Spartacus - a real representative of the proletariat of ancient times

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.marxist.com/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat.htm

The spectacle of these most downtrodden people rising up with arms in hand and inflicting defeat after defeat on the armies of the world’s greatest power is one of the most amazing and moving events in history. Ultimately, Spartacus failed. It may be that his revolt was always doomed to fail. But this glorious page in history will never be forgotten as long as men and women are motivated by the love of truth and justice. The echoes of this titanic uprising reverberate down the centuries and are still a source of inspiration to all those today who are continuing the fight for a better world.

[El Chuncho]

Thanks for making this as, I think, you, me and a few others have been mentioning Spartacus in a socialist context a lot recently.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spartacus and his political program (if any) were overrated.

[Savage]

The proletariat didn't exist in ancient times.

[Optiow]

Spartacus wanted to free the slaves so they could go home. He didn't want to make any form of socialist society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And that is why the Julius Caesar of people's history was more socially radical and, with the attempt to transfer political power from the Senate to the Tribunal Assembly, a politically revolutionary people's (elected, non-hereditary, de facto) monarch. :)

[Savage]

And that is why the Julius Caesar of people's history was more socially radical and, with the attempt to transfer political power from the Senate to the Tribunal Assembly, a politically revolutionary people's (elected, non-hereditary, de facto) monarch. :)
Well obviously neither Spartacus nor Caesar represented the immediate producers of Roman society, but if the question is on patrician/plebeian (political) revolutionaries, wouldn't the Gracchi more or less match up to Caesar?

[Agent Ducky]

I definitely read over the chapter with Spartacus in history class thinking "well, he sounds like a good comrade!"

[Jose Gracchus]

Well obviously neither Spartacus nor Caesar represented the immediate producers of Roman society, but if the question is on patrician/plebeian (political) revolutionaries, wouldn't the Gracchi more or less match up to Caesar?

DNZ is just making up bullshit history in his head in order to apologize for a peculiar kind of ex nihilo politics where the working-class should surrender political initiative in the Third World to Lukashenko-type figures provided they base themselves on a class base unheard of in the historical record, as a substitute for communist politics where they lack the demographic majority.

[Queercommie Girl]

The proletariat didn't exist in ancient times.

Technically no, but the modern working class is still far closer to the slaves, serfs and peasants of ancient times than it can ever be to the slave lords and feudal lords. The modern working class, like the slaves and serfs of old, is an oppressed, exploited and ruled class, not an exploiting or ruling class.

Marx greatly praised Spartacus as a great rebel leader, he is still a great inspiration for socialists today, certainly much more so than the likes of Caesar and Genghis Khan which the "great men-worshippers" on this forum like to promote.

[Queercommie Girl]

DNZ is just making up bullshit history in his head in order to apologize for a peculiar kind of ex nihilo politics where the working-class should surrender political initiative in the Third World to Lukashenko-type figures provided they base themselves on a class base unheard of in the historical record, as a substitute for communist politics where they lack the demographic majority.

DNZ just has a fetish for alpha male type "great men" in history.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well obviously neither Spartacus nor Caesar represented the immediate producers of Roman society, but if the question is on patrician/plebeian (political) revolutionaries, wouldn't the Gracchi more or less match up to Caesar?

Gracchi was ancient Rome's equivalent of a keynesian-style reformist, he was certainly not a revolutionary by any means, nor was he a political representative of the plebians, he was a statist who simply wished to strengthen Rome as a whole and believed this could be achieved through certain reforms.

[Queercommie Girl]

Spartacus wanted to free the slaves so they could go home. He didn't want to make any form of socialist society.

I think Spartacus did have certain egalitarian ideals, based on common ownership rather than common production, which makes them rather utopian, but it's wrong to think that all Spartacus wanted to do was to "escape".

Despite all of the limitations of Spartacus, he is still a far superior figure for Marxists compared with imperialists like Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan that some clowns on this forum like to parade around.

[El Chuncho]

Marx greatly praised Spartacus as a great rebel leader, he is still a great inspiration for socialists today, certainly much more so than the likes of Caesar and Genghis Khan which the "great men-worshippers" on this forum like to promote.

It is why the communists in Germany, lead by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, were called Spartacists.

The fact that the proletariat didn't exist in Roman society is irrelevant. Spartacus lead a rebellion of the lowest class against imperialist tyranny. He is a proto-socialist if not a socialist, and his legacy has lived on in socialist movements.

Spartacus not only lead a rebellion of slaves, he lead a successful rebellion of slaves, which weakened Rome in the Third Servile War. And not only slaves followed him but ''...many of the herdsmen and shepherds of the region'' (Plutarch, 'Crassus'), causing the senate to send eight legions, under the command of Marcus Licinius Crassus, after the slave and peasant army.

And Marx would disagree with the view that Spartacus was not part of an ancient proletariat, as he stated "a great general, noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat." Of course we do not have to agree with everything Marx says, but he makes good points about the former Thracian gladiator.

[graymouser]

The proletariat didn't exist in ancient times.
Sigh...

In ancient Rome, proletarius was a legal classification for a citizen who owned no significant property and therefore fell beneath the requirements for military service. These were one of the groups that made up the plebeian class, which comprised all citizens outside of the aristocracy. Marx called the modern working class the proletariat in direct analogy to the Roman proletarii, because by definition they owned no productive property. They were not a revolutionary class, though, because they played no role in production and mostly lived off of the largesse of the aristocracy.

Marx's characterization of Spartacus as a "real representative of the proletariat" is off in terms of the legal Roman class structure but manifestly correct in spirit. Spartacus lived in the tumultuous decline of the Roman Republic, when massive influxes of slaves from wars of foreign conquest inundated the social system of Rome and their exploitation took place at a frightening rate. While educated slaves were known to be treated quite well and given the opportunity to buy their freedom (which was actually a disadvantage in many ways) the majority of the slaves were worked mercilessly, in some periods simply to death, in fields or mines where the sheer quantity of slaves was able to outstrip any capacity of free labor given the technological level. Antiquity had some truly amazing engineering feats but these were limited to things like irrigation, transportation, entertainment and the military; labor-saving devices were neglected almost totally.

The slave revolt probably couldn't have overcome the contradictions of the technical level of Rome. Labor needed to become free before technology could make it so that 90% of the population didn't need to be involved in agriculture. I'm often critical of Alan Woods but his pieces on Roman history are well informed (I'm quietly hoping they release his series on the Gracchi as a book) and worth reading, certainly over Michael Parenti's work.

[Dimentio]

I don't know whether Spartacus wanted to abolish slavery. Nevertheless, he was quite a skilled diplomat, since not only slaves but also indentured Latins and free Italic peasants joined his cause. It seems to have mainly been motivated by pure desperation.

[graymouser]

Gracchi was ancient Rome's equivalent of a keynesian-style reformist, he was certainly not a revolutionary by any means, nor was he a political representative of the plebians, he was a statist who simply wished to strengthen Rome as a whole and believed this could be achieved through certain reforms.
I don't think you should be so dismissive of the Gracchi. Tiberius Gracchus was driven to quasi-revolutionary methods by the intransigence of the Senate on the question of the ager publicus. It's inaccurate to compare him to "Keynesian" style reformers, when his main goal was to achieve land reform - which is still a problem that grips underdeveloped countries today, in 2011.

Legally he was literally a political representative of the plebeians, he was a plebeian tribune, and is generally regarded by history as the clearest example of a tribune using his powers boldly and forthrightly for the benefit of the plebeians. That wasn't the problem; it was that he couldn't surmount the class system in ancient Rome and get the Senate to enact laws that would actually save the Republic. By ignoring the Gracchi the Senate set itself on the long road toward its submission to the Caesars.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think you should be so dismissive of the Gracchi. Tiberius Gracchus was driven to quasi-revolutionary methods by the intransigence of the Senate on the question of the ager publicus. It's inaccurate to compare him to "Keynesian" style reformers, when his main goal was to achieve land reform - which is still a problem that grips underdeveloped countries today, in 2011.

Legally he was literally a political representative of the plebeians, he was a plebeian tribune, and is generally regarded by history as the clearest example of a tribune using his powers boldly and forthrightly for the benefit of the plebeians. That wasn't the problem; it was that he couldn't surmount the class system in ancient Rome and get the Senate to enact laws that would actually save the Republic. By ignoring the Gracchi the Senate set itself on the long road toward its submission to the Caesars.

Ok, I see your point. But I disagree with Savage's point that the slaves represented by Spartacus were not direct producers in Roman society. That's ridiculous considering that slaves actually did most of the manual labour in Rome at this time. If anything, they were even more productive than certain layers within the plebian classes.

[graymouser]

Ok, I see your point. But I disagree with Savage's point that the slaves represented by Spartacus were not direct producers in Roman society. That's ridiculous considering that slaves actually did most of the manual labour in Rome at this time. If anything, they were even more productive than certain layers within the plebian classes.
Well, "productive" labor was mostly done on the fields, by the plebs (the intermediate ranks between the equites and proletarii) and slaves alike. It was a small minority who actually produced goods for sale, and yes, they were mostly slaves. But "productive" can be a misleading term, because while there was certainly exchange it really wasn't a society with any kind of generalized commodity production.

Pre-capitalist society is always tricky for those attempting to use Marxist tools, because there were multiple lower classes with different relationships to the system. Particularly one that was shot through with contradictory legal and social strata like Rome, where the plebeians and slaves alike had extreme differentiation within their ranks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well obviously neither Spartacus nor Caesar represented the immediate producers of Roman society, but if the question is on patrician/plebeian (political) revolutionaries, wouldn't the Gracchi more or less match up to Caesar?

Caesar was the last in a line of bloodied reformers ("bloodied" in reference to the fact that many of them were assassinated).



DNZ is just making up bullshit history in his head in order to apologize for a peculiar kind of ex nihilo politics where the working-class should surrender political initiative in the Third World to Lukashenko-type figures provided they base themselves on a class base unheard of in the historical record, as a substitute for communist politics where they lack the demographic majority.

DNZ just has a fetish for alpha male type "great men" in history.

Institutional organization and communal power hardly count as "great men" admiration. :glare:


Gracchi was ancient Rome's equivalent of a keynesian-style reformist, he was certainly not a revolutionary by any means, nor was he a political representative of the plebians, he was a statist who simply wished to strengthen Rome as a whole and believed this could be achieved through certain reforms.

Gracchi and Caesar belonged to the same line of bloodied reformers (Parenti).

[graymouser]

Caesar was the last in a line of bloodied reformers ("bloodied" in reference to the fact that many of them were assassinated).
We've been over in considerable depth why that is a misleading statement at best.


Institutional organization and communal power hardly count as "great men" admiration. :glare:
No, it's actually pretty clearly manifest in your politics.


Gracchi and Caesar belonged to the same line of bloodied reformers (Parenti).
They both belonged to the populares, but every historian of Rome will tell you that this was primarily a distinction of method and not of program. Caesar's reforms are much less significant than Parenti makes them out to be, and he deliberately skews them while shoving the massive social distortions caused by his conquests, genocide and mass enslavement under the rug.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, it's actually pretty clearly manifest in your politics.

Your charge "worship of bureaucracy" is hardly conducive to any "great man" seizing the helm.

[graymouser]

Your charge "worship of bureaucracy" is hardly conducive to any "great man" seizing the helm.
Are you kidding? Bureaucrats love "great men." In point of fact, many of Rome's (extremely small) bureaucracy were key supporters of autocracy along with the equestrians. Not to mention classical Chinese bureaucracies under the Emperor, or the various Stalinist bureaucracies.

[Jose Gracchus]

Given how many times your "Caesar wanting to be an elected dictator" [however ridiculous that it is intuitively] based on the Tribal Assembly has been pointed out to be fatuous and in no way representative of legitimate history, I can only surmise your continued humping of this argument is down to straight up deliberate dishonesty.

[L.A.P.]

the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history

This.

[Savage]

Sigh...

In ancient Rome, proletarius was a legal classification for a citizen who owned no significant property and therefore fell beneath the requirements for military service. These were one of the groups that made up the plebeian class, which comprised all citizens outside of the aristocracy. Marx called the modern working class the proletariat in direct analogy to the Roman proletarii, because by definition they owned no productive property. They were not a revolutionary class, though, because they played no role in production and mostly lived off of the largesse of the aristocracy.

Marx's characterization of Spartacus as a "real representative of the proletariat" is off in terms of the legal Roman class structure but manifestly correct in spirit. Spartacus lived in the tumultuous decline of the Roman Republic, when massive influxes of slaves from wars of foreign conquest inundated the social system of Rome and their exploitation took place at a frightening rate. While educated slaves were known to be treated quite well and given the opportunity to buy their freedom (which was actually a disadvantage in many ways) the majority of the slaves were worked mercilessly, in some periods simply to death, in fields or mines where the sheer quantity of slaves was able to outstrip any capacity of free labor given the technological level. Antiquity had some truly amazing engineering feats but these were limited to things like irrigation, transportation, entertainment and the military; labor-saving devices were neglected almost totally.

The slave revolt probably couldn't have overcome the contradictions of the technical level of Rome. Labor needed to become free before technology could make it so that 90% of the population didn't need to be involved in agriculture. I'm often critical of Alan Woods but his pieces on Roman history are well informed (I'm quietly hoping they release his series on the Gracchi as a book) and worth reading, certainly over Michael Parenti's work.
Thank you for the correction, but of course, the proletariat still is a class specific only to capitalism, regardless of the origin of the term, and you have to be wary of people who use class terminology incorrectly, who speak of the bourgeoisie as a historically perpetual class and such. I'm no fan of woods but I'd be interested in his take on the Gracchi, I too find Parenti unreadable.

[Savage]

But I disagree with Savage's point that the slaves represented by Spartacus were not direct producers in Roman society.
I don't know where you got this from, all I said was that slaves are not proletarians.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Given how many times your "Caesar wanting to be an elected dictator" [however ridiculous that it is intuitively] based on the Tribal Assembly has been pointed out to be fatuous and in no way representative of legitimate history, I can only surmise your continued humping of this argument is down to straight up deliberate dishonesty.

If I'm not mistaken, consuls could only serve for a term of one year (either at a time or for life, I can't remember). It's possible that the dictator perpetuo could have been transformed into something like the presidential systems of today, with longer years per term.

[Savage]

If I'm not mistaken, consuls could only serve for a term of one year (either at a time or for life, I can't remember). It's possible that the dictator perpetuo could have been transformed into something like the presidential systems of today, with longer years per term.
Yes, it was one year, however they could assume the role of Dictator for up to 6 months, though I'm not sure whether this time would be taken out of their consulship or not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The dictator rei gerendae causa was filled typically by former consuls and not serving consuls, most likely to avoid conflict between the informal senior consul and the informal junior consul. In cases of serving consuls filling the position, I would venture to think not (re. six months deducted from consular term), since it was a clear sign of seniority over the junior consul. Besides, many dictators served less than six months, some for less than a month.

[Savage]

Didn't Caesar serve as Dictator whilst as Consul? And yes, I wouldn't think that many would serve for up to 6 months as it was seen as sort of 'last resort' in times of emergency.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think so, but again the people's history "apologists" in Parenti and me see him as trying to transform the Consul-Dictator institution into a real but more authoritarian precursor for modern presidential systems (absolutism/autocracy/monarchy), while at the same time boosting popular power via the Tribunal Assembly ("democracy") at the expense of the Senate ("aristocracy"/oligarchy). I'm sure even Caesar knew that Benevolent Tyrannies (without the "democracy" component) don't work.

[CornetJoyce]

Spartacus "had no program" that we know about, but we don't know a lot about him.
However, we do know that he was enslaved in Thrace as punishment for political rebellion, which suggests that his politics were similar to those of the popular party in Rome. We know that his wife was a prophetess and that her prophetic voice gave wings to the revolt. It's unlikely that they shared the views of 19th century intellectuals, but it's also unlikely that they "had no program."

[Jose Gracchus]

I think so, but again the people's history "apologists" in Parenti and me see him as trying to transform the Consul-Dictator institution into a real but more authoritarian precursor for modern presidential systems (absolutism/autocracy/monarchy), while at the same time boosting popular power via the Tribunal Assembly ("democracy") at the expense of the Senate ("aristocracy"/oligarchy). I'm sure even Caesar knew that Benevolent Tyrannies (without the "democracy" component) don't work.

God I'm sick of reading this disinformation you keep squirting across the history forum. I don't want the more gullible to fall for it. Justify a single one of these claims in the literature. Any of them. Please. Citations, if you would.

Parenti, incidentally, for passive readers, supports literally none of these elaborations DNZ is purporting he does. Parenti's book has two core positions: 1. an elaborate allegory apologizing for Stalin, and 2. attacking conservative historians who portrayed Caesar as a rabble-rouser authoritarian who broke some non-existent standard of political fair play and old due process or something. I think the first thesis is garbage, the second is fair. That does not mean Caesar was some proto-socialist. He was in fact a member of the patrician aristocracy who sought to base themselves on the upward equites class and lower-class basis of the soldiery. However this politics was more sops than anything like legitimate class politics. No attempt was made to liberate the proletarii from their propertyless dole-dependence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Most of the citations are from the conservative historians. I'm using very basic but out-of-the-box deduction here because of the bias.

On the one hand, nobody in Roman politics wanted a return to a lifelong monarchy until Augustus. On the other hand, at some point one-year tenure in an executive position can become unstable. There had to be political forces in Roman politics that were for a premodern presidential system of sorts.

As Iseul and I discussed in the March on Rome thread, Caesar may have been one of those elites who wanted to transition into feudalism (or even petty capitalism plus "Asiatic" industrial development) and become the new ruling class then, seeing the rot amongst the rest of his patrician lot (like the absolutist late feudal kings wanting a transition into capitalism). Part of this transition meant getting rid of the "senatorial class" and of course the patrician class as a whole.

The Feudal Socialism that was reactionary by the time of the Communist Manifesto would have been progressive, indeed very progressive and radical, in Caesar's day.

[Jose Gracchus]

Most of the citations are from the conservative historians. I'm using very basic but out-of-the-box deduction here because of this.

Don't hide behind supposition and vague bullshit. Where is there any evidence the Tribal Assembly was a viable basis for a new constitution? Can you show me evidence that Caesar seriously proposed this? That this polity was credible, and not just a sop for army veterans?

Why don't you just admit you made it all up based on like a few random paragraphs you found on Google Books without reading even a tenth of whatever half-assed popular history you scraped it from.

