, tyrants. And every happens in an eternal cycle, from the time and Polybious and even before that.
If you study the Humankind HIstory, this is always the same.
Now, how is Bitcoin entering into this world? I don't believe the new crypto-economy will lead to an important change in this matter. Humankind has a predictable behavior, and even when important economic changes take place, the history doesn't seem to be able to escape from the eternal cycle. Our society is still in the middle ages in so many places (I can say in maybe the 60% of the globe the people still have middle-ages beliefs, such religion). We live in a different world, we live in the cyberlife, where knowledge is available to many, where we can read, we can build complex ideas. But when the hunger, the war, the ignorance, the tyranny is your way-of-life, bitcoin will suppose nothing.
Somehow, we are used to thinking about the world with our eyes, so we usually forget there are many people (most of humanity) with no access to the world we new, with no access to internet, medical service, food, water, and, of course with no clue of who Polybious is. Bitcoin is here, and it will matter to a section of the world. But just to a section.
Thank you for this profoundly insightful post. Polybius was certainly a visionary for the ages and saw things very accurately from a high perspective. And to me, this explains exactly what we are going through now.
The Millennium generation is a group that, more than any in recent generations have had everything handed to them on a silver platter. Along with this they were always told they were more special than anyone. It is certainly true that everyone is special, but because of this exaggerated emphasis, the results have produced many who think it is their right and privilege to take what ever they want with little regard to ethics of fairness and integrity and sometimes kindness. It's not entirely their fault or even their parents.
This generation just doesn't have the experience of the previous generations and lack understanding of how precious the rights and privileges are and how hard people fought and died to get them. So there is an air of entitlement and violence enters.
I believe we are at the end of Democracy and on the brink of Mob Rule. This explains a ruler who appeals to Mob mentality and riles them up to do the ruler's bidding. And then later the Mob will over throw this ruler too, as the Mob take on a life of it's own. And as time goes on a true leader will emerge from the Mob and we will be back to Monarchy. It is also interesting that in the time of Mob rule little may be left of all the accomplishments of the entire previous era or cycle. The high accomplishments and landmarks of the previous civilization maybe reduced to fairy tales, folk lore, and religion.
But I also have hope in this new generation as there are many who surprisingly adept and gracious, bold and unaffected by authority unless there is a real sunstance to it. Perhaps they will break this cycle or change it in some way.
The Millennium generation is a group that, more than any in recent generations have had everything handed to them on a silver platter. Along with this they were always told they were more special than anyone. It is certainly true that everyone is special, but because of this exaggerated emphasis, the results have produced many who think it is their right and privilege to take what ever they want with little regard to ethics of fairness and integrity and sometimes kindness. It's not entirely their fault or even their parents.
This generation just doesn't have the experience of the previous generations and lack understanding of how precious the rights and privileges are and how hard people fought and died to get them. So there is an air of entitlement and violence enters.
I believe we are at the end of Democracy and on the brink of Mob Rule. This explains a ruler who appeals to Mob mentality and riles them up to do the ruler's bidding. And then later the Mob will over throw this ruler too, as the Mob take on a life of it's own. And as time goes on a true leader will emerge from the Mob and we will be back to Monarchy. It is also interesting that in the time of Mob rule little may be left of all the accomplishments of the entire previous era or cycle. The high accomplishments and landmarks of the previous civilization maybe reduced to fairy tales, folk lore, and religion.
But I also have hope in this new generation as there are many who surprisingly adept and gracious, bold and unaffected by authority unless there is a real sunstance to it. Perhaps they will break this cycle or change it in some way.
I think this could still hold true. It's just that the progression is much slower with the number of adjacent country, the number of resources and moral standing. If for example a country has fallen to mob rule, it would be easier for adjacent countries to invade it therefore not collapsing to monarcy (unless the adjacent country is monarchy). Next if it's people are well taken care of then it would take amich slower pace to mob rule. Lastly, if moral standing is strong, it would not go down to mob rule but will hsve a smooth political transition.
Recently I heard about something that Polybius wrote about 100 years before the fall of the Roman Republic which seems to me to be eerily relevant even today. He predicts that all governments/societies go through a 7-stage cycle: monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, mob-rule, and then from chaos back to monarchy. I see this sequence throughout history (Russia & the Soviet Union comes to mind), and you could place the US at various points on the cycle.
What do you think? Does this idea still have merit 2100+ years later? If so, at what point in the cycle are we in now?
If this cycle is indeed inevitable in politics, then Bitcoin offers a hope of escape, since Bitcoin (and crypto-anarchy generally) is all about removing politics from life. Instead of trusting a king, an aristocracy, or a majority, you structure things so that everyone is and can reasonably be sovereign over his own affairs.
Here's what Polybius wrote, all emphasis and excerpting mine:
What do you think? Does this idea still have merit 2100+ years later? If so, at what point in the cycle are we in now?
If this cycle is indeed inevitable in politics, then Bitcoin offers a hope of escape, since Bitcoin (and crypto-anarchy generally) is all about removing politics from life. Instead of trusting a king, an aristocracy, or a majority, you structure things so that everyone is and can reasonably be sovereign over his own affairs.
