From the "Golden Age" to the "Age of Decline": "Left" and "Right" Conceptual Models of History

32
From the "Golden Age" to the "Age of Decline": "Left" and "Right" Conceptual Models of History

The political classification by the right-left principle is traditional and considered comprehensive, although discussions about the relationship between the "right" and "left" (given the many different classifications and the vagueness of some of them) took place throughout the 20th century and continue today. However, as the candidate of philosophical sciences Dmitry Moiseyev rightly notes, there is a fundamental opposition between the left and the right in relation to stories.

Any essentially “left” theory proceeds from the understanding of history as endless progress (“from the darkness of the past to the light of the future”) and evolution (“from wilder, simplified and primitive forms to more “civilized” ones”), as a gradual turn towards justice – from all kinds of forms of discrimination to the establishment of more honest and fair (from the point of view of ideas about the desire for equality) formations in all respects [2].



In turn, the “right” theory views history either as a downward movement (from the “golden age” to the “age of decline”), or as a movement along a kind of spiral, all forms of which have cycles beginning with birth and ending with death (which we can observe, for example, in Oswald Spengler).

In other words, from the point of view of progressives, history is a linear trend of gradual development and “movement towards freedom,” while from the point of view of the right, history either moves in a circle with alternating “light” and “dark” cycles, or, at best, in a spiral.

Thus, conceptual models of history in left and right philosophical and political thought have always been polar. However, as practice shows, left concepts of history are much more vulnerable to criticism than right ones.

"Left" views on history: the concept of linear progress


The French Revolution put forward the concept of linear progress, which passes through various stages. The most famous philosophers of linear progress are Comte, Marx, Tylor and Spencer. According to Comte, “human history is linear, and has passed through stages or epochs that most closely resemble the intellectual development of the individual” [3].

Comte, Marx and Spencer believed that history could be viewed as a slow and gradual, but continuous ascent to a certain goal. In Marxism, the orthodox scheme of five formations prevailed: according to this scheme, humanity goes through five successive stages in its development – ​​primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalist and communist formations [4].

Spencer considers the stages of evolution of human society and culture from "savagery" and "barbarism" to the highest stages of civilization, from "archaic" or "traditional" society to "modern". He was convinced of the unilinear nature of the progress of society and culture.

It is worth noting here that the liberal and Marxist approaches to history, which prevailed during the heyday and decline of industrial civilization (19th-20th centuries), despite all the apparent antagonism, had common roots and features as components of the industrial scientific paradigm and differed greatly from the civilizational approach to history.

Firstly, both liberalism and Marxism proceed from the primacy of the economy in the structure and dynamics of society – property and the market, Homo economicus (liberalism), productive forces, production relations as a basis (Marxism) [1]. While the civilizational approach asserts the primacy of the spiritual sphere – science, culture, education, ethics, religion.

Secondly, both liberalism and Marxism take as their basis the linear-progressive trajectory of society's development, its direct ascent from stage to stage. Despite the fact that all scientific schools of liberalism and Marxism pay attention to the study of cycles and crises, they do so only to prove that deviations from direct development are exceptions [1].

The theory of civilizations, on the contrary, emphasizes the recognition of the cyclical patterns of the dynamics of society as its fundamental bases, inevitably inherent in it in the past, present and future. These patterns are considered not deviations from the norm, but the norm itself. Therefore, the study of cycles and crises in all spheres of society and at all stages of its dynamics is the cornerstone of the theory of civilizations [1].

Thirdly, the consequence of the two differences mentioned above is the different approach of formational and civilizational theories to the periodization of human history. Liberalism distinguishes prehistory, the pre-market stage of development; history itself, when the formation and spread of the capitalist market economy and bourgeois democracy took place; the “end of history”, when these systems triumphed throughout the world. There is nowhere to go further and there is no point in doing so.

Marxist historical materialism is based on the theory of successive socio-economic formations: primitive communal, which lasted for millions of years; slave; feudal; capitalist; communist, which begins with socialism and will be established forever. This is also the “end of history”, only under a different sauce than that of liberalism [1].

