10-03-2016, 07:02 AM
(10-02-2016, 01:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote: What I have found intriguing is how all the articles I have seen have mentioned the 1850's (i.e. the building to the Civil War 4T) as a key thing in the book, yet Turchin as this as a mid-cycle burst of instability, like the 13th century Baron's wars or the mid-Tudor crisis, which are not major episodes of unrest according to secular cycle theory.
I see the Civil War as a big deal, an example of state breakdown that marks the boundary of a secular cycle. That is I think in modern industrial societies, Turchin's secular cycle is essentially the same as S&H's saecular cycle. It is clear he hasn't changed his views, but how does he see the Civil War? Another reason why I am eager the read the book.
What is important about this question is, Turchin's first secular cycle spans TWO saecula. Does he think we are nearing the end of the second one (1930- ) soon (which would mean this secular cycle is ONE saecula long) or not?
I'm guessing because the Civil War was followed by the Gilded Age and that despite the destruction of the Southern elite it did not result in a significant reduction in inequality, it just shifted a good portion of the wealth from Southern planters to Northern industrialists? Given the various thinking here of a double-saeculum pattern I suspect that Turchin's cycle really is 2 saecula long, and our current time is akin to the Civil War and the next 1T will be akin to the Gilded Age.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain