Caesarism cannot be explained by fundamental-class equilibrium alone

Evidence

Even discounting these, I would still argue that — with respect to the time span of reasonable relevance to any given generation — the spontaneous evolution of a cooperative equilibrium among humans is only just as likely as that of a noncooperative one, unless some restriction is imposed on agents’ beliefs. — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2804 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Caesarism is a compromise between fundamental social forces, distinct from Bonapartism.; Caesarism arises from a class-equilibrium that blocks normal parliamentary politics; Caesarism arises when conflicting forces reach catastrophic equilibrium, letting a third force intervene (+1 more)

Related

• Caesarism arises from a class-equilibrium that blocks normal parliamentary politics (similarity 0.82)
• Caesarism is a compromise between fundamental social forces, distinct from Bonapartism. (similarity 0.81)
• Caesarism emerges when two forces reach an organic equilibrium neither can win (similarity 0.80)
• Cooperative equilibria are no likelier than noncooperative ones without belief restrictions (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Cooperative equilibria are no likelier than noncooperative ones without belief restrictions #complicates (0.72) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 2804