I repeat. Provide a single shred of documentation for any of the core assertions provided in this thread. Even one. I await with rapture. I didn't care for some time, but it is clear there is no way you could be pushing this crap without being deliberately dishonest. I think you are doing a disservice with this open disinformation. However, if I am being unfair and rude to you, you will be eager to take this opportunity to show my point as empty and baseless.


On the one hand, nobody in Roman politics wanted a return to a lifelong monarchy until Augustus. On the other hand, at some point one-year tenure in an executive position can become unstable. There had to be political forces in Roman politics that were for a premodern presidential system of sorts.

There is nothing about Roman constitutional dynamics or state politics in this screed. There is about one statement of fact, and it is false: no one "wanted" a lifelong monarchy in Augustus, and no one acknowledged the principate as such until generations later.


As Iseul and I discussed in the March on Rome thread, Caesar may have been one of those elites who wanted to transition into feudalism (or even petty capitalism plus "Asiatic" industrial development) and become the new ruling class then, seeing the rot amongst the rest of his patrician lot (like the absolutist late feudal kings wanting a transition into capitalism). Part of this transition meant getting rid of the "senatorial class" and of course the patrician class as a whole.

Provide a single article of fact supporting a single shred of this. Believe or not, just because some possibility crawls around in your head does not mean it has a credible relationship to the real world.


The Feudal Socialism that was reactionary by the time of the Communist Manifesto would have been progressive in Caesar's day.

Farce.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't hide behind supposition and vague bullshit. Where is there any evidence the Tribal Assembly was a viable basis for a new constitution? Can you show me evidence that Caesar seriously proposed this? That this polity was credible, and not just a sop for army veterans?

I think you're confusing the Tribal Assembly with the Century Assembly. The "tribes" were district-based and not based on blood ties, just like most modern parliaments.

Come to think of it, maybe Caesar did have feet in both ponds so to speak. A dictator perpetuo might have been in office for a few years with further reform, but not as long as the perpetual Tribunes. Maybe he had in mind a "prime ministerial" system with flexibility for going in and out of presidentialism? :D

BTW, Caesar's equivalent of "communal power" can be found in The governance of Rome on Google Books:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=DDkP8IjhBQsC


Between the Rubicon and the Ides of March only five short years elapsed. Although frequently absent on his campaigns abroad, Caesar found time to undertake far-reaching and long-overdue domestic reforms [...] However, possibly his most important legislation was on the field of municipal government [...] Freedmen were permitted to hold the office of the local city councillor.

It's late, I'll post more over the weekend.

[Queercommie Girl]

Jesus, if you want to be a "Caesarist", you might as well just be a keynesian capitalist. Even keynesian capitalism would have better conditions for workers and more democracy than "caesarism". Why waste your time taking a huge detour back 2000 years?

One of the problems with the left in the West today is indeed the existence of these crypto-imperialist scum that pretend to be a part of the worker's movement.

[ChrisK]

Jesus, if you want to be a "Caesarist", you might as well just be a keynesian capitalist. Even keynesian capitalism would have better conditions for workers and more democracy than "caesarism". Why waste your time taking a huge detour back 2000 years?

One of the problems with the left in the West today is indeed the existence of these crypto-imperialist scum that pretend to be a part of the worker's movement.

DNZ is not "crypto-imperialist scum". DNZ just likes weird theories.

[Hit The North]

And that is why the Julius Caesar of people's history was more socially radical and, with the attempt to transfer political power from the Senate to the Tribunal Assembly, a politically revolutionary people's (elected, non-hereditary, de facto) monarch. :)

The fact that you would support a demagogue drawn from the ruling class rather than the people who were the most downtrodden, exploited and oppressed by the Roman state, perhaps says something about the dismal direction your politics have taken over recent times.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The fact that you would support a demagogue drawn from the ruling class rather than the people who were the most downtrodden, exploited and oppressed by the Roman state, perhaps says something about the dismal direction your politics have taken over recent times.

I quoted the "demagogue" (read: agitator par excellence) Ferdinand Lassalle in the italics, who for all his political mistakes emphasized independent working-class political institutions over the class collaborationism of Trotsky's "United Front" and the SWP's "special united fronts."

[RED DAVE]

I quoted the "demagogue" (read: agitator par excellence) Ferdinand Lassalle in the italics, who for all his political mistakes emphasized independent working-class political institutions over the class collaborationism of Trotsky's "United Front" and the SWP's "special united fronts."(1) Lassalle could not have emphasized anything "over" anything Trotsky did politically as Lassalle died 15 years before Trotsky was born.

(2) Far from Trotskyis's pricnipled approach to fronts, Lassalle tried to make a political alliance with a bourgeois monarch.