Fourthly, both liberalism and Marxism imagine the future as the complete realization and final triumph of the ideals they profess – either a capitalist market economy and bourgeois democracy, or a unified, uniform communist society that has overcome all social differences, in which the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” will be realized.

In turn, supporters of the civilizational approach to the history and future of humanity are confident that cycles and crises, the periodic change of historical supercycles, world civilizations and generations of local civilizations will persist as long as human society exists. In the same way, new challenges of the time will arise, and the need to give adequate answers to them will be necessary, and civilizational diversity will be preserved [1].

"Right" Views of History: The Cyclical Concept of History


Representatives of the cyclical approach, as a rule, proceed from the conviction that "there is nothing in our world that is outside of time and outside of the cycle. Time is not linear, but cyclical. The cycle is an obligatory property of consciousness. It is the beginning and the end. It is, first of all, a property of time" [5].

There are many cyclical theories. The most pessimistic views were those of European traditionalists, who believed that movement is always regressive due to the growth of destructive forces and as a result of objective regularity ("cyclical laws"). Therefore, natural and social cataclysms occur periodically, as a result of which truths previously accessible to humanity become increasingly hidden and inaccessible [6].

The first concepts of cyclic dynamics emphasized the interrelationship of natural cycles, socio-historical and political processes. As a rule, they had a pronounced mythologized character. One of the first was the ancient Greek thinker Hesiod (7th century BC). Hesiod's cyclic concept is expressed in the legend of the "Five Ages" (golden, silver, copper, heroic and iron), or five generations of people, with each subsequent generation being worse than the previous one.

The main provisions of Hesiod's cyclical concepts were later used by Plato. It can be said that Plato was one of the first in Ancient Greece to propose and use the concept of cyclicity to solve practical policy issues. In the dialogue "The Republic", Plato approaches the classical definition of a cycle in the form of a circle. Using Hesiod's myth of the "Five Ages", he classifies forms of government in a descending line from aristocracy to tyranny based on the gradual weakening of moral and virtuous principles in people [5].

However, the concept of cyclical development received its fundamental impetus in the New Age, since a number of philosophers tried to understand the emerging changes of a new type. In the political doctrines of the New Age, the theory of cyclical development was consistently developed by Giambattista Vico (1668–1744) in his treatise “Foundations of a New Science on the General Nature of Nations.”

In his opinion, all nations evolve according to a universal pattern, repeating the pattern of individual development: birth, progressive growth, decline and death – such a chain of regularities forms the cyclical nature of the historical process. His cyclical model is combined with the idea of ​​the progressive development of nations and is not a cyclical-circular model, but rather a sinusoidal one, with phases of rise, flourishing and decline. In a very metaphorical form, Vico in his work states the idea of ​​uneven political development, which actually takes his theory beyond the traditionalist idea of ​​a cycle and thus distinguishes his concept from the concepts of thinkers of antiquity and the Renaissance [5].

One of the most thoroughly developed cyclical concepts is the concept of Nikolai Danilevsky. In Danilevsky's model, the history of mankind is presented as the development of separate, closed cultural-historical types, the bearers of which are natural, i.e. historically formed groups of people. These cultural-historical types do not have a common destiny, and their originality and uniqueness are determined by natural, ethnographic factors [7].

In the first decades of the 20th century, the German philosopher Oswald Spengler, in his work The Decline of the West, proposed the most consistent concept of cyclicality, which most clearly opposed the evolutionary theories that dominated science, focused on the idea of ​​the unity of human history and a linear-stage vision of the progress of social development.

Spengler proposed replacing the leveling unity of the idea of ​​the world-historical process with a richer picture – a cyclical history of the emergence, flourishing and death of numerous original and unique cultures. Adhering to the cyclical model, Spengler also sought to capture cyclical forms using two categories: the mental image of life cycles (youth, maturity, aging and death) and the mental image of the alternation of seasons (spring, summer, autumn, winter).

