Random Acts of Eccentricity

Overview of Cyclical Theories of History
Cyclical theories of history posit that human societies, economies, and civilizations don’t progress linearly but instead follow repeating patterns of rise, peak, decline, and renewal. These ideas draw from philosophy, economics, sociology, and historiography, often emphasizing factors like demographics, technology, social cohesion, or generational dynamics. Unlike linear views (e.g., endless progress or apocalyptic endpoints), cyclical models see history as rhythmic, with phases influenced by internal contradictions or external pressures. Key theories include those from ancient thinkers like Ibn Khaldun to modern ones like Strauss-Howe or Ray Dalio. They aren’t predictive in a deterministic sense but offer frameworks for interpreting patterns.
In the context of September 2025—marked by heightened U.S. political violence (e.g., the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk), Trump’s second term amid polarization, economic uncertainty with AI-driven booms and debt concerns, geopolitical shifts (e.g., U.S.-China tensions), and ongoing climate/societal challenges—these theories often place us in “decline,” “crisis,” or “winter” phases. This fits a broader narrative of instability leading to potential transformation or collapse. Below, I’ll outline major theories, their core cycles, how they align with current events, and our approximate position in them.
1. Strauss-Howe Generational Theory (The Fourth Turning)
This model, detailed in The Fourth Turning (1997) and updated in The Fourth Turning Is Here (2023), views Anglo-American history as repeating every 80-100 years in “saecula,” driven by generational archetypes (Prophet, Nomad, Hero, Artist) and four “turnings”:
High: Post-crisis institutional strengthening and conformity (e.g., post-WWII boom).
Awakening: Cultural/spiritual rebellion against the establishment (e.g., 1960s counterculture).
Unraveling: Individualism, institutional distrust, and fragmentation (e.g., 1980s-2000s).
Crisis: Major societal upheaval, where old orders collapse and new ones emerge (e.g., Great Depression/WWII).
Fit to Current State: The theory aligns well with 2025’s turbulence—economic inequality, populist politics (Trump’s return), social divisions (culture wars over trans rights, immigration), and violence (Kirk’s killing as a flashpoint). It echoes past crises like the Civil War or WWII, where internal rifts escalate to systemic threats. Global factors like pandemics (COVID echoes) and AI disruptions amplify the “challenge” to institutions.017bfb
Where We Are: Deep in the Fourth Turning (Crisis), which began around 2008 with the financial crash.  The climax—intense conflict leading to resolution—is projected around 2025-2030, with 2025 as a pivotal midpoint of escalation (e.g., potential for further unrest or policy overhauls). Post-crisis renewal could follow by the early 2030s, birthing a new High era if society coalesces around reforms.d
2. Peter Turchin’s Secular Cycles (Cliodynamics)
Turchin, a complexity scientist, uses mathematical modeling in works like Secular Cycles (2009) and Ages of Discord (2016) to describe 200-300 year cycles in agrarian and modern societies:
Integrative Phase: Population growth, elite cooperation, economic expansion, social stability.
Disintegrative Phase: Overpopulation, elite overproduction (too many aspiring leaders), inequality, leading to unrest, violence, and state weakness until a reset.
These aren’t strictly cyclical but structural-demographic, with “fathers-and-sons” sub-cycles of instability every 50 years.
Fit to Current State: The U.S. mirrors disintegration with elite competition (bipartisan gridlock, billionaire influence), wage stagnation, inequality (top 1% wealth surge), and sociopolitical stress (protests, assassinations). Events like January 6, 2021, and recent violence fit predicted instability peaks. Global migration and climate strains add demographic pressure.
Where We Are: In the disintegrative phase since the 1970s, with a peak of instability in the 2020s. By 2025, we’re at the height of this, potentially facing more unrest before a possible turnaround via reforms or collapse by 2030-2040. Turchin warns of civil war risks if inequality isn’t addressed.55c40d
3. Ray Dalio’s Big Cycle (Changing World Order)
In Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order (2021), hedge fund manager Dalio analyzes 500-year empire cycles based on eight forces: education, productivity, debt, military strength, etc. Cycles include:
Rise: Strong fundamentals, innovation, global dominance.