(3) Marx had Lasalle's number:


I asked [Marx] a question regarding the numerical strength of the Lassallians in the ranks of the Internationalists.

"The party of Lassalle," he replied, "does not exist. Of course there are some believers in our ranks, but the number is small. Lassalle anticipated our general principles. When he commenced to move after the reaction of 1848, he fancied that he could more successfully revive the movement by advocating cooperation of the workingmen in industrial enterprises. It was to stir them into activity. he looked upon this merely as a means to the real end of the movement. I have letters from his to this effect."

"You would call it his nostrum?"

"Exactly. He called upon Bismarck, told him what he designed, and Bismarck encouraged Lassalle's course at that time in every possible way."http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/022.html

RED DAVE

[Queercommie Girl]

DNZ is not "crypto-imperialist scum". DNZ just likes weird theories.

If one literally believes that the second coming of Christ will bring about communism, one is into "weird theories" and is really insane;

If one actually apologises for a slavelord ruler from 2000 years ago who slaughtered and enslaved millions of people and engaged in the practice of ritual human sacrifice, and actually names a socialist tendency after him, one is not only insane and a follower of "weird theories", one is literally reactionary.

I'd rather have a socialist tendency named after Lincoln than Caesar.

[Die Neue Zeit]

(1) Lassalle could not have emphasized anything "over" anything Trotsky did politically as Lassalle died 15 years before Trotsky was born.

(2) Far from Trotskyis's pricnipled approach to fronts, Lassalle tried to make a political alliance with a bourgeois monarch.

Trotsky's approach to fronts was hardly principled. The Third Periodist "united fronts from below" made more sense.

When being forced into a coalition government situation with no option of refusal, Bismarck and the future possibility of a "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [elected, non-hereditary, de facto] monarchy" (which would have meant the Kaiser's replacement by the likes of Lassalle himself) posed a far better choice for the working class than Ebert.

[RED DAVE]

Trotsky's approach to fronts was hardly principled. The Third Periodist "united fronts from below" made more sense.Bullshit. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.


When being forced into a coalition government situation with no option of refusal, Bismarck and the future possibility of a "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [elected, non-hereditary, de facto] monarchy" (which would have meant the Kaiser's replacement by the likes of Lassalle himself) posed a far better choice for the working class than Ebert.Nonsense. No socialist in their right mind would (a) approach a piece of shit like Bismark, a sworn enemy of the working class or (b) propose himself as a monarch.

Marx had Lassalle's number, and we have yours.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Trotsky's approach to fronts was hardly principled. The Third Periodist "united fronts from below" made more sense.

When being forced into a coalition government situation with no option of refusal, Bismarck and the future possibility of a "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [elected, non-hereditary, de facto] monarchy" (which would have meant the Kaiser's replacement by the likes of Lassalle himself) posed a far better choice for the working class than Ebert.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Jose Gracchus]

You must honestly be hitting some crazy shit in the pipe if you think Lassalle's loony cult had any possibility of being realized as a political fact [oh yes, a Jew with a marginal political base supplanting the Junker-aristocrat-backed monarchy in the 19th C., there's a real idea]. Don't you understand that your beloved demagogues just talk bullshit to flatter their followers and rally the troops, be they Lassalle, Caesar, or whatever else. That doesn't mean it is a real proposal or ever realistically could be implemented. Do you know what a "demagogue" is?

There is no "choice" for the working class here. You've gone off the deep end with your neo-Aristotlean blathering about "monarchy" + "democracy" attacks "aristocracy" or some such shit. Certainly bears no resemblance to working class left politics.

[Dimentio]

DNZ's theories actually have some resonance as a political theory of the intra-ruling class struggle, where leaders like for example Vlad the Impaler or Charles XI (of Sweden) have built their political support on a peasant-military alliance against landlords and foreign enemies (which also, incidentally, is pretty similar to Mao's ideas). I also think Machiavelli advocated for a ruler to repress the aristocracy (but not to take them away, since the people would support the monarch as long as they would fear the return of the Aristocratic Oligarchies into power).

[Jose Gracchus]

I repeat, what does that have to do with working class politics?

[RED DAVE]

DNZ's theories actually have some resonance as a political theory of the intra-ruling class struggle, where leaders like for example Vlad the Impaler or Charles XI (of Sweden) have built their political support on a peasant-military alliance against landlords and foreign enemies (which also, incidentally, is pretty similar to Mao's ideas). I also think Machiavelli advocated for a ruler to repress the aristocracy (but not to take them away, since the people would support the monarch as long as they would fear the return of the Aristocratic Oligarchies into power).One more reason why you shouldn't be a history mod.