Spengler stated that cultures, like organisms, have their own destiny, which accompanies them from birth to death. The dying of any culture, whether Egyptian or "Faustian" (that is, Western culture of the 5th-XNUMXth centuries), is characterized by the transition from culture to civilization. Hence the key opposition in his conception between "becoming" (culture) and "becoming" (civilization) [XNUMX].

Spengler paid more attention to the period of decline of culture, rather than to the analysis of the conditions of its emergence. Although in his analysis of the decadence of European culture he proceeded from the philosophy of Nietzsche, he rejected Nietzsche's optimistic opinion that it could still be reborn. The German thinker believed that people can only restrain the processes of cultural decay for some time, but are not capable of reviving cultural heights.

The theory of civilizations by the English historian Arnold Toynbee continues the line of Danilevsky and Spengler and can be considered the culmination of the development of the theory of local civilizations. According to Toynbee, all civilizations have gone through a stage of formation; most have also reached their peak, and a few have undergone a process of disintegration, ending in their final destruction. He admits that any civilization is capable of leaving its historical distance, so the time of existence of a particular civilization cannot be predetermined in advance. Although Toynbee generally reproduces Spengler's idea of ​​cyclicity, he, however, rejects the latter's historical fatalism [8].

Conclusion


In conclusion, it should be noted that the concept of linear progress, which is supported by left-wing thinkers, is inadequate to the post-industrial reality of the 21st century, and historical realities clearly demonstrate this. Fukuyama’s idea of ​​the “end of history” about the triumph of liberal democracy throughout the world, and the idea of ​​the “triumph of world communism”, which Marx dreamed of, are nothing more than utopias that will never be realized.

References
[1]. Kuzyk B. N., Yakovets Yu. V. Civilizations: Theory, History, Dialogue, Future: In 2 volumes / B. N. Kuzyk, Yu. V. Yakovets; Author of the introduction A. D. Nekipelov. – M.: Institute of Economic Strategies, 2006.
[2]. Moiseev D. S. Methodological problems of defining political significations in the modern world // Science as a public good: a collection of scientific articles. Vol. 2., – M.: Russian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science, 2020.
[3]. See Nisbet Robert. Progress: the history of an idea / Robert Nisbet; trans. from English, edited by Yu. Kuznetsov and Gr. Sapov. – M.: IRISEN, 2007.
[4]. Kradin N.N. The East and the World-Historical Process. Proceedings of the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024.
[5]. Loginov A. V. Concepts of the political cycle: methodology of their study and scientific application: dissertation ... Doctor of Political Science: 23.00.01 – Saratov, 2015.
[6]. History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia. – Minsk.: Interpressservice; Book House. 2002
[7]. Philosophy of History: Textbook / Edited by prof. A.S. Panarin. – M.: Gardariki, 1999.
[8]. Afanasyev V.V. Cycles and society: Monograph - M.: “Canon +” ROOI “Rehabilitation”, 2009.
32 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    29 January 2025 05: 39
    The concept of linear progress, which is held by left-wing thinkers, is inadequate to the post-industrial reality of the 21st century, and historical realities clearly demonstrate this.

    Who proved this? Hesiod or Danilevsky?
    1. +3
      29 January 2025 05: 46
      Quote: Edward Vashchenko
      Who proved this? Hesiod or Danilevsky?
      This is all completely unproven, like all philosophy. The level of salon talk
    2. +4
      29 January 2025 06: 10
      Who proved this? Hesiod or Danilevsky?

