Julius Caesar and the Neverending Battle Between Tyrants and Oligarchs

 Julius Caesar: the neverending battle between tyrants and oligarchs.

Probably the biggest hypocrite-populist tyrant-wannabe of all times was julius Caesar. From very early in his political career it was easy to see what were his real motives: During the debate of his land-distribution law, in his determination to overcome the conservative-Patricians' visceral and despotic opposition and get the bill finally approved; he went as far as cutting Cato's endless filibuster speech off and having him arrested for obstructing the Senate's functioning by precluding any vote from taking place. In the same fashion as Tiberius Gracchus 74 years earlier, Julius Caesar was a total hypocrite, because his real motive behind the distribution of those lands was to win popularity that would later allow him to become dictator. If he had ever truly believed in the Republic, freedom and democracy, he would have instead faked some bitter argument with Cato and Cicero, but always kept in mind that the rule of the old Roman patriarchs ought never be challenged or destabilized in any other way than by pretense. As the charade reached its climax, everybody would have felt so horrified, that they would all be ready to beg the debaters for moderation, unity, and some effort to find some compromise. The pretense having then fulfilled its purpose, it would have been the time for Caesar to cut some deal with his Patrician buddies, for the mutual benefit and further enrichment of both factions, as well as perpetuate the natural order of things, which had proven so successful for the Roman Republic for so many years: the Patrician elite rules and everybody else obeys.

If Julius Caesar had really believed in the Republic, freedom and democracy, but still needed to be popular, he had endless ways at his disposal to just play good cop. For example, he could have taken some measurements to make inclusive language mandatory for her, him, hem and everybody. He could have opened the senate to wealthy Patrician women; it had not destabilized the system, but it had made the Plebeian and slave women really happy. While it had not done anything to bring any relief to the oppressed status and depressed lives of low-class women, it had certainly lightened up their hearts to see their Patrician ladies empowered, conquering the male-chauvinist Senate, proving all what women are capable of... Especially to female slaves, it surely had meant a lot to have their mistresses fight for women's rights, in order to allow women to vote, file lawsuits, own property, etc.. Julius Caesar could have also taken on some even more aggressive reforms, like decriminalizing toplessness. Undoubtedly, he would have confronted a lot of criticism and opposition from the conservatives, but he could have just argued that there is nothing wrong with women's breasts and women should therefore not be told to feel ashamed for letting their breasts exposed and visible. Given that men are a bunch of dickhead horndogs, some people might have cautioned that having girls going around topless, could cause the dudes losing their minds altogether and, consequently, lead to a dramatic increase in the number of rapes. However, Julius Caesar could have then easily attack those reactionaries accusing them of justifying rape. For similar reasons, the same kind of taliban might have warned that allowing girls to expose their breasts may provoke men to commit adultery and give on to divorce. But, let us face it, the effects of the new policy on the people's lives was never anybody's concern, and was definitely not Caesar's problem. He needed to have understood that the whole point had not been to discern whether the society would function better or worse by decriminalizing toplessness; let alone women's freedoms, rights and such. Rather, the point had been to keep the masses preoccupied with the matter; so that they have no time to reflect on bread's latest price increase and their overall sorry living conditions. Obviously the whole controversy could always be resolved democratically, by calling the people for a vote. If the society had been ready for toplessness, they could have allowed it for some years. If the worst presages would prove false, they could keep the liberal policy, otherwise it would be as easy as restoring the prohibition. But, again, that had not been the point. Besides, we all know that the people is stupid and we do not know what is good for us. We need to keep in mind that the Roman Republic's representative democracy was a mere charade; in reality it was an oligarchic dictatorship in disguise: as long as the people believe they are in power, they would only have themselves to blame for their sorry fortunes. Otherwise, if the people is stupid and does not know what is good for them, what is the point of putting them in power in the first place? Nevertheless, the bottomline is that, it was not Caesar's problem if decriminalizing toplessness would have a negative impact on the functioning of the society, and it would have only been smart to see that he did not have anything to gain from keeping the prohibition. Quite the opposite, it had made him extremely popular: the men had sure given their right arm for the opportunity to drool at the sight of some gorgeous female breasts; while women had forever been greatful (even more so female slaves), that Caesar had freed them from such form of male oppression over women, and they would no longer be told to feel ashamed for exposing their bodies.  

