Left-Wing Ideas In Ancient Times?

[Outinleftfield]

Plato and Aristotle are given a lot of praise as philosophers even though if they were around today they would be considered right-wing extremists for some of their views.

Its hard to find any mention of anybody opposing slavery other than Spartacus. Or any views that encouraged wealth redistribution or even rang of socialism. Yet with the number of years that went by and the great number of people there's bound to have been somebody who came up with ideas at least similar to leftism today or even something as simple as opposition to slavery (since that is left compared to what they had back then).

Were there any ideas like this and what philosophers supported them? What philosophers had ideas closest to the modern left?

[core_1]

Well first of all, 'left-wing' and political positioning seem to be contextual, so it's hard to describe ancient historical personalities as being from any 'wing' i guess.
Also, confucious had some pretty revolutionary ideas didn't he? I think on the metaphorical 'moral' ladder, merchants were at the bottom while peasents were at the top. As he saw the peasents as most important and almost holy or divine.

[ComradeOm]

Socialism is a creation of the 19th C. Casting back through previous decades looking for similar ideologies/policies is really rather futile. The very best that can be said about some movements is that they were proto-socialist

In the specific case of Antiquity, the examples typically held up are the Gracchi brothers - the first Roman politicians to try and build a political base out of the plebeians and peasantry. Even they AFAIK did not challenge slavery - that institution was far too central to Roman society to even consider abolishing


Also, confucious had some pretty revolutionary ideas didn't he? I think on the metaphorical 'moral' ladder, merchants were at the bottom while peasents were at the top. As he saw the peasents as most important and almost holy or divine.Not an uncommon sentiment in some quarters. The first shall be last and the last shall be first, etc

[Dave B]

On the History of Early Christianity,Frederick Engels 1894




"The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome.

Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society. Both are persecuted and baited, their adherents are despised and made the objects of exclusive laws, the former as enemies………………"


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)

and something similar;


Frederick Engels 1883, The Book of Revelation

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/religion/book-revelations.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/religion/book-revelations.htm)


I think Kautsky wrote a book on this theme didn’t he?


This isn’t the spurious nonsense it might look like as it is something that span out the Feuerbach stuff that played no small part in the development of their thinking.


There is quite a surprising amount of egalitarian anti rich stuff in the non-Pauline new testament. Eg acts 2;44-45



And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.



And apart from the rich passing through the eyes of needles. (It was probably a miss translation or slip of the pen as rope and camel look remarkably similar in some language that they were using at time.)

There is stuff in the book of James, although I wouldn’t want to go overboard on this kind of thing.


Winstanley was clearly a communist and quite a rational, intelligent and even materialist one. Christopher Hill’s book, mainly a compilation of Winstanley’s writings should be on everbodies reading list I think.

Unfortunately this material wasn’t available in Karl’s and Fred’s time so they couldn’t comment on it.

Karl and Fred, perhaps bending the stick back the other way over much give us a list of English Communists anyway in;

Volume II of The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, I, Die Rheinischen Jahrbücher
Or The Philosophy of True Socialism

A. "Communismus, Socialismus, Humanismus"
Rheinische Jahrbücher, 1. BD., P. 167 et seq.






On page 170 he arrives at the "result" that the only communism which "exists" is "crude French communism" (crude once again). The construction of this truth a priori is carried out with great "social instinct" and shows that "man has become conscious of his essence". Listen to this:

"There is no other communism, for what Weitling has produced is only an elaboration of Fourierist and communist ideas with which he became acquainted in Paris and Geneva."




"There is no" English communism, "for what Weitling", etc. Thomas More, the Levellers Owen, Thompson, Watts, Holyoake, Harney, Morgan, Southwell, Goodwyn Barmby, Greaves, Edmonds, Hobson, Spence will be amazed, or turn in their graves, when they hear that they are no communists "for" Weitling went to Paris and Geneva.



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch04b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch04b.htm)

[Luís Henrique]

Plato and Aristotle are given a lot of praise as philosophers even though if they were around today they would be considered right-wing extremists for some of their views.

Its hard to find any mention of anybody opposing slavery other than Spartacus. Or any views that encouraged wealth redistribution or even rang of socialism. Yet with the number of years that went by and the great number of people there's bound to have been somebody who came up with ideas at least similar to leftism today or even something as simple as opposition to slavery (since that is left compared to what they had back then).

Were there any ideas like this and what philosophers supported them? What philosophers had ideas closest to the modern left?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm

Hope this helps.

