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@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

*Soft men made me hard again wink

[–] neanderthal@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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 6 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Rome, Greece, all democracies, they fail because people are fucking stupid.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks 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 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Neither is the US. Electoral college & Gerrymandering have a similar effect. The US isn't without reason considered to be just a flawed democracy. But it's kinda besides the point, it's not that Deep 🐬, just a modern pop-culture reference.

[–] belastend 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 2 weeks ago

You're just being pedantic because the point being made flew completely over your head.