This is complete and utter bilge. As Marxists, we are dealing with the class struggle of the working class vs. the bourgeoisie, in case you've forgotten that. We are not dealing with the period of the emergence of the bourgeoisie and the working class from feudalism. The parameters are completely different as socialism, not nascent capitalism, is on the table.

When Marx discussed the latter days of feudalism, as in The Peasant Wars in Germany, he did so to demonstrate the immaturity of the early bourgeoisie and its inability to take power as a class. This is diametrically opposed to the crap that DNZ continuously spouts where he basically advocates a dictatorship over the working class.

No wonder he has wet dreams over Lassalle and Caesar. As I've posted above, the antisocialist nature of Lassalle's politics were exposed by Marx himself about 130 or so years ago. But DNZ (and you) apparently know better.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lassalle's loony cult [...]

Don't you understand that your beloved demagogues just talk bullshit to flatter their followers and rally the troops, be they Lassalle, Caesar, or whatever else. That doesn't mean it is a real proposal or ever realistically could be implemented. Do you know what a "demagogue" is?

I do know, and I pointed out the History thread on a balanced assessment. Here's another thread re. "demagogues":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-born-every-t144497/index.html (by Arthur Bough)

Most current left agitation has proven to be quite incomplete. I'm not suggesting at all that we should con the workers to power, but winning over the most intransigently backward elements means rethinking our approach to agitation (to say nothing of what I said re. education).


You've gone off the deep end with your neo-Aristotlean blathering about "monarchy" + "democracy" attacks "aristocracy" or some such shit. Certainly bears no resemblance to working class left politics.


I repeat, what does that have to do with working class politics?

This aspect of political philosophy was never addressed sufficiently by the classical Marxists. :(


No wonder he has wet dreams over Lassalle and Caesar. As I've posted above, the antisocialist nature of Lassalle's politics were exposed by Marx himself about 130 or so years ago. But DNZ (and you) apparently know better.

You have no idea how I can use humour to counter your point.

[Dimentio]

One more reason why you shouldn't be a history mod.

This is complete and utter bilge. As Marxists, we are dealing with the class struggle of the working class vs. the bourgeoisie, in case you've forgotten that. We are not dealing with the period of the emergence of the bourgeoisie and the working class from feudalism. The parameters are completely different as socialism, not nascent capitalism, is on the table.

When Marx discussed the latter days of feudalism, as in The Peasant Wars in Germany, he did so to demonstrate the immaturity of the early bourgeoisie and its inability to take power as a class. This is diametrically opposed to the crap that DNZ continuously spouts where he basically advocates a dictatorship over the working class.

No wonder he has wet dreams over Lassalle and Caesar. As I've posted above, the antisocialist nature of Lassalle's politics were exposed by Marx himself about 130 or so years ago. But DNZ (and you) apparently know better.

RED DAVE


I did not defend DNZ, I just said that he had observed an actual pattern in history. Neither am I a history mod.

Also, there are numerous generals, populists and similar figures in the Third World who have built their political platform on rallying "for the little man" against the land-owners and local bourgeoisie, in modern time (I think Chàvez is just the latest incarnation of this form).

[graymouser]

DNZ's theories actually have some resonance as a political theory of the intra-ruling class struggle, where leaders like for example Vlad the Impaler or Charles XI (of Sweden) have built their political support on a peasant-military alliance against landlords and foreign enemies (which also, incidentally, is pretty similar to Mao's ideas). I also think Machiavelli advocated for a ruler to repress the aristocracy (but not to take them away, since the people would support the monarch as long as they would fear the return of the Aristocratic Oligarchies into power).
There's some degree of that in historical demagogy; even the ancient Greeks had a fairly similar struggle to what you're describing above with the type of rulers they called "tyrants," who supported the nouveaux riches against the hardened aristocracy. This conflict is really on the same lines that Caesar stood: a strong leader suppressing the old aristocracy in favor of the newly rich, and using some superficial appeals to the peasantry to garner a base of support.

However, this isn't a model that we can look at for today. Populism in the imperialist epoch is categorically different than demagogy in earlier periods, principally because you have different class struggles going on. Also earlier class struggles are transformed by the change in class composition - for instance, you can't have land reform in the modern epoch without dispossessing banks and major corporations that are landowners, rather than just a "landlord class." This is a major problem for people attempting to draw schemas for the third world based on how things worked in previous eras.

