>democracies and anarchies historically get steamrolled by dictatorships and autocracies
Is that actually true? Probably not in the 20th century.
Is that actually true? Probably not in the 20th century.
But earlier than that, European history in particular is rife with small communities and larger republics or representative democracies eventually getting devoured by the military ambitions of the few and the many who follow them as divine leaders or power-mongers.
My suspicion is that the more open and egalitarian and a democracy is, the more resistant it is to corruption, and the more faith the people have in it. The US was denying like half of our population (women) voting rights until like 1920, so it is hard spot trends in such a short time scale. I mean it is probably just a coincidence of history and geography that we’ve been absurdly successful since then.
Nowadays I’d be more worried about the trajectory:
Democracy->Oligarchy->Populist backlash/Mob rule->Tyranny.
Although I guess that’s really tied to concerns about the long term trajectory for the US (hey at least it isn’t tied to ancient concerns about the trajectory of Athens or whatever).
His view is not that systems collapse due to some immediately apparent failing, but rather due to an excess of the strength of any given system. In democracy that strength, and excess, is freedom. So, for instance, he observes how freedom trends towards a disdain for authority which, taken to its natural extreme, tends to lead to chaos and lawlessness. Another is class warfare. In democracy, the political class is largely comprised of the most effective of the "drones." They will make their way to power, actively looting the wealth of the nation; spreading a taste to the masses for support, while keeping the lion's share for themselves. But of course the wealth of the "nation" is, in reality, the wealth of other people.
Those negatively affected tended to start pushing back. They, in turn, are demonized by the drones in power and next thing you know, there's class conflict. And quite an ironic one at that, as it's led by rich politicians pretending to be part of the masses. Ultimately the end of democracy, and transition to tyranny, comes about when the masses manage to elevate somebody they see as genuinely representing them. And this person is first struck down by the powers that be for fear of what he might to do them, only to come back ever more empowered - and eventually seizing on all of power, something actively cheered on by his supporters.
----
Reading Plato is largely what made me realize that "history repeats itself" is not some abstract concept where things kind of repeat the same patterns if you squint hard enough. It is completely literal. We keep repeating the exact same things, over and over again, with little more than technology providing a change of scenery. My description above sounds like I'm retrofitting current events into Plato. I am not. Current events just fit his text in a completely uncanny fashion.
[1] - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm#Bo...
It's not true today because of how OP the US is in geography+natural resources, but also from alliances like NATO. Without NATO European states would be getting flipped one by one (as seen by what happens to states not in it). Rome also benefitted from her geography immensely. Same for the Swiss.
Isolated democracies are really vulnerable to outside manipulation. Philip II was famous for buying off all the Athenian actors+politicians who love to hang out with his courtiers. The story of Demosthenes is a Cassandra-style tragedy.
Federalism was a giant patch that massively increased the robustness of democracies/republics.
The system basically had an "In case of populism, break glass" feature built in and the nazis figured out how to pick up the hammer. Not to imply they didn't enjoy some popular support from the German people prior, but once they had Hitler clicked in and able to dissolve the Reichstag, that support was irrelevant.
The U.S. isn't an old nation, but it's the oldest continuous democracy. It was meticulously designed to avoid such issues, but I wouldn't say it's immune either.
By the way, as a natural born quibbler, I upvoted your post.
If we want to involve fire, I’m not sure… freer, more open societies seem to result in better productivity. Maybe there’s some analogy about burning a workshop to have a big bonfire.