Chapotraphouse

eh, caesar was competent and i think he also had a grasp of why there's so much god damned tension in roman society and how to alleviate at least some of it.

but yes, late roman republic was under tremendous internal strain and its ruling class kept doubling down on never addressing any of it, at all, ever, until it blew up in their faces.

He seems more like a Sulla, or maybe even Crassus.

Either way, if the Roman Republic analogy holds we're in for a few more rounds of intensifying civil war over a few decades.

There is no real parallel between the late Roman Republic and contemporary America because the methods and means of production are completely different. The American empire is a technocratic empire whose power is based primarily on it's (now declining) ability to technologically and financially overwhelm it's opponents using multi-pronged attacks, where a military intervention may fail, bribing internal officials may work, where both those fail, years of propaganda may do the trick, etc.

The Roman Republic was, at it's rise, successful due to it's ability to marshall manpower from the massive surplus driven by it's small holding citizen farmers, who had fought for and won their rights in previous civil conflicts. This more equitable than previously seen before distribution of wealth led to success on the battlefield, as the Romans were able to continue to muster capable armies even after catastrophic defeats. However, their practice of slavery would do them in, as the very free holding farmers that the Republic relied on for it's tenacity and surplus, would slowly be replaced by slaves brought back from conquests and expansion of the frontiers, thus changing the mode of production from one of primarily farmers to a slave economy, which was much more inefficient from a calorie per acre standpoint, but much more profitable for the noble class of slavers.

This very contradiction is what propelled the political rise of Caesar, as he was able to learn from Cincinnatus and Sulla, both elected dictators who were unable or unwilling to consolidate power, to recognize and play both sides of this political-economic divide. To the slavers, he would promise slaves from his conquests, and to the now dispossessed farmers he would promise land reform and bread. These two are things are, of course, at political-economic odds with each other. One way to temporarily resolve this contradiction then, was to assume a permanent dictatorship and use the military to dictate terms to both classes. This, of course, then eventually lends to its own set of contradictions, and the history of Rome after the Republic is primarily one of inequality, technological stagnation, hardship, and perpetual civil war between different military factions. Imperial Rome spends much more time fighting Romans than it does anyone else.

The U.S. has toyed back and forth between being openly imperialistic or not. However, it has much different material forces at play, with significant bureaucratic and technological investment. Imo, we have already been at a point where Congress essentially defers to the Presidential agenda since about 2000.

However, until we actually fight a war with a near-peer power, the affects of these contradictions will be suffered primarily by the poor. The primary contradiction clearly is between our manufacturing power and financial power, and if we are no longer able to maintain the technological edge that contradiction will have to be resolved one way or another, and that is where America will, at the moment, likely break towards an imperial system.

Semi-related, the weird network of servile techbro apostles around people like Peter Thiel gives heavy Roman patronage vibes. “I help you establish yourself and then you’re my guy for life”.