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.
Information