It's interesting to observe how the institutional and technological changes since the American founding, and the systemic problems we easily note, align with his discussion. He theorized that each of the unmixed systems had weaknesses that led them to eventually be supplanted by another form, initially well-administered, which too would in time succumb to its inherent weaknesses. The mixed form resisted this cycle. So to the extent that the polity "un-mixes" the arrangement of powers, e.g. making the Senate directly elected instead of chosen by state legislatures without making a corresponding anti-democratic change, the system becomes more exposed to the cyclic risks associated with the unmixed state that was favored.
Historia civilis has a great video on the constitution of ancient Athens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIgMTsQXg3Q
Unless you're in the world where facts and truth don't actually matter.
Before social media, it was admitted a lot harder for unreliable sources to get an audience, so that skepticism was less critical.
But I think it will come back. Education is the antidote to social media news. Deity willing, the next government will see that and push for better education.
I have not found that to be the case and I think you should scrutinize that assumption very carefully.
Perhaps a majority of intellectuals in the West thought the Soviet Union was a step forward - again and again it's the 'smart' people who get the big things wrong.
I wasn't there at the time, so I have no way of knowing, but this smells like hindsight bias.
It had become obvious decades earlier that the Russian revolution had gone horribly wrong, after western powers realised that Soviet lumber exports were coming from forced labour camps.
And the fact that a Russian revolution would go wrong in this way was obvious even at the turn of the century. Lenin was put on a train in Switzerland and sent back to Russia specifically to cause chaos.
Going even further back, it was a constant frustration of Marx that the working classes in the UK (where he lived) stubbornly refused to rise in violent revolution. His ideology was well discussed in his own time but somehow actual working people were too smart to believe in it. Only intellectuals far removed from the real lower classes thought his theories were good.
tl;dr it's widely known that academics and other intellectuals couldn't accept the disastrous nature of communism long after supposedly more "stupid" people had fully understood the nature of Marxist ideology.
Even shorter tl;dr - education often seems to make people dumber in important ways, not smarter.
For example, a lot of conspiracy theorists are educated people. Their research just took an interesting turn at one point or another.
@bachbach's example of pro-Soviet intellectuals is a good one as well. There was a similar downtown on the other side of the wall too. Quite a few anti-soviet dissidents turned into conspiracy theorists later on. In both cases, people were happy to rebel and look for alternatives and their education did help them. But eventually their curiosity took them too far.
This is an interesting article on this topic:
Once you start evaluating arguments and doing your own research, a lot of difference opinions emerge. Which sometimes are labeled as fake news, even though they're not truly fake. If everyone did assess all news, most crazy fake news would be gone. Which is awesome. But many of non-mainstream opinions that technically are not fake would survive. Which is good too in my books, but some people wouldn't agree.
This is quite the hypothetical syllogism.