Luís Henrique

[Kukulofori]

Mycenaean Greece had outright command economies.

http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/the-dark-ages

[pastradamus]

Socialism is a creation of the 19th C. Casting back through previous decades looking for similar ideologies/policies is really rather futile. The very best that can be said about some movements is that they were proto-socialist

In the specific case of Antiquity, the examples typically held up are the Gracchi brothers - the first Roman politicians to try and build a political base out of the plebeians and peasantry. Even they AFAIK did not challenge slavery - that institution was far too central to Roman society to even consider abolishing

Not an uncommon sentiment in some quarters. The first shall be last and the last shall be first, etc

I suppose the best we can take from ancient history is that many ancient movements had some common policies with modern day socialist ideals.

A few ones that come to mind are:

Spartacus,
Plato,
Aristotle,
Many of the Early Christians,
Captain Cook (common ownership of good on Ships)

[narcomprom]

Zeno of Citium is worth mentionning, although most of his politeia is lost.

[fabilius]

There have always been elements of socialism in all cultures. Our species bases it´s success on mutual sharing and collaboration.

I imagine the early (and then I mean the really early) christians lived in communes, not unsimilar to some anarchists today. And of course Marx mentioned a few examples of class struggle in the past.

Class struggle has existed as long as classes have. But of course you will never find an ancient version of your idea of socialism. Unless you are extremely reactionary:cool:

[Blake's Baby]

The Pelagians, a strand of Christianity later suppressed, because they believed that doing good works got you into heaven - obviously the Catholic Church had to declare that was heresy (in 418AD).

"What is given by God is divided equally; what is in the care of man is divided unequally - thus riches are not a sign of the grace of God but the iniquity of man"

"There are three classes: the rich, the poor, and those who have enough. It is the few rich that are the cause of the many poor."

"Abolish the rich and there will be no more poor."

That seems fairly like socialism to me. Not identical obviously - I don't think that there was that much actual reflection on the class nature of society (they'd probably have been OK with independent producers) - but close nevertheless. Especially with "abolish the rich..." and the 'three-class' analysis of wealth.

Check out "The Sicilian Briton", an anonymous monk writing c400AD.

[Absolut]

Ive read about Zeno being "the first anarchist" or something like this, because he envisioned a society without government and gods. Was some time ago I read this, might be wrong.

Other than that, I cant think of that much. I guess it depends on what youre looking for, in some aspects, Epicurus and his followers were radicals as they made no difference between slaves, free men or women in their school (everyone could attend it, if they could pay of course), but I wouldnt say they were especially radical in their teachings. The same could be said about the stoics I guess.

[Dimentio]

Certainly, egalitarian ideas existed in the ancient times. But most of these ideas were not progressive since they did not envision some sort of future, but rather wanted a "return back" to some kind of "golden age" nearly forgotten. Thus, all movements were what we could call "reactionary", since they referred to some real or imagined time in history or mythology.

During our era, which began in the late 18th century, we have come to imagine history as linear. Marx's understanding of history is a developed linear projection. In ancient times, people viewed history as cyclical, moving from a golden age into an age of clay and mud.

Nowadays, it is only esoteric fascists and traditionalists of the school of Evola and Savitri Devi who believe in a cyclical timeline.

[fabilius]

Certainly, egalitarian ideas existed in the ancient times. But most of these ideas were not progressive since they did not envision some sort of future, but rather wanted a "return back" to some kind of "golden age" nearly forgotten. Thus, all movements were what we could call "reactionary", since they referred to some real or imagined time in history or mythology.

During our era, which began in the late 18th century, we have come to imagine history as linear. Marx's understanding of history is a developed linear projection. In ancient times, people viewed history as cyclical, moving from a golden age into an age of clay and mud.

Nowadays, it is only esoteric fascists and traditionalists of the school of Evola and Savitri Devi who believe in a cyclical timeline.

True, but does it truly matter whether you believe in cyclical or linear timeline. Progress will remain progress if society becomes freer and more equal.

[Manzil]

Were there any ideas like this and what philosophers supported them? What philosophers had ideas closest to the modern left?

Of course, so long as there have been organised societies, people within them will have come to believe there should be a more equal distribution of work and of life's wants, and the people freed from unjust or oppressive constraints on personal behaviour. Some of these, recorded or not, may have been philosophers - but why do their views matter? More interesting is how ordinary people living in antiquity understood the world around them, and attempted to improve their lives. In ancient Rome, the campaigns of the urban proletarii and tenant farmers to resist the rule of landlords and landowners existed independent of the mere 'history of ideas' within the aristocratic populares. Societies are not determined by ideology but the material relations between their members.