But what I want to know is, what the heck happened to Spartacus? This thread is supposed to be about him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

a strong leader suppressing the old aristocracy in favor of the newly rich, and using some superficial appeals to the peasantry to garner a base of support

Some appeals were superficial, but others weren't. A Third World National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie would hardly qualify as the nouveaux riches, just the class that, leaning on the independent political organization of the proletarian demographic minority and on peasant patrimonalism (a sizable peasantry's strongman constructs) on either side, stands to benefit most politically and economically for having greater political awareness... and for preventing misguided proletarian civil war with the peasantry. :p

[graymouser]

Some appeals were superficial, but others weren't. A Third World National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie would hardly qualify as the nouveaux riches, just the class that, leaning on the independent political organization of the proletarian demographic minority and on peasant patrimonalism (a sizable peasantry's strongman constructs) on either side, stands to benefit most politically and economically for having greater political awareness.
A Third World National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie would hardly qualify as anything, because it does not exist outside of the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.

But you know, actually studying the historical patterns of Caesarism, Bonapartism and populism doesn't let you spin fanciful theories about class alliances that don't even exist.

ETA: Also, you didn't take into account the question of changing class composition and how this stops any Bonapartists or populists in the Third World from distributing the land.

[Queercommie Girl]

But what I want to know is, what the heck happened to Spartacus? This thread is supposed to be about him.

Long Live Spartacus!

Long Live Anti-Imperialism!

[Queercommie Girl]

I love it how some so-called "socialists" can be more anti-Stalin than anti-Caesar or anti-Genghis Khan, as if "distance in time creates beauty", and just because the imperialist atrocities in question happened in remote antiquity, they don't seem to bother these "socialists" much anymore. It's really insane.

I, on the other hand, am a consistent anti-imperialist. I don't apply a double standard to antiquity and modernity. I oppose all imperialisms throughout human history, period. Indeed, often ancient imperialisms can be even worse and more brutal than modern imperialisms. I don't think even American imperialism in the Middle East today matched the level of brutality of the likes of Genghis Khan and Julius Caesar.

[RED DAVE]

Some appeals were superficial, but others weren't. A Third World National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie would hardly qualify as the nouveaux riches, just the class that, leaning on the independent political organization of the proletarian demographic minority and on peasant patrimonalism (a sizable peasantry's strongman constructs) on either side, stands to benefit most politically and economically for having greater political awareness... and for preventing misguided proletarian civil war with the peasantry. :pWhat you are saying is what is needed in the third world is a petit-bourgeois dictatorship over the proletariat and peasantry.

This is about a un-Marxist as you can get. The whole point of permanent revolution is that the working class is the only class that can resolve the contradictions of under-development, not some section of the "Third World National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie."

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

Maybe DNZ could stoop so low as to inform us mere mortals with some class analysis and actual research, where this unicorn-like class strata has been seen before, and why as a form it should be taken more seriously than liberal abstract system-building.

[Dimentio]

As for Spartacus, he did not leave any ideological traces so we cannot understand what ideas he did have (though dispossessed freedmen did join his ranks, which is an indicator that a broader social base supported him).

[Queercommie Girl]

According to the article in the OP in this thread, Spartacus possessed certain simple beliefs in egalitarianism based not on common production (as in modern socialism) but on common ownership (similar to ancient utopian socialism). I think it's safe to say that Spartacus had certain relatively simple utopian socialist ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Maybe DNZ could stoop so low as to inform us mere mortals with some class analysis and actual research, where this unicorn-like class strata has been seen before, and why as a form it should be taken more seriously than liberal abstract system-building.

Class alliances between the proletariat and the peasantry could have been seen as "unicorn-like" before the 1900s. There certainly were no such things in early feudalism or late slave relations, even as both classes indeed existed at the time.


The whole point of permanent revolution is that the working class is the only class that can resolve the contradictions of under-development, not some section of the "Third World National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie."

Stalinist development and Soviet alignment were big steps towards such resolution, and they were a combination of coordinator and petit-bourgeois initiative.


DNZ's theories actually have some resonance as a political theory of the intra-ruling class struggle, where leaders like for example Vlad the Impaler or Charles XI (of Sweden) have built their political support on a peasant-military alliance against landlords and foreign enemies (which also, incidentally, is pretty similar to Mao's ideas). I also think Machiavelli advocated for a ruler to repress the aristocracy (but not to take them away, since the people would support the monarch as long as they would fear the return of the Aristocratic Oligarchies into power).

While Machiavelli may have had a continuing role for the aristocracy (all bourgeoisie and comprador petit-bourgeoisie), it can be substituted quite easily with the fear of civil war between the proletarian demographic minority and the peasantry, to say nothing of the coordinators and the "national"/"pan-national" petit-bourgeoisie. Despite there being independent working-class political organization, El Presidente would need to be "above" all these new class tensions.

[Queercommie Girl]

Spartacus and his political program (if any) were overrated.

At least Spartacus is much better than the imperialist scums you like to brag about.

[Spartacus.]

At least Spartacus is much better than the imperialist scums you like to brag about.


I agree. At least he fought for some ideals, no matter how naive they may look from today's perspective. :)