I have a follow up question: Spengler talks about the clash between Anglo-Saxon capitalism and Prussian socialism. How might these two economic systems evolve in a Caesarist phase, and is one more likely to dominate the other in the future?
That’s a very good point actually, the severity of wars as well are nothing compared to the past, none of the Wars the US went through after the end of Cold War could have produced a Patton, McCarthy, Eisenhower or Monty. I think you are on point concerning this. Also, perhaps another place we can look for them, are more active elements within the military industrial complex, such as military contractors. Caesarism is usually accompanied by the fall of national armies and rise of private armies, which we see clearly today—Erik Prince and Academi, Prigozhin and Wagner etc.
Well, Spengler reveals the two clashing ideas at play within Western Civilization, each civilization has a main driving force, and other subforces and subcultures that move the internal dynamic somewhat. Now, due to Spengler’s morphological method, which is somewhat still contingent on hindsight, we cannot know which of the two will prevail. What we can tell is these two specific forces, the Anglo-Saxon viking spirit— today represented by the Anglophone world/liberal capitalism, and the Prussian Teutonic spirit— today represented by European Bureaucracies, are clashing. The Second World War paved the way for a victory of the former, which is clear today. But the latter is still alive and functioning as well, that said, clearly Caesarism manifested itself in a more powerful manner in the US, with Trumpism to be more specific. Hence why Spengler asked, will the future Caesars be Businessmen? Administrative Bureaucrats? or Generals, thus far the sociopolitical phenomenon has materialized in Businessmen, and to a lesser degree Bureaucrats (European populism), but barely any strong examples for the third option. So many things are at play here once you go more indepth, raising many questions, which is morphologically equivalent to Rome, the Americas or Europe? as in, which of the two continents has the potential to emerge as a universal state/empire ? Are we witnessing fully fledged Caesarism here with Trump? La Pen, Zemmour, Orban, Meloni? or just glimpses of it.
Here is another thought. In fact, I see a lot of overlap between the administrative bureaucrats and generals of our time. Those who climb the career ladder in a Western military today generally do so not mainly through accomplishments in military conflicts, but through skillful maneuvering in the relevant bureaucratic structures. The US military today has more generals than ever before, and the ratio of combat troops to units with administrative and other non-combat tasks has also shifted more and more in favor of the latter in recent decades. This may explain why the third option in Spengler's sense has not yet emerged. Many would-be generals in Spengler's sense are, so to speak, bureaucrats in a military organization.
Really excellent, Thank you.
Appreciate it! 🙏🏽 glad you enjoyed the read!
Great read, thank you!
I have a follow up question: Spengler talks about the clash between Anglo-Saxon capitalism and Prussian socialism. How might these two economic systems evolve in a Caesarist phase, and is one more likely to dominate the other in the future?
That’s a very good point actually, the severity of wars as well are nothing compared to the past, none of the Wars the US went through after the end of Cold War could have produced a Patton, McCarthy, Eisenhower or Monty. I think you are on point concerning this. Also, perhaps another place we can look for them, are more active elements within the military industrial complex, such as military contractors. Caesarism is usually accompanied by the fall of national armies and rise of private armies, which we see clearly today—Erik Prince and Academi, Prigozhin and Wagner etc.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed the paper!
Well, Spengler reveals the two clashing ideas at play within Western Civilization, each civilization has a main driving force, and other subforces and subcultures that move the internal dynamic somewhat. Now, due to Spengler’s morphological method, which is somewhat still contingent on hindsight, we cannot know which of the two will prevail. What we can tell is these two specific forces, the Anglo-Saxon viking spirit— today represented by the Anglophone world/liberal capitalism, and the Prussian Teutonic spirit— today represented by European Bureaucracies, are clashing. The Second World War paved the way for a victory of the former, which is clear today. But the latter is still alive and functioning as well, that said, clearly Caesarism manifested itself in a more powerful manner in the US, with Trumpism to be more specific. Hence why Spengler asked, will the future Caesars be Businessmen? Administrative Bureaucrats? or Generals, thus far the sociopolitical phenomenon has materialized in Businessmen, and to a lesser degree Bureaucrats (European populism), but barely any strong examples for the third option. So many things are at play here once you go more indepth, raising many questions, which is morphologically equivalent to Rome, the Americas or Europe? as in, which of the two continents has the potential to emerge as a universal state/empire ? Are we witnessing fully fledged Caesarism here with Trump? La Pen, Zemmour, Orban, Meloni? or just glimpses of it.
Thanks for this detailed reply.
Here is another thought. In fact, I see a lot of overlap between the administrative bureaucrats and generals of our time. Those who climb the career ladder in a Western military today generally do so not mainly through accomplishments in military conflicts, but through skillful maneuvering in the relevant bureaucratic structures. The US military today has more generals than ever before, and the ratio of combat troops to units with administrative and other non-combat tasks has also shifted more and more in favor of the latter in recent decades. This may explain why the third option in Spengler's sense has not yet emerged. Many would-be generals in Spengler's sense are, so to speak, bureaucrats in a military organization.