Are the Welfare States Of Today Like Ancient Rome?

[Outinleftfield]

Rome started as a republic like the United States but like the United States with a stratified class structure. Eventually it became an empire.

But as it became more oppressive the government just gave people bread and circuses and they didn't revolt.

Is this the same that is going in "social democracies" and even to an extent in the US with welfare and social programs. They are keeping the masses content so they keep supporting capitalism.

And let's think what if Rome didn't do this? There would've been a revolution and Rome would've fallen a lot sooner.

Historically countries that now have more "social democracy" are the ones whose socialist movements went reformist the earliest. Very early in Swedish history the reformists formed the majority of socialists while revolutionary socialism was more popular in most countries.

Contrast that with the US which has always been slow to change. Could it be the US is slow to change because the people who want change don't use the political system as much as in other countries? Historically the bulk of the American socialist movement was socialist anarchists and this only changed in the 20s but to revolutionary marxism and then in the 60s and 70s back to anarchism being more popular. Anarchists reject reform the most. Most will not even vote while revolutionary communists would still sometimes vote even though they believed that inevitably a revolution was needed.

Does this mean that countries that reform the slowest are the more likely to have revolutions, so paradoxically the further away a country is from socialism the closer it is and the closer it is the further away it is?

Also will welfare states lead to the same things that happened in Rome? What can we learn from Rome?

[Dimentio]

Rome could not have become socialist simply because they did not have resources for that during that time. The only ones imagining some sort of egalitarian society were some of the stoics, wanting to abolishing trade and slavery.

[Искра]

Rome could not have become socialist simply because they did not have resources for that during that time. The only ones imagining some sort of egalitarian society were some of the stoics, wanting to abolishing trade and slavery.
And jet emperor Marcus Aurelius was stoic and he still conquered.

[fabilius]

And jet emperor Marcus Aurelius was stoic and he still conquered.

Aren´t there plenty of leaders who claim to be socialists and yet aren´t? There is a great quote from Will Durant I remember that went something like this:

"Marcus Aurelius was well read an well versed in all philosophies of that time. But revolutionary radicals are rarely born in palaces..."

Not that the Stoics were a revolutionary movement.

[Intelligitimate]

I highly recommend Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Rome." Caesar was the last great popularis of Rome, and I would say that was the closest thing to a dictatorship of the proletarii that existed in ancient times. All the ancient, aristocratic historians (and most modern ones) hated him for a reason.

[Pavlov's House Party]

I highly recommend Michael Parenti's "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Rome." Caesar was the last great popularis of Rome, and I would say that was the closest thing to a dictatorship of the proletarii that existed in ancient times. All the ancient, aristocratic historians (and most modern ones) hated him for a reason.

Even if Caesar had support from the proletarii, he was still a patrician. It wasn't a dictatorship of the proletarians because they liked him, it was a dictatorship of patricians because he represented the interests of his class.

I think Marx talked about Caesarism like an earlier form of Bonapartism, but I might be mistaken.

[Intelligitimate]

Even if Caesar had support from the proletarii, he was still a patrician. It wasn't a dictatorship of the proletarians because they liked him, it was a dictatorship of patricians because he represented the interests of his class.

I think Marx talked about Caesarism like an earlier form of Bonapartism, but I might be mistaken.

Caesar most definitely did not represent the interests of his class. In many ways, he went further beyond popular reforms than even put forth by the Gracchi brothers and his uncle Marius (also outstanding popularis leaders) It's why they killed him.

[toughlove]

It definitely seems to me that Romans were the precursors to Mussolini's fascists. Probably because Mussolini consciously imitated what he believed to be the defining features of the Roman state- constant war, hyper-nationalism (or at least, a proclivity for violence), a mythology about the greatness of the state, and bread and circuses for the masses to keep them from rebelling.

I would say that the primary reason you cannot call the Romans socialist is that all 'socialist' elements were merely an effort of the ruling class to distract/appease the people rather than try to make their lives better in any sort of systematic way