      How, who? The author of the article.. laughing Hesiod and Danilevsky are nervously smoking.
      1. +8
        29 January 2025 07: 11
        Alexey, good morning!
        It turns out strange that the "dispute" is with the left and liberal ideology, but on the side of the "right" ideology are Hesiod, who lived in the 7th century BC, Toynbee, whose civilizational theory is extremely difficult to classify as right-wing, he would have been amazed!
        Of course, it could be Danilevsky, whose ideas became popular in our country only in the 90s, a hundred years after the first publication, which did not arouse any interest in Russian society.
        AND THAT'S IT.
        Where are the modern prominent philosophers of the right-wing movement?
        The same goes for the left? Marx? And where is the entire 20th century?: Lenin, Gramsci, and Baudrillard? Finally, Stalin - the left of the left.
        Fukuyami wrote his "end" in 1992!
        Where is modernity? This isn’t about the dispute between Plato and Socrates?
        At least Wallerstein?
        laughing
        1. +1
          29 January 2025 17: 38
          And where is the entire 20th century?: Lenin, Gramsci, and Baudrillard? And finally, Stalin - the left of the left.

          Why? The author holds extreme right-wing views, why does he need an analysis? According to the meaning of the article, the right is right, period. He forgets only one thing, if a person and society do not develop, then the person and society degrade. Which is what we are actually seeing now.
    3. +1
      29 January 2025 11: 50
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      Who proved this?

      No one, but the situation obliges us to throw a banana peel at the communists. That's how it has to be.
    4. +1
      8 February 2025 16: 45
      Quote: Eduard Vaschenko
      Who proved this? Hesiod or Danilevsky?

      Victor Biryukov, yes
  2. +3
    29 January 2025 05: 51
    A country cannot live without an image of the future. Capitalism has nothing to offer except future wars. Socialism surrounded by capitalism also cannot avoid war. Socialism can already be forgotten, since the ideas of the left have already undergone ugly forms in the 70s. Now there is a struggle between one ideological emptiness and another.
  3. +9
    29 January 2025 06: 04
    Our respected author generally "roots for our people", for the Russian people, and writes quite reasonable articles that touch on current politics. But when it comes to theory and ideology (which he also likes to write about), then you can't help but bring the saints. It feels like he's writing a second-year political science student who is taught by our "Orthodox oligarch" Mr. Malofeev.
    The author mixes up literally everything, and at the same time easily gives out ideas that cause nothing but a smile (for example, that "left-wing concepts of history are much more vulnerable to criticism than right-wing ones").
    Here one can refute almost all paragraphs of this article. But the trouble is that the author has a problem with the definitions themselves.
    "Left and right" have nothing to do with the concepts of historical development. These concepts, historically dating back to the French Revolution, mean the left - opponents of the existing order, the right - either its supporters, or those who believe that it should be transformed gradually (conditional conservatives).
    However, in Russia these concepts have transformed their meaning and in our country the left are supporters of social justice, and the right are supporters of private property and capitalism.
    And those who believe that history develops linearly can be both left and right in both the European and Russian interpretations of this concept, and even at different points in time. And supporters of the cyclical approach can be equally left and right at different points in time.
    I won't even mention the author's ideas about Marxism and liberalism (which he also mixes with each other). Communism according to Marx is "the end of history and a monotonous utopia". Although in reality everything is exactly the opposite. It is its beginning and end, prehistory, and it is extremely changeable, because Marx's method is dialectics, and dialectics is eternal change.
  4. +3
    29 January 2025 06: 04
    The idea of ​​the “end of history” expressed by Fukuyama about the triumph of liberal democracy throughout the world, and the idea of ​​the “triumph of world communism” dreamed of by Marx are nothing more than utopias that will never be realized.
    But fascism today, which is quietly spreading across the planet in various forms, is a reality.
    1. +1
      29 January 2025 11: 53
      Quote: parusnik
      which is quietly spreading across the planet,

      Yes, not quiet anymore. Well, this is an objective process, true leftism is banned, the right rules the roost.................
      1. +1
        29 January 2025 17: 53
        true leftism is banned
        About fascism, this already happened in Europe in the last century... the 30s... Communist parties were banned in most countries. The Baltics, Poland, Germany, the Balkan countries, France, Spain, Italy, Finland, and in other countries they existed legally or semi-legally. And who replaced them? The pseudo-leftists... But then there was the Third International, the USSR. And now? Now, alas, there is confusion and vacillation, but there are countries, European ones at that, where communist parties are being revived. And Russia is in the forefront of the fighters against communism, as was stated by its first president in Washington.
        1. +1
          29 January 2025 18: 19
          Quote: parusnik
          Pseudo-lobed

