To mundane astrology, human societies are developed, perpetuated and eventually broken down and dissolved over long stretches of time with the help of dynamic forces and processes driven by the outer planets of our Solar system, namely, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus,
To mundane astrology, human societies are developed, perpetuated and eventually broken down and dissolved over long stretches of time with the help of dynamic forces and processes driven by the outer planets of our Solar system, namely, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.
Understanding planetary cycles is thus essential if we are to truly grasp how all this works—for instance, if we want to understand how these energies manifest in both short-term social contexts, and over long stretches of time.
Social scientist Peter Turchin reminds us that human societies are dynamical systems, and he emphasizes that their economic, social, and political subsystems do not operate in isolation. His research suggests that over time, a typical state evolves through sequences of relatively stable political regimes that are separated by unstable periods marked by internal divisions—as we’ll see ahead, the U.S. is no stranger to unstable, divisive passages. The potential for long stretches of relative equanimity is also clear: we’ll examine one particularly relevant period ahead that we can learn from today.
Applying outer planetary cycles to state-related systems makes perfect sense because these cycles reflect the natural fluctuations of society-building dynamics like expansion, growth and excess, contraction, consolidation, development, maturation, limitation, competition, conflict, accountability, inertia, collective actions, disruption, upheaval, erosion, dissolution and transformation (of structures and boundaries). Factor in compulsive pressures and demographic processes (survival instinct, status-hunger, gestation, birth, death, regeneration) and the power relations inherent in all the above dynamics, and we have a complex, but astrologically-sensible reality.
Not surprisingly, the above dynamics (including the quest for political power) often shift dramatically in response to periods of economic instability and/or hardship. The process is reflected in the modal energies at play: Cardinal energies tend to inspire ambitions, new ideas and aggressive, forward-thrusting action; Mutable energies tend to destabilize the prevailing order and produce change, and Fixed energies tend to re-impose stability of a kind.
A particularly interesting period of time for its influence today was the 1970s. From the perspective of planetary cycles, in fact, today seems to be the comeuppance period for many challenges that were introduced back then. This applies to our tortured relationship with the environment as much as it does our politically precarious reality.
|UK's Financial Times is signaling concern about 1970s echoes, too.|
As it happens, historical economists see a bright dividing line between that period and everything that has followed, especially in the economic and political orders that have evolved since that time. The 70s are regarded as the end of the relatively stable, post-WWII economic order that favored strong wages for the middle class over setting loose the top 1% to build the frankly obscene levels of wealth inequality that have taken over since then. It wasn’t until the 70s that wages and job security took a major turn for the worse into long-term stagnation because support for organized labor plummeted on the heels of the severe 1970s recession—an opportunity that was exploited by the openly anti-labor policies of presidents like Reagan.
In one of his many historical studies, Turchin cites a letter written by UAW president Douglas Fraser, who expressed with alarm the dynamics he was seeing when he resigned from office in 1978. It’s worth an extended excerpt for its prescience:
“I believe leaders of the business community, with few exceptions, have chosen to wage a one-sided class war today in this country—a war against working people, the unemployed, the poor, the minorities, the very young and the very old, and even many in the middle class of our society. The leaders of industry, commerce and finance in the United States have broken and discarded the fragile, unwritten compact previously existing during a past period of growth and progress. For a considerable time, the leaders of business and labor have sat at the Labor-Management Group’s table—recognizing differences, but seeking consensus where it existed. That worked because the business community in the US succeeded in advocating a general loyalty to an allegedly benign capitalism that emphasized private property, independence and self-regulation along with an allegiance to free, democratic p