We know human social development began as communal, propertyless and cooperative. Whether progressive-minded members of the privileged among later class societies since then have spoken out on a particular idea is less relevant than the changing ways of producing surpluses, how these were distributed, and the effect this had on the way people behaved. But these things, in the classical world, went largely unrecorded. Instead we have only the history of the 'victors', the rich men who seized control of those surpluses, who stood on the grave of that same remedial communist society.

[chimx]

In the specific case of Antiquity, the examples typically held up are the Gracchi brothers - the first Roman politicians to try and build a political base out of the plebeians and peasantry. Even they AFAIK did not challenge slavery - that institution was far too central to Roman society to even consider abolishing

Babeuf of the French Revolution, the father of communism, called himself Gracchus Babeuf as a tribute to the Gracchi Brothers.

[Il Medico]

The Pelagians, a strand of Christianity later suppressed, because they believed that doing good works got you into heaven - obviously the Catholic Church had to declare that was heresy (in 418AD).

While I have no doubt that the Catholic Church declared this group heretical, it would have to be on other theological grounds. The idea of getting into heaven by good works is and has always been a key part of Catholic dogma. This idea was not rejected until the Protestant reformation. They said doing good deeds will not get you to heaven, rather only absolute faith would. This lack of emphasis on good deeds led to the idea of the protestant work ethic (i.e Work hard and God will favor you and make you rich). This idea would become a corner stone of Capitalism and later Social Darwinism.

[Random Precision]

While I have no doubt that the Catholic Church declared this group heretical, it would have to be on other theological grounds. The idea of getting into heaven by good works is and has always been a key part of Catholic dogma. This idea was not rejected until the Protestant reformation. They said doing good deeds will not get you to heaven, rather only absolute faith would.

The Reformation was far from unified on the idea of works. Each sect emerging out of it had a different approach to it. Even Luther, who is usually credited with the idea of justification by faith alone, preached that good works proceed from Christian faith.


This lack of emphasis on good deeds led to the idea of the protestant work ethic (i.e Work hard and God will favor you and make you rich). This idea would become a corner stone of Capitalism and later Social Darwinism.

So how exactly does less good works lead to greater work ethic? Couldn't some people consider that "working hard" was a part of one's religious duty? And if this was limited to Protestants then however did Catholic nations like Italy develop capitalist production alongside Germany and Britain? No offense but your explanation is simplistic and ahistorical.

[fabilius]

So how exactly does less good works lead to greater work ethic? Couldn't some people consider that "working hard" was a part of one's religious duty? And if this was limited to Protestants then however did Catholic nations like Italy develop capitalist production alongside Germany and Britain? No offense but your explanation is simplistic and ahistorical.

I´ve heard this explanation often before, and it may have some merits. May.

First of all Italy was way ahead of rest of Europe in terms of development and production at the beginning of the reformation. By the 20th century it was far behind Germany, France and Britain. Spain which was also quite advanced was far behind the north western countries by the 20th century.

Of course there are other factors, trade, wars, the way the state is run etc.

And don´t take this as if I´m complimenting Luther or Calvinism. The idea that Calvinists have that being rich means being good and being poor means being bad is horrific.

[Dave B]

I think there are two interesting articles on this from Engels the first begins towards the end of the following with-:


"We will now in addition deal only briefly with religion, since the latter stands further away from material life and seems to be most alien to it. Religion………"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm)

And the second is below and well worth reading in its entirety I think;



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-hist.htm)

[ComradeOm]

First of all Italy was way ahead of rest of Europe in terms of development and production at the beginning of the reformation. By the 20th century it was far behind Germany, France and BritainLargely because talking of 'Italy' during the Reformation is a complete anachronism. For the vast majority of the past millennium 'Italy' was indeed little but a 'geographic expression'. The near-deserted southern plains of Naples were still deserted at the beginning of the 20th C but to the north a thriving industrial region had developed from the mid 19th C around Turin. By the 20th the Italian 'Industrial Triangle' (stretching from Milan to Turin and Genoa) was as developed as any industrial region in Germany

I give more examples here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1491402&postcount=7) but safe to say the idea that religion was a driving force in industrialisation just does not stand up to historical scrutiny

Edit: Which is not to say of course that the religious structures (ie, the Catholic Church) does not present an obstacle to the development of the bourgeois state. But this is very different from Weber's thesis regarding the natural inclination of Protestants towards capitalist enterprise

[narcomprom]

Ive read about Zeno being "the first anarchist" or something like this, because he envisioned a society without government and gods. Was some time ago I read this, might be wrong.
The descicive point in Zeno's republic was total egalitarianism, equal distribution of wealth and lack of a currency. It wasn't much different from later utopian socialisms.