          And there's plenty of this stuff.
          1. +1
            29 January 2025 18: 21
            And there's plenty of this stuff.
            I strongly agree
  5. +9
    29 January 2025 06: 34
    Nonsense. Marxism never presented the development of society as a linear ascending progress. For Marxists, the development of society is a complex spiral movement, where there is both development and transition to a higher level, and reactionary decline and rollback.
    And “formations” are not “stages of progress”, but a description of the forms of socio-economic relationships that prevail in a particular community.
    1. Fat
      +1
      29 January 2025 07: 45
      Quote: Yuras_Belarus
      Bredyatina.

      Well, maybe it's not "nonsense". But the author's attempt to put the concepts on the shelves clearly failed. request
  6. +2
    29 January 2025 07: 23
    The golden age of right-wing forces coming to power comes when an economic crisis occurs in countries. All fascist parties came to power at such times in the past. They came and are coming to power with the deception that these parties are fighting for justice. Hitler came to power through elections. Having promised National Socialism. Some people are still confused by this name. The Germans have only the name of socialism left. The barons are still the same. Even when approaching the first person, the Fuhrer. This deception has been going on for centuries. Some expose it. And some are led by this worldwide deception.
    1. +4
      29 January 2025 13: 57
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      At such a time in the past all the fascist parties came.
      Fascist parties appear as soon as there is a possibility of communists coming to power in countries. Hitler was brought to power and all violations of Versailles were closed to them when it became necessary to make cannon fodder out of the Germans, and anti-USSR out of the previously defeated Germany. To this end, write off debts, get out of the crisis, the Great Depression, and, naturally, cash in on blood, making super profits. This is how capitalism reboots its economic pyramid, where for the top to prosper, it is necessary to constantly expand the base, or, war-reboot. By the way, "Now there is a struggle between one ideological void and another.", is fair if we talk about capitalism without socialism. That "We can already forget about socialism, since the ideas of the left have already undergone ugly forms in the 70s", perhaps, one can only speak about ugly forms, but not about the inferiority of the idea itself, which must be revived without ugly forms.
  7. 0
    29 January 2025 08: 22
    How many centuries have passed since Plato. And everyone is guided by his vision of the world. It's funny.
    And what's also annoying is that the court gossips have started to recall Spegler very often. I thought, what's the point? But the article gave an explanation. Like, don't expect a bright future! It's only going to get worse!
  8. +5
    29 January 2025 08: 31
    Spencer, Spencer, Spencer... This is not the same Herbert whose views served as a "scientific" cover for racial prejudice. And Darwin's theory of evolution was interpreted by Spencer as a description of intellectual and moral progress. And based on his doctrine of social Darwinism, Spencer came to the conclusion that non-white races are lower on the evolutionary ladder than Europeans. His views contributed to the development of such practices as forced sterilization of criminals and the "feeble-minded." And the ideology of "inferior races" was used by the Nazis to justify the murder of Slavs, Jews, and Gypsies. Little by little, the author promotes fascist ideas in society... miles Pradon, ideas of revolutionary conservatism. Yes
  9. +1
    29 January 2025 09: 42
    Just as the sapiens who ate the last Neanderthal did not know that his descendants would still have a race of civilizations, so we do not know what kind of evolution awaits us, after the "universal victory of communism", especially since the last "bourgeois" have not yet been eaten, these evolutions seem to be direct, but with numerous branches from which evolution chooses the most effective, and only then can the "correct" line be drawn.
  10. +4
    29 January 2025 09: 47
    I envy the ability of some people to write a long text or give a long speech using many terms and references and at the same time say nothing of substance. A funny tactic is emerging now - in order to hide a problem or avoid answering a question, you don't have to lie, cheat or be cunning. It is enough to put forward several versions /mostly wild/ and drown the problem in furious discussions and debates, avoiding answering the main question.
    1. 0
      29 January 2025 23: 48
      It is enough to put forward several versions /mostly wild/ and drown the problem in furious discussions and debates, avoiding answering the main question.
      In order not to envy others, you need to study on marketing or psychological courses like "working with objections" :). This system is quite simple and effective, based on manipulation - logic and facts.
      Among other things, the following technique is studied there, which is called the "straw man" (or "straw argument"). This technique consists of one of the participants in a debate or discussion distorting, simplifying, or attributing a non-existent or weaker thesis to the opponent, in order to then easily refute it.

