Bouvard on Crisis, Centrality, and Sovereign Precedent
From [The anthropoetics of power](https://thejournalofneoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-anthropoetics-of-power/) >The limits of what we can see as the original form of sovereignty lie in the fact that the very qualities that allowed for the emergence of the Big Man must be forbidden to others. The resentments directed toward the Big Man are the very same resentments that created the Big Man, who “rebelled” against the “consumers” who both depended upon and restrained his “productivity.” The resentments toward the Big Man, now God Emperor, can be contained only at the cost of preventing the activities and interactions that might generate such productive resentment in the first place. Only the emperor himself can be free. --- >the very qualities that allowed for the emergence of the Big Man must be forbidden to others. Is this referring to the resentment experienced by the productive against the unproductive given an equal share i.e stemming from an assymetry between "input"
You're right that "qualities" is too vague. The real point is that subjects can't respond to a perceived crisis in the way the Big Man did, by seizing the center. The problem is that seizing the center is the precedent that has been set as a way of resolving a crisis. That's what's the "same." But you are reading rightly that the problem is that the God-emperor must curtail productive activity on the part of his subjects. There has to be some way for subjects to have a productive relation to the center. This is part of an explanation of why this social form, despite its successes, and the fact that it lasted a long time, can't be revived. The subsequent discussion points to the historical resolution of this dilemma, with the new dilemmas that produces.
Bouvard on Crisis, Centrality, and Sovereign Precedent — https://center.study/post/reddit-adam-katz-can-you-explain-this-a-bit-more-clearly