[Dave B]

cities of the gods: Communist utopias in greek thought



Modern studies of classical utopian thought are usually restricted to the republic and laws of plato, producing the impression that greek speculation about ideal states was invariably authoritarian and hierarchical. In this book, however, Dawson sets Plato in the context of the whole ancient tradition of philosophical utopia. He distinguishes two types of greek utopia, relating both to the social and the political background of greece between the fifth and third centuries b.c. Dawson outlines a "low" utopianism that arose from the greek colonizing movement.



A comprehensive program for an ideal city-state, conceived as a critique of existing institutions and a model for limited reform, it was intended for literal implementation. A "high" utopianism arose from the practical utopias--a theoretical system with unattainable standards of social reform designed as a thought experiment for exploring the potentialities of human nature and society.



This more abstract model looked at institutional change at a much deeper level than was possible in real political reform. The second, higher utopianism, which was based on total communism in property and family, is the focus of Dawson's study.


Attempting to reconstruct the lost utopian works of the stoics, dawson argues that their ideal state was universal and egalitarian, in deliberate contrast to the hierarchical and militaristic utopia of plato. He further asserts that both theories were intended to bring about long-range social reform, though neither was meant for direct implementation.



Dawson offers an explanation for the disappearance of the utopian tradition in the later hellenistic age. Finally, he traces the survival of communist ideas inearly christianity. Far from being merely another commentary on plato's republic, cities of the gods is a comprehensive study of the whole ancient tradition of philosophical speculation about ideal societies.



Distinguishing two types of greek utopian literature--the practical and the theoretical--dawson focuses on the contrast between the authoritarian platonic utopias and the egalitarian stoic utopias. He traces the history of utopian and communist ideas in pagan and christian thought to the end of the roman empire. This book will be of interest to scholars, as well as general readers, interested in philosophy, political science, classical studies, and religion.


publisher: oxford university press
language: english
isbn: 0195069838

[Il Medico]

The Reformation was far from unified on the idea of works. Each sect emerging out of it had a different approach to it. Even Luther, who is usually credited with the idea of justification by faith alone, preached that good works proceed from Christian faith.

I was referring to the time period and movement that rejected the idea. I know not all protestants reject the idea.



So how exactly does less good works lead to greater work ethic? Couldn't some people consider that "working hard" was a part of one's religious duty? I may have phrased my point badly, I apologize. The emphasis of religious duty being moved from charity and community work to faith and having material success through hard work (as some branches believed this shows divine favor [Being wealthy that is])


And if this was limited to Protestants then however did Catholic nations like Italy develop capitalist production alongside Germany and Britain? No offense but your explanation is simplistic and ahistorical.They didn't really. Italy, Spain, and other catholic dominated countries fell way behind Protestant lead nations like the UK, Germany and America. The basic values instilled in people of the two are different as well. Protestantism focuses more on business than Catholicism. This is evident in their respective cultures. Take Italy and America, in Italy you get a long lunch break were you can go home and eat with family. Business are generally closed during this (I believe it is something like 11:00- 2:00) and reopen afterward. This custom would be laughed at in America as a waste of valuable time (and money). Capitalist values are deeply ingrained in protestant faiths because they developed as capitalism began to gain hold. While the countries which ascribe to Catholicism, Islam, Orthodoxy, or any other religion fell behind in capitalist development because their values focus was pre-capitalist.

[ComradeOm]

Take Italy and America, in Italy you get a long lunch break were you can go home and eat with family. Business are generally closed during this (I believe it is something like 11:00- 2:00) and reopen afterward. This custom would be laughed at in America as a waste of valuable time (and money)What exactly does the siesta (an institution that is also common in Africa and Asia) have to do with religion? You don't think that it may be a cultural reaction to the unbearable midday heat of those nations? :rolleyes:

Now while I'm sympathetic to the idea that various structural features of Protestantism (ie, the role of the various Protestant churches within society) may have facilitated the rise of capitalist states, the assertion that Protestants were simply harder workers is simply baseless and un-Marxist


