Thread by @DarrenJBeattie

If a Caesar comes great.

The problem with Caesarism is the "trust the plan" larpiness that it often cultivates, to the neglect of a more sober account of all of the elements necessary to actually accomplish something real---which might be slower, more boring and more circuitous

https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1437908742255828993

Also I think there's a tendency to reduce Caesarism to mere populism which, if taken too literally, dangerously neglects the importance of getting the highest quality human capital to defect from regime

The tendency to conflate Caesarism with a Trumpist populism breaks down upon consideration of Caesar himself

First off, Caesar was a first rate and accomplished general in a society in which military was an elite institution (not the case in USA)

Secondly, Caesar had aristocratic lineage and was able to align with other substantial power centers

This is consistent with notion that populism is insufficient---need buy in of elite factions

Sheldon Adelson as stand in for Crassus shows where this breaks down for Trump

And most simply, Caesar is not a creature of mass democracy or mass society, and therefore can only serve as a tenuous model for Caesarism in our context

Next let's turn to the function of Caesarism in its desired contemporary context as envisaged in BAPs characteristically excellent telegram post (a must read)

BAP situates Caesarism as an alternative elite model to the present model, which is a sprawled, bureaucratic mode of elite control that serves a mediating, educational function in relation to the masses

Unlike the hyper-mediated bureaucratic expert class (bugman) mode of control, the Caesar is distinguished by his unmediated connection with the people--and ability to lead the people via deft manipulation of their passions

That the People are decisive to Caesar in this sense but but not decisionistic in Schmitt's sense is BAP's nuanced concession to "elite theorists" who dismiss masses entirely

That Caesar presupposes an unmediated connection with the People pointes toward what is perhaps the Achilles heel of Caesarism today---the decisive role of mass media in mass democracy

Mass media was not an issue of course in Caesar's day, but this confounding variable is also decisive to more recent examples of Caesarism (say, fascist examples)

It was simply not the case that in the fascist examples or Japanese examples BAP points to that the enemies of would-be Caesar enjoyed full spectrum dominance over comms infrastructure

And it is extremely difficult to see how the would be Caesar could enjoy un-media-ted connection with people so long as mass media infrastructure run by his enemies

Returning to Trump as the example of what a Caesar might look like (which, to be fair, is almost sufficient to refute the Caesar position in itself).

rallies notwithstanding Trump was allowed to use enemy's mass media as vehicle to achieve power. The surprise element was crucial. Post-Trump, present ruling class is very sensitive to this and will just institute ban hammer.

So Trump has made possibility of Caesar, already extremely remote, basically impossible in American context

Also unclear, absent buy-in from existing or altnerative class of educated people, how the Caesar gains control of the vast bureaucratic apparatus required to govern and wield power.

What's the path from Caesar's unmediated connection with masses, to the requisite class of competent and loyal functionaries who will staff the sprawling bureaucracies under the Caesar's command

This underscores importance of cultivating talented class of people who can navigate some of these structural asymmetries with parallel institutions.

And this might look something more like the "educational" model of power, or replicating it on the margins with suitable modifications, than putting all eggs in Caesar basket. The good thing is this approach only enhaces viability of Caesar should one ultimately emerge

All of this is more of an addendum or qualification to BAP's excellent post