Now, if by any chance building on his character had not earned Caesar enough popularity, he still had other options to win the favor of the masses. Obviously, the most effective of these has always been to give away money. Tyrants and other populists have always been known to spend lavishly throwing free games and festivals. Caesar could have also given out free food for everybody, and even instated some salary or pension for the lower classes. While these social policies had soon brought the economy to its knees, it had handed an excellent justification to the defenders of the old order to argue, that if you look after the people and do as they want, they will naturally become tyrants and all hell will break loose. Indeed, the poor is lazy, does not want to work and it is just their lack of motivation that led them to their impoverished and depressed status; obviously, much unlike the wealthy, who got where they are only after working really hard their entire lives. Of course, it is then just by pure coincidence that the great majority of the wealthy families of the current generation are always the offsprings of the wealthy families of the previous generation.

However, Julius Caesar was not willing to play by the rules. Rather, he had to insist in his land re-distribution and agrarian-reform law, and so offer the dispossessed an opportunity to make a life on their own by working some land. It is then easy to see what were Julius Caesar's real motives. Much like today, in the Late Roman Republic there were two basic profiles of senators: the Populare aimed at the people and advocated for a more equal distribution of wealth, while the Optima defended the old Republican virtues and values of democracy and freedom, the traditional order and contended that the wealthy were better suited to rule, cince they were of noble origin and were educated. Since the great majority of the population was poor, the Populare had an obvious advantage to receive popular support and win any election. However, clearly, the populist policies of giving money away always soon ruin the economy. Therefore, the smartest kids in the class will quickly figure out that the left-wing politicians are mere hypocrites, who do not really care for the people nor mean social justice, but only pursue their own benefit and always leave even more poverty than what they found. Consequently, the people disenchanted finally turn and swing their vote to the Optimates. Yes, they represent those old, fat Patrician assholes who have been oppressing us since beginning of time; but, at least, they do not make any pretense of their real objectives, spend the money more responsibly and actually seem to know better how to run the economy. However, nobody is going to forever settle for some crumbs. It is simply not fair that some few families live in opulance, while everybody else is striving to merely survive. That is the time where we begin listening again to the populists and their promises to put an end to all this injustice. We are so ready to start the cycle all over again. The democratic charade will forever play on: As the wealthy Patricians, left - right, left - right, left - right... keep marching on, much like today, the right supporters led by Milo  and the left supporters led by Clodius, both totally outraged and fired up by the other side's heinous leaders, tear each other to pieces on the streets on the way to the polling places, because they are willing to vote whoever, they would rather die, before seeing their respective bogeymen elected to office.. The beauty of the Roman Republic was that, while the people was free to choose between the Populare and the Optima, it remained that the wealthy Patricians would forever stay on top and everybody else had to obey and go on with their lives with whatever crumbs were thrown at them.   

Now, here came Julius Caesar to challenge and destabilize the harmonic status'quo, which had proven so successful for Rome for so many years. He was way to ambitious and narcisist to accept being just one more wealthy Patrician senator; he needed to be the star, the center of the universe. He could not be content with his moment of glory selling his populist bells and whistles, and then quietly step to the side and pass power on to the next. Rather, he had to stay and keep absolute power, because he would never accept to share it with any other Patrician. Apparently, he needed to be the best ruler Rome had ever had. Therefore, against all established rules, he had to offer to the people a true opportunity to improve their lives, so that everybody would love him and never want to see him go. Julius Caesar did not have enough unmasking and piercing through the democratic façade the Patrician oligarchs had built around the republic; but he was determined to burst it and ultimately bring it down: he was going straight for the system. He should have understood, that, as we all know, democracy is about the people choosing its representatives, who - regardless of what they may say in public to appease and mollify the mobs and preserve their faith in the system - will nevertheless always keep in mind that there is a natural order of things: there is and will always be an elite of families who control and monopolize all the wealth and resources, and everybody else obeys and, other than that, should move on with their lives with whatever crumbs are thrown at them. Julius Caesar was indeed a traitor to his class and it is then only reasonable that the Patrician Senate had him assassinated; because there is never any justification for violence, except if it is for the sake of freedom, liberty and democracy.