      An example would be when someone opposed to a particular policy claims that his opponent wants to completely abolish all social programs, when in fact the opponent only proposes reforming them. Thus, the opponent can more easily attack and refute this distorted argument than his true position.
      In the Internet community as a whole and on this site, the use of both this and other methods of attempting to strengthen, justify or defend one's point of view through manipulation and outright forgery is numerous.
      1. 0
        30 January 2025 03: 57
        This technique consists of one of the participants in a debate or discussion distorting or simplifying
        never argue with idiots...you will sink to their level where they will crush you with their authority bully
  11. +1
    29 January 2025 12: 44
    These theories and schools of thought are interesting in themselves, but a significant part of them originated at a time when it seemed that everything could be systematized and some kind of harmonious or mathematical model could be built, more or less simply put together.
    In fact, human history could perhaps fit into a linear model IF it were isolated from the many large factors living THEIR OWN lives.
    Here we take, for example, the Mongol expansion - a primitive society in general simply rolled across Eurasia, taking cities and subjugating countries, breaking down the gates of ancient states and their armies. And bringing its despotic models where by that time there were already others. From the point of view of the progressive approach, this should not have happened and even more so stretched out for centuries. However, the scheme of "the movement of history" gave itself a reverse.
    Some discoveries (like iron or stirrups) can also influence history by changing its measured flow and changing the local or even global logic of events of movement.
    In other words, I want to say that the “historical contour” is not a closed system, subject to a certain logic - of course, in “hothouse” conditions it +- strives for this, for some kind of system, but there are Achtungs, external emanations or invasions that distort this logic, reverse it and simply break it. For example, the USSR can easily collapse in an era when networks and information technologies ALREADY exist that allow solving its fundamental problems. For example, the USA creates a consumer society by “breaking” the logic of the Marxist dead end of capitalism, and then simply launches chimeric capitalist instruments like cryptocurrencies or “intangible values”. For example, in the 20th or even in the 21st century, populations that are quite significant and have unlimited access to knowledge still prefer obscurantism, violence, poverty and disorganization. They literally laugh at both cycles and linear progress, as if stuck in the “Groundhog Day” of their existence.

    I will also separately highlight my thought about the dependence of history on discoveries. This is a non-linear dependence. Its depth is significant and it also distorts some logical flow of history. Some Saudis or UAE, well, who were they before the discovery of oil fields? Stupidly - a backwater. And now they live there in a way they should not have lived in a "linear" world. For example, tomorrow they open a thermonuclear reactor with a coefficient much greater than 1, this in a short time turns states dependent on energy - into independent ones. And the logic of subordination through the construction of global energy policy collapses with a bang. Or, for example, they invent an electron-beam method of exposure in microelectronic lithography - and this entire system of technological control, which the US has been building for decades, will collapse to hell.
    I'm not saying that it will happen - I'm saying that it CAN happen, and if it does, it will screw up the logic of the process to hell, weak states can become factors, strong ones can lose this factor, a couple of discoveries and the world situation changes. Where there was a desert and camel shit - there are civilized modern cities, and where they launched rockets to Venus and spacecraft to the Moon - old factories will rot and villages will drink themselves to death.

