• SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 month ago

    Anacyclosis is a political theory that describes the cyclical nature of political systems, suggesting that governments progress through a series of stages from monarchy to tyranny, then to aristocracy, democracy, and eventually back to monarchy. This concept emphasizes the inevitable decline of political systems as they shift between these forms, influenced by internal and external factors.

    • humblebun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Mom, please take me home. Soft men made the times hard again 😭😭😭

    • neanderthal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This is ANCIENT. Plato wrote this in Republic.

      ETA: It has been a while, so I don’t know the exact order Plato’s cycle has.

      • abrake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        In the Republic, it basically goes: aristocracy (of philosophers) -> aristocracy (of warriors) -> oligarchy -> democracy -> tyranny

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      They fail because people are lied to. Because they are used, and abused, and offered limited resources.

      So they turn to someone who gives them hopeful words. Sadly those words are often lies.

      Laying at the feet of “stupidity” is over-simplifying it because it makes the hurt a little less.

      If all this suffering can just be laid at “ur dum” it hurts just a little less. But it’s a terrible anesthetic that makes the next hurt that much more likely.

    • belastend@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Haha, good one. Neither were democracies in the modern sense, in both cases voting right were so restrictive that large parts of the population did not matter.

      Imagine a first past the post system but instead of states, you are grouped together by income.

      And instead of voting simulaneously, the richest blocks votes first.

      And now imagine, that 50% of the american populace gets one of 150 electors.

      The vast majority of romans IN ROME never got to vote on any of the important positions.

        • belastend@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          You compare a flawed democracy to a non-democracy. Imagine moving the poorer half of America to one state, giving that state a single elector and letting them only vote if the vote so far has been perfectly split.

          The US is on paper a flawed democracy and in reality an even more flawed democracy. The roman democracy did not even exist on paper.

          Maybe its not that deep, i just don’t like when people call Rome a democracy, when it did really come close to one. Or compare them to modern systems of government.