This 2015 LRB letter contains one of the most convincing counterarguments to Mair's "ruling the void" thesis - the civil society crisis is real, yes, but asymmetrically, not quite for the propertied parts of society. 'Disorganized' capitalism is only here for the subaltern.

Neoliberalism only wrecked the left-wing side of civil society and instead 'recreated' the right-wing one: while unions and workingmen's associations declined, private schools, CoE, and the Eton-Oxford pipeline maintained ruling class association.

At the same time, the argument's gaps are glaring: anyone driving through the UK will notice derelict Conservative Clubs in small towns, once the bulwark of the first mass party in the world. Tories have lost millions of members since Thatcher or have let the membership age away.

The Tories now mainly rely on domestic business or offshore oligarch money parked in London for election funds - hardly the example of a 'mass organized' party, as this story exemplifies: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/22/conservative-party-receives-money-dead-living-members/

Mair has the last laugh: yes, networks of elite solidarity have survived and capitalism is not completely 'disorganized'. There are still cross-class 'associations' between finance capital and small asset holders. But they're hardly as dense and strong as the old Tory party.

The claim that the right-wing internet or homeownership networks can substitute for these older mass associations is also unconvincing: the exit costs online are far too low to allow for real group discipline, the latter is just a shared insurance mechanism.

I see the appeal of the idea that the right is better 'organized' as a call to action, but the truth is that capitalism's organizational burden is unevenly distributed: the right can draw on existing capitalist inequalities and does not need mass organizations to rule ('stably').

The link with Riley's argument is clear: Trump is dangerous not because of his 'fascism' (which requires dense civic association) but because disorganized capitalism creates a void of authority which can only temporarily be filled with low-cost (online, astroturfing) solutions.

The type of celebrity authoritarian politics Trump exemplifies and which Berlusconi pioneered is remarkable in how it never properly solidifies its associational form, but always moves from one entrepreneurial grift to another.

Anyway, @paologerbaudo is right that we've probably moved from 'mass' to 'swarm' politics, from 'hard' to 'liquid' democracy. Assets and capital ownership are possible anchors in the new environment but they can never substitute for long-term, durable organization.

/end