    Is it possible to talk about some internal movement of the process as something serious, if this process, even existing, is constantly and absolutely unpredictably "introduced" by significant adjustments by external factors? It is absolutely impossible to work with this! It is not at all necessary that history leads us to the better - after all, the "apogee" will not necessarily be paradise. In an industrial chicken coop, the chicken is at the apogee of the chicken coop - it is not sick, well-fed, clean, does not eat any nasty things. But by analogy, can we say that this apogee makes it happier or its life better? Also, historical movement - its CERTAIN direction (constantly adjusted or reversed by external processes) will not necessarily lead people to the light. Perhaps we will not just not like the "apogee" - but will stupidly destroy civilization precisely through over-regulation and over-orderliness.
    1. +3
      29 January 2025 16: 06
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      I will also separately highlight my thought about the dependence of history on discoveries.

      After all, it is changes in social relations, not discoveries, that drive history.
      Gunpowder was invented long before it "shot" in Europe, and the emergence of the Internet did not save the USSR from economic ruin, as you rightly noted.
      Social relations are very heterogeneous in space, and that is why it is difficult to predict global development. This is good, because it protects the world from the onset of a complete Fukuyama, it postpones the end of history, or as you call it - "the apogee".
      1. +1
        29 January 2025 18: 28
        And here one could agree about changes in social relations, but these changes are often based on the fruits of progress and discoveries, on what individual populations possess (or do not possess) from material and evolutionary-culling qualities, and also, often, they simply depend on “how the cards fall.”
        All this does not fit well with some kind of systematics - after all, from the point of view of systematics, an extremely archaic system cannot coexist with a modern one, because it must simply fall apart, or some revolutionary changes must occur, or better organized and more capable neighbors must tear such an archaic system apart without a trace.
        However, we see how for quite a long period of time states coexist in which there are still vestiges of slavery and high-tech states. As such, the "idea" is often incapable of transforming some populations, while others, like the Scandinavians, can come to the fruits of ideas without them (in fact, a social state without socialists or left-wing theorists at the root). It's just that some populations seem to be better tuned to order and interaction, while others are worse - but the laws of certain movements in social relations or some "logic of the direction of history" seem to work for neither of them.
        In resource-rich but population-poor countries, this tendency does not develop at all - some creative movements are suppressed by archaism and the forces interested in this archaism effectively enough that progress does not move at all, or even on the contrary, regressive leaps occur (as we see in the example of Afghanistan or a number of African countries), that is, society there is not moving anywhere or is moving backwards.
        If we take the Scandinavian countries or some Australia - there we also do not see exactly that "movement", progressive things coexist with rather ossified, not developing further social relations. I mean that if we consider these countries as some kind of "flagship" of successful social cooperation for the good, then the question arises - why do we not see further development of societies in these countries, so to speak, at the cutting edge of the achieved progress? This, in my opinion, is a breakthrough success, when the population reaches certain values ​​of quality of life and a stable "+" structure, and then it is satisfied "as is", it does not move further. Which, in general, also rejects theses about some driving forces of society.
        It would seem that history kicks other countries into their situation - both good and bad. And they remain there, being socially inert and unable to change even minor circumstantial factors. And other societies can do this - worsening or improving their situation, as in our example or the PRC.

        I don't see a system in this. No, there may be one - but in a complex system of many factors, the flow of this system itself under normal conditions has no meaning, because 90% of the time it does not flow like that. Factors influence it, distorting its flow or reversing it. It is impossible to imagine history as something logical, although it is possible to catch some movement - in the direction of improving rights, opportunities and life. At the same time, if desired, it is possible to catch the distortion of these things in the process of achieving - the right is replaced by deep regulation, real opportunities are replaced by layers of potential barriers separating the actually achievable from the empirically achievable. Improving life also has its downside - the values ​​of this life, its goals, its rhythms change, it is unknown to what extent its essence has been deformed - because our civilization has stopped thinking and contemplating, has stopped choosing with the heart, so to speak.

