Previous Page/Table Of ContentsNext Page

80 At the founding of the United States, no political parties existed. A "Federalist" party was the first one to organize, but it had no force after electing our second President, John Adams. Thomas Jefferson formed the first opposition party, calling it the "Republican Party." In the 1820s, this party divided into the "National Republicans" and the "Democratic Republicans." Eventually, the Nationals became the nucleus of the Whig party, and in 1854, most of the Whigs joined the new Republican Party. Meanwhile, the remainder adopted the simplified name of "Democratic" party about 1830.

81 There are unkind souls out there who would assert that this is the case with the new Reform Party, formed by Ross Perot, and seemingly mesmerized into doing his bidding, on demand.

82 In 1789, a mob in Paris overthrew Louis XVI and formed the First Republic. After the first defeat of Napoleon, in 1814, France compromised on a constitutional monarchy, headed by the surviving heir to the French throne, Louis XVIII. Another riot in Paris in 1848 led to the creation of the short-lived Second Republic. By the end of 1852, Napoleon III had been proclaimed Emperor.

83 The footnote at this point refers to Tammany Hall in New York. However, its power and influence declined substantially, particularly after President Franklin D. Roosevelt reduced its authority after Tammany Hall had failed to support his election, and again during the administrations of certain reform-minded mayors of New York, such as La Guardia and Lindsay. Modern election laws have all but outlawed most of what Tammany Hall did to maintain its power base.

84 This vision denies the possibility of true "reform." So far, the history in America is that we can periodically find leaders who will honestly implement a program of "reform." In particular, it is now totally illegal to trade votes in the legislative bodies for campaign contributions, or whatever. In the last decade, quite a number of politicians have been indicted, convicted, and sent to prison for just this sort of thing. But, as "where there's a will, there's a way," corruption still continues. But the masses still SEE this as corruption, and will tend to vote out clearly corrupt politicians. I feel that it is only when the mass of electors begins to openly tolerate corruption that you can achieve the full range of consequences which are predicted here by Spengler.

85 "The Social Contract" (1762), by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This document formed the theoretical basis of most modern governments, but is impractical to implement. But you still hear references during debate to a "Social Contract" by one advocate or another of some particular point of view.

86 "The Communist Manifesto" (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This document was the theoretical basis of Marxism and Communism, the now-discredited system of government.

87 I suppose boredom is as good a word as any, although I would much prefer a word which would simultaneously connote the spiritual bankruptcy in which each system finds itself at its finish.

88 It took six more decades for the Socialists to actually admit that Marx was dead, as an economic and social theoretician. A few years later, the greatest monument to Marx crumbled in its boots, as the Soviet Union turned itself into a "pillar of salt." Now, recalcitrant Fidel Castro is the only leader left who still acts as if he truly believes in Marx.

89 This is a sentence which I find repulsive. There is a kernel of truth buried within, but that does not ameliorate the overly pessimistic nature implicit in these words. While Spengler focuses upon repeating circular cycles, I find instead a picture of a rising spiral. (see Part III of this book.)

90 This example does not illustrate the wrongness of the Platonic theories, but instead, the failure of Plato, in his role as leader, to wisely implement those theories in accordance with the then current needs of his own people. If Spengler had paid attention to his own written words, which are quoted above in this very same section of this very same book, such a failure could have been predicted, solely upon the basis of the distinction drawn by Spengler between the "statesman" and the theoretician. It seems so obvious; as those with the gift for one occupation rarely also have the gift for another, so too it would be nearly inconceivable to find a theoretician par excellence, such as Plato, with the gift to actually lead.

91 Spengler's footnote cites to "examples of the pedagogic in interventions of `wisdom' into the province of politics." But again, these are distinct talents; and it is Spengler himself who notes that the rise of the bourgeoisie occurs when it "comes forward as a party with a program, consisting of aims that are not felt but defined, and the rejection of everything that cannot be rationally grasped." (see about ten paragraphs up in this quotation.) Such a program cannot be anything but "interventions of `wisdom' into the province of politics," and it is the very beginnings of the party phase of the cycle! In fact, the very definition of the bourgeoisie is that it is intellect and money. There is much more to say on this subject in Part III of this book.

92 Will and Ariel Durant, writing in "The Lessons of History" (1968), have a much better perspective on this phenomena. Throughout history, Capitalistic and Socialistic governments arise in reaction to each other; when the people perceive that Capitalism has overly oppressed them, they will cause a Socialistic government to be in power for a relatively short period of time; and then, they will revert to their primarily Capitalistic economic system, because that is the only system which instinctively feeds our inherent selfishness.

Copyright © 1994-1999 by the Agnostic Church

Please send us your feedback!

Previous Page/Table Of ContentsNext Page