Here's what Polybius wrote, all emphasis and excerpting mine:
Quote from: The Histories
When owing to floods, famines, failure of crops or other such causes there occurs such a destruction of the human race as tradition tells us has more than once happened, and as we must believe will often happen again, all arts and crafts perishing at the same time, then in the course of time, when springing from the survivors as from seeds men have again increased in numbers and just like other animals form herds — it being a matter of course that they too should herd together with those of their kind owing to their natural weakness — it is a necessary consequence that the man who excels in bodily strength and in courage will lead and rule over the rest. We observe and should regard as a most genuine work of nature this very phenomenon in the case of the other animals which act purely by instinct and among whom the strongest are always indisputably the masters — I speak of bulls, boars, cocks, and the like. It is probable then that at the beginning men lived thus, herding together like animals and following the lead of the strongest and bravest, the ruler's strength being here the sole limit to his power and the name we should give his rule being monarchy.
But when in time feelings of sociability and companionship begin to grow in such gatherings of men, than kingship has struck root; and the notions of goodness, justice, and their opposites begin to arise in men. The manner in which these notions come into being is as follows. [...] Now when the leading and most powerful man among the people always throws the weight of his authority on the side of the notions on such matters which generally prevail, and when in the opinion of his subjects he apportions rewards and penalties according to desert, they yield obedience to him no longer because they fear his force, but rather because their judgement approves him; and they join in maintaining his rule even if he is quite enfeebled by age, defending him with one consent and battling against those who conspire to overthrow his rule. Thus by insensible degrees the monarch becomes a king, ferocity and force having yielded the supremacy to reason.
Thus is formed naturally among men the first notion of goodness and justice, and their opposites; this is the beginning and birth of true kingship. For the people maintain the supreme power not only in the hands of these men themselves, but in those of their descendants, from the conviction that those born from and reared by such men will also have principles like to theirs. And if they ever are displeased with the descendants, they now choose their kings and rulers no longer for their bodily strength and brute courage, but for the excellency of their judgement and reasoning powers, as they have gained experience from actual facts of the difference between the one class of qualities and the other. In old times, then, those who had once been chosen to the royal office continued to hold it until they grew old, fortifying and enclosing fine strongholds with walls and acquiring lands, in the one case for the sake of the security of their subjects and in the other to provide them with abundance of the necessities of life. And while pursuing these aims, they were exempt from all vituperation or jealousy, as neither in their dress nor in their food did they make any great distinction, they lived very much like everyone else, not keeping apart from the people. But when they received the office by hereditary succession and found their safety now provided for, and more than sufficient provision of food, they gave way to their appetites owing to this superabundance, and came to think that the rulers must be distinguished from their subjects by a peculiar dress, that there should be a peculiar luxury and variety in the dressing and serving of their viands, and that they should meet with no denial in the pursuit of their amours, however lawless. These habits having given rise in the one case to envy and offence and in the other to an outburst of hatred and passionate resentment, the kingship changed into a tyranny; the first steps towards its overthrow were taken by the subjects, and conspiracies began to be formed. These conspiracies were not the work of the worst men, but of the noblest, most high-spirited, and most courageous, because such men are least able to brook the insolence of princes. The people now having got leaders, would combine with them against the ruling powers for the reasons I stated above; kingship and monarchy would be utterly abolished, and in their place aristocracy would begin to grow. For the commons, as if bound to pay at once their debt of gratitude to the abolishers of monarchy, would make them their leaders and entrust their destinies to them. At first these chiefs gladly assumed this charge and regarded nothing as of greater importance than the common interest, administering the private and public affairs of the people with paternal solicitude. But here again when children inherited this position of authority from their fathers, having no experience of misfortune and none at all of civil equality and liberty of speech, and having been brought up from the cradle amid the evidences of the power and high position of their fathers, they abandoned themselves some to greed of gain and unscrupulous money-making, others to indulgence in wine and the convivial excess which accompanies it, and others again to the violation of women and the rape of boys; and thus converting the aristocracy into an oligarchy aroused in the people feelings similar to those of which I just spoke, and in consequence met with the same disastrous end as the tyrant. For whenever anyone who has noticed the jealousy and hatred with which you are regarded by the citizens, has the courage to speak or act against the chiefs of the state he has the whole mass of the people ready to back him. Next, when they have either killed or banished the oligarchs, they no longer venture to set a king over them, as they still remember with terror the injustice they suffered from the former ones, nor can they entrust the government with confidence to a select few, with the evidence before them of their recent error in doing so. Thus the only hope still surviving unimpaired is in themselves, and to this they resort, making the state a democracy instead of an oligarchy and assuming the responsibility for the conduct of affairs. Then as long as some of those survive who experienced the evils of oligarchical dominion, they are well pleased with the present form of government, and set a high value on equality and freedom of speech. But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence [mob-rule]. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.
