On Revolution

We look at a book called The Roman Revolution by Ronald Syme, which tells the story of Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire - Octavian (“a cold and mature terrorist”) vs Mark Anthony (of Anthony and Cleopatra). It was written in 1939, a charged year for any discussion about dictatorship, and is now required reading for university classics courses. It also turns out to have high relevance to British politics. Syme’s thesis is that every government is formed of individuals. The real decisions do not take place through official forums, they are made privately and informally through the interactions of these individuals. That is how power is actually exercised, how power is actually formulated, and anything else is a story told on top of this to give it respectability and prestige. Doesn’t this feel contemporary? COVID-era decisions were not made by debate in cabinet, but rather by four guys in a WhatsApp group under a lot of personal pressure. Companies not lead by the org chart but actually run by small groups of people who get on. Octavian in fact represented the interests of the populari, the populists - the soldiers, the dispossessed aristocrats, the urban plebians, the wealthy but alienated merchants. Against them were those who held property and existing political power and were therefore against fundamental change - the establishment, if you will, or the optimati as they called themselves. Again, contemporary! Britain today is ruled by the optimati - those with a vested interest in the current bureaucracy and its proliferation, and those who own property and want it to retain its value, the two groups coordinating to maintain the status quo. In the background you have the populari, and on the rare occasions where this group in any country takes power it’s called a revolution. Do we need a revolution?