        This system cannot be outlined as a simple model; it is a multifactorial model in which extraneous factors obscure the main motive so much that it is often not heard.
        If we take our time - we have been moving for quite a long time in the direction of some global liberal trend. And where have we ended up? In societies stuffed with cameras, in digital concentration camps, imposing a vision with laws and propaganda. The logic of the path collapsed at its end so gracefully that no one understood how it happened.
        1. 0
          29 January 2025 19: 23
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          And here one could agree about changes in social relations, but these changes are often based on the fruits of progress and discoveries, on what individual populations possess (or do not possess) from material and evolutionary-culling qualities, and also, often, they simply depend on “how the cards fall.”

          It seems to me that the basis of social relations in a particular place is not the availability of technologies or resources, not the will of chance, but the mentality of the people participating in these relations. From this point of view, all the inconsistencies that you mentioned are easily explained. Mentality, in turn, cannot change quickly and progressively, it is inert, hence we see its changes in leaps and bounds, as a result of major upheavals and crises, the way out of which can occur in unconventional ways, thanks to new material conditions. But even as a result of these tectonic shifts, we observe some rollback in each case. And the sharper the leap forward, the stronger the recoil that follows. In this sense, evolutionists are right - the smoother the forward movement, the fewer relapses to the old. This pattern also works in particular cases, within the framework of a particular sphere of life in a particular society.
    2. +2
      29 January 2025 17: 36
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      For example, in the 20th or even 21st century, populations that are quite significant and have unlimited access to knowledge still prefer obscurantism, violence, poverty and disorganization; they literally laugh at both cycles and linear progress, as if they were stuck in the “Groundhog Day” of their existence.

      You write beautifully. And in general everything is correct, but your amendment to the linear theories of historical development has long been included in them.
      If you describe them as the author does, then yes, your logic is correct. But it greatly simplifies them. Even classical Marxism is extremely nonlinear, and its modern variations try to include in the scheme of social development not only the factor of development of productive forces and their discrepancy with production relations.
      1. 0
        29 January 2025 18: 39
        All these slender models remind me of the essence of the model of the movement of bodies of the solar (for example) system. We can predict with incredible accuracy the position of large ones for a year, five, ten, a hundred. It seems that this is science - but in fact, the further, the more it moves, and with all these predictions for centuries + you can wipe your ass, because the bodies interact with each other, each affects each and all this together cannot be taken into account in any way. Calculations are moving, all the more approximately - the further.
        Well, in the case of human history, the threshold for disruption of the system occurs much sooner than centuries; before WW1, for example, no one would have dreamed up either the Great Patriotic War in the Russian Empire or Hitler later.
        It was possible to assume the collapse of the Ottoman Empire even then, but the loss of colonies by Great Britain and France - no, that was unthinkable.
        It would seem that if there were a system, it would be able to predict such large things, but all that systematists see is an EXTREMELY APPROXIMATE, abstract direction of some movement AS A WHOLE. Is it possible to use this somehow? No, I don't think so. When people discover a system in something, they usually exploit it positively - but here we don't see positive exploitation. The same Marx wrote a ton of clever stuff, but we don't see socialist or communist states according to his calculations, and on the contrary - the capital is alive and well and doesn't think of degenerating.

        All these "ideas about the system" remind me of the "sense of God", which many explain that he exists. Well, like "I feel him - that means he exists!" This is probably from the realm of the irrational - so we can see the face of Christ or Carlson with a propeller in a pattern of leaves, but this is nothing more than a feature of our brain, trying to systematize and find patterns and signs in chaos.
        Perhaps there really is no system here - there is simply a DESIRE to find it, similar to the desire of a believer. If this system were some kind of organized movement, it would have been discovered long ago, described and subordinated on the basis of these patterns. Which I personally do not observe.
    3. 0
      29 January 2025 18: 49
      I would like to remind the author of the article and respected polemicists about the relay-stage concept of world history created by the Russian philosopher Yu. Semenov.
  12. +1
    31 January 2025 03: 24
    Can I limit myself to the first two paragraphs?
    The author has confused warm with prickly. Left and right do not relate to the methodology of studying history. There is simply scientific knowledge of history. There is unscientific knowledge of history. Left and right are attitudes toward product distribution.