Systemic socio-historical processes

The presence of the above-mentioned interrelation between societal indices allows one to reconstruct all indices if one of them is known. For example, by determining the quantitative characteristics for the index intentionality/executivity, one can reconstruct others. However, it should be noted that the
social cycles of three basic subjects types oppose pairwise to one another: the individual social cycle opposes to the public social cycle, and the last, in turn, does to the civilizational one.
Namely this circumstance was not taken into account by British psychologists who performed, for the first time, the so-called populative measurements of societal indices on the scale of H. Eysenck (extroversion/introversion) in 1946 and 1962.40 The british researchers measured, in fact, societal characteristics of two different objects (society and civilization) and did not distinguished them by social cycles. Therefore, they were not able to explain the mirror-opposite results.

Respectively, every subject of the historical process has the own cycles of development. During the specific phase of a cycle, the own problems conditioned by the principal form of historical activity are solved.
A model of the graph of relevant indices can be given as follows. Three axes (social, national-state, and civilizational) are distinguished by the criterion of historical time. The vertical axis is the values of a societal index for a certain subject. Moreover, the integral curve on the graph will not be the sum
of components. The hierarchy of cycles can be represented, as a nested Russian doll, by beginning from the highest civilizational cycle, through the national-state one, to the personal cycle.

The personal social cycle develops quicker than the national-state and civilizational ones by realizing itself through the change of generations.
Some time ago, the Spanish philosopher J. Ortega-y-Gasset stated that the rotation of human generations is an important historical mechanism. In detail, socio-political cycles were analyzed by W. Pareto who developed the theory of circulation of elites. The historical science includes the ideas of the traditional agrarian society, modernized industrial society, and post-modern postindustrial
society. In this case, different societies which form the own nationalstate structures are on the different levels of the socio-historical development.

In the same way, there arise distinctions between local civilizations as well. The national-state cycle is longer than the personal cycle, but shorter than the civilizational cycle which is the quintessence of all national-state cycles.
They can be uncompleted if a certain national-state subject lost independence due to unfavourable historical events and develops as a component of other subject, mostly an empire. The named cycle was considered still by Plato who paid attention to the change of political regimes from dictatorship, oligarchy, aristocracy (meritocracy in our time, which means the power according to public merits), and democracy to ochlocracy and a new dictatorship.

The civilizational cycle is longest. Its rhythm depends on many nationalstate formations which enter the socio-cultural area of a certain civilization.
These problems were investigated by M. Danilevsky, P. Sorokin, and O. Spengler. A. Toynbee advanced, in fact, a cyclic civilizational theory of birth, blooming, and destruction through the mechanism “challenge — response”.
Thus, the theory of social probability creates the own methodological base for prognostication. It leans on the objective measurements of societal indices which give information about general-systemic socio-historical processes. On these principles, one forms, at first, the first approximation to
a hypothetic prognosis. Then, on the base of corrections, one constructs the possible scenarios of development and chooses finally the most probable variant of development of events.