End Times [is] driven by a deep sense that American democracy is at serious risk. [It] may well be right about this, but [it] then [attaches] these concerns to elaborate meta-historical frameworks that purport to predict optimistic future outcomes rising from the current ashes of polarization and conflict ... The problem is that even the most sophisticated meta-history is not very useful in making short-term predictions.
A compelling analysis of why societies fail ... Social media might be too divisive for any unifying figure to emerge. Various madmen feed their online fan bases, but I wonder how many are capable of leading a wider movement. I am clinging rather desperately to these thoughts because Turchin’s book hardly leaves the reader in a cheerful mood. It’s a tribute to its terrible persuasiveness.
It’s a nice idea that Turchin has; a useful prism for looking at instability. But as a unifying theory of historical change it is too narrow and deterministic, as most unifying theories of historical change usually are ... At its best this book is a bit like the blander parts of War and Peace, where Tolstoy bangs on about his pet theory of history being shaped not by people but by grand historical forces. At its worst it reads as though someone has asked an AI bot to explain the nature of historical causation. It is smart but not particularly riveting or humane.
... scintillating theory of history ... Turchin’s elegantly written treatment looks beneath partisan jousting to class interests that cycle over generations, but also yields timely policy insights. It’s a stimulating analysis of antagonisms past and present, and the crack-up they may be leading to.
This is intriguing material, but some crucial parts of the argument fail to connect, and the assertion that the U.S. is in a period of unprecedented turmoil might not be valid ... The text will be overly dense for general readers, but the author does have important things to say about power relationships and social evolution.