Top: Peak power, but internal decay begins (debt, inequality).
Decline: Overextension, conflicts, leading to new orders (monetary, domestic, world).
Fit to Current State: The U.S. shows decline markers: massive debt ($35+ trillion), populism (Trump’s policies), internal disorder (polarization, violence), and external challenges (China’s rise, trade wars). AI and tech booms offer productivity hope, but conflicts (e.g., Ukraine, Middle East) signal shifting global orders.
Where We Are: In the late-top/early-decline phase of the U.S.-led order, part of a 75-100 year internal cycle. 2025 marks escalating disruptions—debt cycles peaking, potential monetary resets (e.g., inflation fights)—with radical changes ahead by 2030. A multipolar world emerges, possibly with U.S. revival if fundamentals improve.
4. Kondratiev Waves (Long Economic Cycles)
Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev identified 40-60 year waves tied to technological innovations:
Spring: Recovery from depression, new tech adoption.
Summer: Growth and inflation.
Autumn: Plateau, speculation, inequality.
Winter: Depression, debt crises, leading to innovation for the next wave.
Five waves historically: Industrial Revolution, railways, electricity/steel, oil/autos, information tech.
Fit to Current State: Post-2008 stagnation, inequality, and recent AI/crypto booms suggest a transition. Economic volatility (inflation spikes, recessions) and innovations (AI, renewables) fit a depressive winter thawing into spring.324a53
Where We Are: Late Winter of the 5th wave (info tech, started ~1970s), peaking around 2025-2027. Transition to 6th wave (AI, biotech, sustainability) begins 2020-2030, with 2025 as a potential low point before upswing.
5. Ibn Khaldun’s Asabiyyah Cycle
In Muqaddimah (1377), the Arab historian described 120-140 year dynastic cycles:
Rise: Strong “asabiyyah” (social cohesion, tribal solidarity) enables conquest and state-building.
Peak: Urbanization, prosperity.
Decline: Luxury erodes asabiyyah, leading to corruption, weakness, and overthrow by new groups.
Fit to Current State: U.S. asabiyyah is fraying via polarization (red-blue divides), elite detachment, and eroded trust (low institutional approval). Violence and populism signal weakening cohesion, akin to late empires.
Where We Are: In decline, with asabiyyah at low ebb ~200-250 years post-founding. 2025 could see further erosion, potentially leading to fragmentation unless renewed (e.g., via crisis unity).
6. Oswald Spengler’s Cultural Cycles (Decline of the West)
In The Decline of the West (1918-1922), Spengler saw cultures as organisms with 1,000-year lifespans: Spring (birth), Summer (growth), Autumn (maturity), Winter (civilization/decay, marked by materialism, urbanism, Caesarism).
Fit to Current State: “Faustian” Western culture shows winter traits: technological dominance but spiritual emptiness, democracy yielding to strongmen (Trumpism), cultural exhaustion amid wars and crises.
Where We Are: Deep Winter since ~1800, with pre-death “emergency” in the 21st century.a8a0d6 2025 exemplifies terminal decline, with potential for “Caesarism” (authoritarian shifts) before a new culture rises.
Broader Insights and Overlaps
These theories converge on 2025 as a inflection point in decline/crisis phases, driven by shared drivers like inequality, tech shifts, and division. Optimistically, crises spur renewal (e.g., post-WWII boom); pessimistically, they lead to collapse. Current events—political assassinations, AI transformations, geopolitical realignments—amplify this. While not all fit perfectly (e.g., Turchin emphasizes data over strict cycles), they suggest proactive reforms (reducing inequality, fostering unity) could mitigate downsides. History’s “cycles” remind us that no phase is permanent.