Capitalist values are deeply ingrained in protestant faiths because they developed as capitalism began to gain holdLuther nailed up his these in 1517. Germany did not become an industrial society until the late 19th C and specifically after 1871. There's a connection there but its not the one you are making out

Of course its always worthwhile pointing out (again!) that German industry developed on a regional basis. Almost half of Germany is in fact Catholic and many of these regions (such as the Rhineland, Baden, Bavaria) were amongst the first in Germany to industrialise. Similarly there were exclusively Protestant areas, such as East Prussia, which remained rooted in agricultural well into the 20th C. Even then the spark for the great 'takeoff' of industry (which established the Empire as a leading industrial power) was French capital secured through war indemnities. Catholic France being a more developed industrial nation at the time

Not that little details like this concerned Weber who selectively chose his data to support his thesis and simply ignored issues (such as the differences within Protestantism itself) that undermined it

[Blake's Baby]

While I have no doubt that the Catholic Church declared this group heretical, it would have to be on other theological grounds. The idea of getting into heaven by good works is and has always been a key part of Catholic dogma. This idea was not rejected until the Protestant reformation. They said doing good deeds will not get you to heaven, rather only absolute faith would. This lack of emphasis on good deeds led to the idea of the protestant work ethic (i.e Work hard and God will favor you and make you rich). This idea would become a corner stone of Capitalism and later Social Darwinism.

No I'm sorry, you're wrong. St Augustine of Hippo "invented the heresy of predestination" (in the words of a Pelagian-inspired monk writing in 452AD) in order to combat the Pelagian view that good works were enough to get you into heaven.

The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin (St Augustine's 'heresy of predestination'), which was first propounded in 418AD, holds that because we all carry the sin of Adam, then Grace is necessary to enter heaven, not just good works. God's favour cannot be 'bought', the Catholic argument goes; it must be granted. Otherwise, people can control God. And that's got to be heresy, hasn't it?

The upshot is that good deeds will not get you into heaven.

Calvin didn't make this stuff up you know.

On the more general question of the relationship between Protestantism and Capitalism, certainly there is a relationship, but it isn't a 1-to-1 identity.

The breaking of the corporatist ideology of the middle ages was beneficial to the establishment of individual property rights over the vestiges of feudal obligations; an individual relationship with God can imply an individual relationship with God's blessings; likewise, it implies an 'each against all' relationship with other people. So Protestantism was certainly useful. But not every capitalist was a protestant even then, or vice versa, and even less so now.

[The Author]

Left-Wing Ideas In Ancient Times?


Difficult to say, a lot of literature from the ancient world was lost over time from wars and class struggles and incidents such as the burning of the Library of Alexandria, so we'll never really know if such ideas did exist among some unknown writers who are now lost to history.

[Random Precision]

I don't know about left-wing, but the Lokayata school of philosophy of India (around 5 AD) could be considered freethought. Of course it was roundly condemned by the other mystical schools. It was the only materialist school ever in ancient India.

http://www.humanistictexts.org/carvaka.htm


My avatar is a quote from a Carvaka text.

Although as I recall the only real knowledge of the Lokayata school is from quotes of their texts in those from rival schools, for example the Kamasutra. Obviously we can expect that these were probably selective about what they quoted because of their polemical intent. Also do we know how the materialists put their beliefs into practice? Did they advocate substantial changes to the society of their day?

The point being, mere materialism isn't exactly left-wing. Progressive for their time, maybe, but that puts them in the same boat as Spinoza.

EDIT: Here is a Marxist appraisal of Indian Materialism from August Thalheimer's Dialectical Materialism. Though, I am not sure how consistent it is with recent history of ancient India: http://www.marxists.org/archive/thalheimer/works/diamat/06.htm

[Random Precision]

I'm not sure if Kamasutra (the ancient sex manual) is the text you were looking for.

Well to be strictly accurate it's more than just a sex manual, it has a lot of practical advice on romantic relationships in general, including marriage, how to conduct extramarital affairs, the balance of power in a relationship, like ways for a disadvantaged partner (like a courtesan) to gain power over the more powerful male. Wendy Doniger (whose translation is the current academic standard in English) says in The Hindus: An Alternative History that the author(s) disapprovingly quote Carvaka in several verses, in a "I heard Carvaka say this... he is wrong because..." style. I'll look up the page number when I get home.

[Gracchvs]

So the protestant countries became more advanced and... This somehow means that protestant ideology shaped capitalism?

Hooray for idealism!

The various protestant ideologies came about due to changing social reality, they didn't condition that social reality. Seriously, a basic axiom of historical materialism!