Such is the cycle of political revolution, the course appointed by nature in which constitutions change, disappear, and finally return to the point from which they started. Anyone who clearly perceives this may indeed in speaking of the future of any state be wrong in his estimate of the time the process will take, but if his judgement is not tainted by animosity or jealousy, he will very seldom be mistaken as to the stage of growth or decline it has reached, and as to the form into which it will change. And especially in the case of the Roman state will this method enable us to arrive at a knowledge of its formation, growth, and greatest perfection, and likewise of the change for the worse which is sure to follow some day. For, as I said, this state, more than any other, has been formed and has grown naturally, and will undergo a natural decline and change to its contrary.
But when in time feelings of sociability and companionship begin to grow in such gatherings of men, than kingship has struck root; and the notions of goodness, justice, and their opposites begin to arise in men. The manner in which these notions come into being is as follows. [...] Now when the leading and most powerful man among the people always throws the weight of his authority on the side of the notions on such matters which generally prevail, and when in the opinion of his subjects he apportions rewards and penalties according to desert, they yield obedience to him no longer because they fear his force, but rather because their judgement approves him; and they join in maintaining his rule even if he is quite enfeebled by age, defending him with one consent and battling against those who conspire to overthrow his rule. Thus by insensible degrees the monarch becomes a king, ferocity and force having yielded the supremacy to reason.
Thus is formed naturally among men the first notion of goodness and justice, and their opposites; this is the beginning and birth of true kingship. For the people maintain the supreme power not only in the hands of these men themselves, but in those of their descendants, from the conviction that those born from and reared by such men will also have principles like to theirs. And if they ever are displeased with the descendants, they now choose their kings and rulers no longer for their bodily strength and brute courage, but for the excellency of their judgement and reasoning powers, as they have gained experience from actual facts of the difference between the one class of qualities and the other. In old times, then, those who had once been chosen to the royal office continued to hold it until they grew old, fortifying and enclosing fine strongholds with walls and acquiring lands, in the one case for the sake of the security of their subjects and in the other to provide them with abundance of the necessities of life. And while pursuing these aims, they were exempt from all vituperation or jealousy, as neither in their dress nor in their food did they make any great distinction, they lived very much like everyone else, not keeping apart from the people. But when they received the office by hereditary succession and found their safety now provided for, and more than sufficient provision of food, they gave way to their appetites owing to this superabundance, and came to think that the rulers must be distinguished from their subjects by a peculiar dress, that there should be a peculiar luxury and variety in the dressing and serving of their viands, and that they should meet with no denial in the pursuit of their amours, however lawless. These habits having given rise in the one case to envy and offence and in the other to an outburst of hatred and passionate resentment, the kingship changed into a tyranny; the first steps towards its overthrow were taken by the subjects, and conspiracies began to be formed. These conspiracies were not the work of the worst men, but of the noblest, most high-spirited, and most courageous, because such men are least able to brook the insolence of princes. The people now having got leaders, would combine with them against the ruling powers for the reasons I stated above; kingship and monarchy would be utterly abolished, and in their place aristocracy would begin to grow. For the commons, as if bound to pay at once their debt of gratitude to the abolishers of monarchy, would make them their leaders and entrust their destinies to them. At first these chiefs gladly assumed this charge and regarded nothing as of greater importance than the common interest, administering the private and public affairs of the people with paternal solicitude. But here again when children inherited this position of authority from their fathers, having no experience of misfortune and none at all of civil equality and liberty of speech, and having been brought up from the cradle amid the evidences of the power and high position of their fathers, they abandoned themselves some to greed of gain and unscrupulous money-making, others to indulgence in wine and the convivial excess which accompanies it, and others again to the violation of women and the rape of boys; and thus converting the aristocracy into an oligarchy aroused in the people feelings similar to those of which I just spoke, and in consequence met with the same disastrous end as the tyrant. For whenever anyone who has noticed the jealousy and hatred with which you are regarded by the citizens, has the courage to speak or act against the chiefs of the state he has the whole mass of the people ready to back him. Next, when they have either killed or banished the oligarchs, they no longer venture to set a king over them, as they still remember with terror the injustice they suffered from the former ones, nor can they entrust the government with confidence to a select few, with the evidence before them of their recent error in doing so. Thus the only hope still surviving unimpaired is in themselves, and to this they resort, making the state a democracy instead of an oligarchy and assuming the responsibility for the conduct of affairs. Then as long as some of those survive who experienced the evils of oligarchical dominion, they are well pleased with the present form of government, and set a high value on equality and freedom of speech. But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence [mob-rule]. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.
Such is the cycle of political revolution, the course appointed by nature in which constitutions change, disappear, and finally return to the point from which they started. Anyone who clearly perceives this may indeed in speaking of the future of any state be wrong in his estimate of the time the process will take, but if his judgement is not tainted by animosity or jealousy, he will very seldom be mistaken as to the stage of growth or decline it has reached, and as to the form into which it will change. And especially in the case of the Roman state will this method enable us to arrive at a knowledge of its formation, growth, and greatest perfection, and likewise of the change for the worse which is sure to follow some day. For, as I said, this state, more than any other, has been formed and has grown naturally, and will undergo a natural decline and change to its contrary.
Jump to: