manufacturing in the roman empire.

[danyboy27]

So, i have been to a museum exposition about the roman empire and was fascinated by their capabilites to build a lot of rather sophisticated products in respsctable quantities, The pipes they put in their aqueducs system where for exemple extremely well made, to me they really seemed like standard metal one you could buy at the store, their armor and military gear where massively produced.

i dont know much about that period, but how come they where able to build all that stuff without the need for big factory filled with sophisticated machines?

i have a hard time to believe a fews workshop here an there could produce all theses things for a society like the roman empire.

enlighten me folks.

[#FF0000]

Slaves, son. Tons and tons and tons of slaves.

[danyboy27]

Slaves, son. Tons and tons and tons of slaves.


having the manpower dosnt give you the tool to exploit them.

you can own 10 000 slaves, it dosnt mean shit if you dont have the facilities to make them massively produce a certain product, and this coponent was not developed untile the earliy 1800s with the steam engine and the whole industrial revolution.

[Octavian]

having the manpower dosnt give you the tool to exploit them.

you can own 10 000 slaves, it dosnt mean shit if you dont have the facilities to make them massively produce a certain product, and this coponent was not developed untile the earliy 1800s with the steam engine and the whole industrial revolution.
The Roman empire was on the verge on industrialization. The major difference as stated by #FF0000 was that we have electricity and they had slaves. The reason they were able to produce so much is because they had highly skilled people making all this stuff everyday, all day while being fed by a monstrous amount of slaves.

[flobdob]

It depends in many ways on what it is to produce, and where you are in the empire. Broadly speaking, most stuff was made in small workshops locally and used there, although obviously through trade these things move around. For example, at fort sites on the frontiers, most things were produced in onsite workshops and stored in warehouses. The sort of ubiquitous stuff you mentioned - tegulae, inbrexes, nails, most pottery, armour etc - would have been produced on a local level in small workshops. I've dug at sites where literally massive roof tiles have been sitting on the surface because so much was made there and has been left archaeologically.

It varies across the empire and at different periods certain material is more commonly produced etc.

[Blake's Baby]

The Roman world was quite standardised in many ways - for instance the width of cart-axles was set down by law (this is why railways in the UK are unsafe incidently, because Britain adopted the standard Roman axle-width as its railway guage). I think the army is also an important factor as Flobdob mentions. My archaeological hunch is that an awful lot of the standardisation and technological innovation we see in the provinces is actually driven by the army.

So even if things were made locally they were often made to a standard that applied accross huge regions. Any literate society can in theory produce a high degree of standardisation even with local workshop production (though don't get the idea that this was only a few workshops here and there - there is a pottery production centre in eastern England which rivalled some cities in the size of its kiln-fields, and there are other massive production centres in France and Italy - and I presume Spain and the Eastern Empire - too). And the Roman Empire depended to great degree on its written communications - reports, diplomas, requisitions and the like flying around all over the Empire, as well as things like the pattern-books of mosaic artists, and works by writers like Vitruvius who set out standard ways of doing various things such as building fortifications.

So the necessary organisation for standardising parts (eg axles) or architecture (eg forts) was built in, in the bureaucracy and the army among other things. In some ways it's difficult to comprehend Rome's success without factoring in the ability to replicate and standardise; seems that it would make the whole system much more efficient and 'competitive', allowing Rome to conquer or absorb the fundamentally less well organised polities around the Mediterranean.

[Valdemar]

I studied a lot ancient age and its civilizations.
I always argue with my friends that humans as individuals did not really made real progress in any field since ancient times. Yes we do have advance technology and electricity and we do know about Theory of relativity. But all that products and even more of them are just products of some individuals which were really deviation in society, who were in ahead of their times and sometimes even considered as magicians (Tesla)

Majority of today people could not calculate earth size, even without constants (and i bet half of those who would be able, do not know what constants are in fact!) or to calculate distance of sun from the earth. Eratosthenes from ancient Greece has done that, and fairly correct, and that was 255 BC!!!

Our society was only able to copy paste great inventions and great ideas through time, and consider itself advanced! Most people i know don't even know how electricity functions or how to make electricity on your own (Electric-Motor) sad, bad true...

side note: of course Romans are very backward in terms of social and morality in our terms...but they lived in different times when different ethnics and different beliefs and system of values were in place...

[Queercommie Girl]

Majority of today people could not calculate earth size, even without constants (and i bet half of those who would be able, do not know what constants are in fact!) or to calculate distance of sun from the earth. Eratosthenes from ancient Greece has done that, and fairly correct, and that was 255 BC!!!


Most people in ancient Greece couldn't do it either. In fact, most people back then were utterly illiterate. :rolleyes:

[Valdemar]

Most people in ancient Greece couldn't do it either. In fact, most people back then were utterly illiterate. :rolleyes:

Literacy is big thing my friend, and claiming that people back that were utterly illiterate is just...foolish. We are talking about 255BC first of all. Literacy is hard to define, you can define it by our standards where books are common, where newspaper is common and reading is basic need. Where in 225BC reading was not really needed.

1. "One possible method to measure literacy that is often used is that of functional literacy; that is, according to UNESCO, the level of literacy that has been mastered by an individual and will allow them to function fully within their own society."

2. "basic literacy was probably fairly common - though not universal - among moderately educated people (such as police officers) but much rarer among the lower classes." (lower class are mainly freed slaves, slaves are their own class...and most slaves could read and worked as tutors, also recent studies shows that slaves worked as workers of state (writers, taxers, chronology etc etc.)

If I'm not mistaken, Citizens in Athens wrote names on broken pottery to vote who will be kicked out from Athens...

So stop rolling eyes, and roll some reaserch and books...

[danyboy27]

Its verry interesting...
i have been watching some marx online course on youtube made by david harvey, and in the last course i saw he explain how machines where used in modern capitalist time to strip the worker out of his skill, in order to generate always more surplus for less skill from the labor, and he also explain how the factory system is a direct product of the capitalist wish for always more surplus at the expense of the worker well being.

knowing that, i was wondering how a society without factories could achieve that degree of production and standardisation.

from the answers i had so far, its pretty clear that the slaves played a big role in that, and paperwork helped to spread specificatons for various part and devices.

the fact that workshop where widespread allowed those item to multiply without the need to depends on big factories,

i am still puzzuled on how the raw material like iron, silver and lead where distributed and extracted.

after all, there is only a limited quantity you can extract every x times, how do you make those meterial distributed trought the empire withouta bureaucratic clusterfuck?

[Jimmie Higgins]

having the manpower dosnt give you the tool to exploit them.

you can own 10 000 slaves, it dosnt mean shit if you dont have the facilities to make them massively produce a certain product, and this coponent was not developed untile the earliy 1800s with the steam engine and the whole industrial revolution.

The Romans had devices that were essentially steam and water engines... they didn't use them for production, however, they used them in toys and in public or religious spectacles. The reason wasn't because the Romans were less clever than people in the industrial revolutions, the reason was slave labor. Wealth was not based on making profits and so there was no reason to have labor saving devices - more slaves could produce more commodities and that's how they increased their wealth.

[Fopeos]

The patrician and equestrian classes controlled ever expanding plantations in the countryside. Smaller farms were swallowed up and the rural populations had to migrate into the cities because the patricians used only slave labor. The trades were dominated by guilds. From blacksmiths, bladesmiths, even grain-millers and bread-bakers. The urban proles who couldn't get into guilds, one would have to be apprenticed very young, could try to join a collegia to try to find steady work. Otherwise, one would have to turn to crime or thuggery. This is why Rome had what was probably the first "welfare" system, consisting of a grain dole.
There were social reformers known as popularii who tried to pass legislation on land reform, rent ceilings, and regulations on how many slaves a particular workplace could use. Naturally, most popularii met with violent ends.

[Blake's Baby]

...

i am still puzzuled on how the raw material like iron, silver and lead where distributed and extracted.

after all, there is only a limited quantity you can extract every x times, how do you make those meterial distributed trought the empire withouta bureaucratic clusterfuck?

Well, despite the high level of bureaucratic control, the bureaucracy itself was small thoroughout the Republic and the Early Empire. It's only really after the Empire peaks in the early 2nd Century (after Trajan's conquests, Hadrian comes in and starts building walls everywhere) that the bureaucracy starts to mushroom.

Before that, they did it by old fashioned methods - slavery and tax-farming. Massive numbers of slaves were bought by the public exchequer, and they were put to work on infrastructure projects (eg roads) and in the mines, either directly for the government or for the army. Some mining operations were handled by private contractors but operated on a similar basis - private slaves instead of public slaves. The products of these private mines were assessed by Imperial assessors (like a cross between the revenue and trading standards, again often connected with the army).

Bigger contracts were handled similarly. Things like the taxation system were controlled by inviduals who acted as public works contractors. They would buy a government contract (as a hypothetical, a million sesterces for the the taxes from Egypt) and it would be up to them to collect them. They might get 2 million sesterces, they might get 750,000 sesterces if they were inefficient, but the Imperial exchequer was happy because it got its million sesterces in the bank. Under this system, there doesn't need to be a massive bureaucracy. Just a class of wealthy patrons who can organise the plunder of a province by themselves (which in some respects is pretty much what the Empire and indeed Republic were about).

[ComradeMan]

Most people in ancient Greece couldn't do it either. In fact, most people back then were utterly illiterate. :rolleyes:

Err... no they weren't. It's quite hard to estimate what literacy rates were in the ancient world, however the graffiti discovered at Pompei in a very "vulgar" Latin reveal that the "plebs" had a high rate of literacy- albeit far from Silver Latin Poetry. The fact that the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law were written and displayed in public also suggest that these laws were there to be read by ALL the populus. The Roman poet Horace was actually the son of a freed slave too.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

that really interesting.... i love ths thread!

so, lets sum it up.

the roman empire where able to mass produce all these goods and create standards beccause

-efficient bureaucracy spreading the specifications of goods
-big source of energy (slaves)
-shitload of workshop spread trought the empire.
-a system of managements for the ressources.

i wonder if a system like that (replace the slave with electricity, and the corrupted official with elected ones) would work in a modern society like we have today?

minus the free market of course.

[Queercommie Girl]

Err... not they weren't. It's quite hard to estimate what literacy rates were in the ancient world, however the graffiti discovered at Pompei in a very "vulgar" Latin reveal that the "plebs" had a high rate of literacy- albeit far from Silver Latin Poetry. The fact that the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law were written and displayed in public also suggest that these laws were there to be read by ALL the populus. The Roman poet Horace was actually the son of a freed slave too.

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. :rolleyes:

Yet most of the truly oppressed class in ancient Rome - the slaves, were generally illiterate.

Besides, even people who were crudely literate wouldn't have been able to calculate the circumference of the Earth, whereas today a high school student could potentially do it.

My main point is to counter Valdemar's ridiculous idea that somehow the ancients were more educated than people today, and modern people have essentially degenerated. This regressive BS is completely contrary to the progressive historiography of Marxism, which believes that the world generally gets better and more advanced with time, not worse.

[khad]

that really interesting.... i love ths thread!

so, lets sum it up.

the roman empire where able to mass produce all these goods and create standards beccause

-efficient bureaucracy spreading the specifications of goods
-big source of energy (slaves)
-shitload of workshop spread trought the empire.
-a system of managements for the ressources.

i wonder if a system like that (replace the slave with electricity, and the corrupted official with elected ones) would work in a modern society like we have today?

minus the free market of course.
This thread is an embarrassment, and you are an embarrassment. One doesn't have to go digging in a slave empire to talk about standardization, but apparently some people around here have the most reactionary fetishes.

[Valdemar]

Yet most of the truly oppressed class in ancient Rome - the slaves, were generally illiterate.

Besides, even people who were crudely literate wouldn't have been able to calculate the circumference of the Earth, whereas today a high school student could potentially do it.

My main point is to counter Valdemar's ridiculous idea that somehow the ancients were more educated than people today, and modern people have essentially degenerated. This regressive BS is completely contrary to the progressive historiography of Marxism, which believes that the world generally gets better and more advanced with time, not worse.

@Iseul
I never said that ancients were more educated then people today, and that modern people are degenerated. You are twisting my words!
And, you want even to put forward that I'm not Marxist, because i don't believe we are advancing (which is lie, i never said that basically).
I don't know if you are Lier and twisting my words or you are functionally illiterate and unable to read what i have said or you do not understand what i have said and therefore limited ?

I was high school student and maybe only 1-2 could school mates (maybe) calculate how far is sun from earth or earth size! And they would need to use constants which they do not fully understand! I never said that every citizen or slave could calculate it in Ancient Greece did I ?

And your argument that people who where (now referring crudely literate) would not been able to calculate the circumference of Earth, I have just prove that they did and not only that, they gave us so much constants, so much algorithms they even found archaeological proves that they were even touching fields of mechanics etc.
But again, neither did I said that every man in 255BC Ancient Greece could do that, did I ?
And again, I'm speaking about 255BC! Do you know when was that ? because i really doubt you do.

Like i said, go Roll some books and research and then come back to counter Valdemar, and most importantly, stop twisting my words, or is something else, if it is something else, I do sincerely apologize.

/* I'm sorry to the community, I was really angry, Really hate someone trying to counter just to be smart and i hate even more when people start twisting words and even worse accusing me not being Marxist! And I'm also extremely hot tempered, in fact, i have problems with controlling anger I do really hope you do forgive me */

[danyboy27]

This thread is an embarrassment, and you are an embarrassment. One doesn't have to go digging in a slave empire to talk about standardization, but apparently some people around here have the most reactionary fetishes.

Its not a fetish, i am just trying to understand the way it was working for the roman empire, how come they where able to have this degree of standardisation and production. Hell mate, if you want to be constructive and give me other exemples of decentralised mode of production, i will be more than happy to learn more, i am here to get some knowledge.
There might have other societies before the romans who where able to do these things, but i just dont know, and if there was, share this info with me.

i am not that much interested about the roman empire, what i am interested in is the way the mean of productions where managed, and if a decentralised system of production could be effective today.

You might be more educated than me, but that dosnt give you the right to come here and insult me on my poor knowledge on the matter.

[agnixie]

having the manpower dosnt give you the tool to exploit them.

you can own 10 000 slaves, it dosnt mean shit if you dont have the facilities to make them massively produce a certain product, and this coponent was not developed untile the earliy 1800s with the steam engine and the whole industrial revolution.

They also had large manufactories, just not steam powered. I'll note that not all of them were run by slaves.

[Queercommie Girl]

@Iseul
I never said that ancients were more educated then people today, and that modern people are degenerated. You are twisting my words!
And, you want even to put forward that I'm not Marxist, because i don't believe we are advancing (which is lie, i never said that basically).
I don't know if you are Lier and twisting my words or you are functionally illiterate and unable to read what i have said or you do not understand what i have said and therefore limited ?

I was high school student and maybe only 1-2 could school mates (maybe) calculate how far is sun from earth or earth size! And they would need to use constants which they do not fully understand! I never said that every citizen or slave could calculate it in Ancient Greece did I ?

And your argument that people who where (now referring crudely literate) would not been able to calculate the circumference of Earth, I have just prove that they did and not only that, they gave us so much constants, so much algorithms they even found archaeological proves that they were even touching fields of mechanics etc.
But again, neither did I said that every man in 255BC Ancient Greece could do that, did I ?
And again, I'm speaking about 255BC! Do you know when was that ? because i really doubt you do.

Like i said, go Roll some books and research and then come back to counter Valdemar, and most importantly, stop twisting my words, or is something else, if it is something else, I do sincerely apologize.

/* I'm sorry to the community, I was really angry, Really hate someone trying to counter just to be smart and i hate even more when people start twisting words and even worse accusing me not being Marxist! And I'm also extremely hot tempered, in fact, i have problems with controlling anger I do really hope you do forgive me */

I always argue with my friends that humans as individuals did not really made real progress in any field since ancient times.

---Valdemar :rolleyes:

[Valdemar]

That does not mean that that we are degenerated and that ancient Greece was more advanced then we are ? Does It ?
Congratulation Iseul, once again You have proven that you are either functionally not ble to read what i have said or you realy do not understand.

Let me break down sentence for you: "humans as individuals" means people as Individuals not as society, "did not really made real progress" as individuals did not made real progress, they made as society, but as individuals real progress was not achieved...
So as you can see, My sentence does not mean that ancient people made more progress and that we are today degenerated. What you basically accused me of saying. Remebr that you said some silly things that I said that every man then could calculate distance from earth to sun and earth size, with which i dealt inprevious reply and you also said that every high schooler could do that today, with which i also argumented that it is not true (which is basicly twisting my words)
And you did not bother or did not want to answer to my other arguments, instead you found word that shows noting, but on other hand, shows more then it needs to, about you.
I'll not bother anymore with you, just in future don't comment my post to try look smart,with intention to twist-spin them, or in fact you really did not understand the point, and did not have any real reply to my earlier reply but due being offended you felt need to defend your dignity and because you had no real answer to my reply, you answer witch such limited reply, in that case i apologize to you sincerely from my whole heart, and i totally forgive you. (see, i can be good too-i can forgive and apologize). In that case, forget about rolling books and research, in your case then it would do more harm then good.

[danyboy27]

nevermind.

[Valdemar]

there is no need for this kind of name calling.

You are right, It was writed in anger once more, i'll edit it asap...
But guy is...hard to explain him some things, and not mention that i find rude what he is doing (twisting-spining my words, saying i'm not marxist because of that, not replying to my arguments)...Could you edit your post about those call-sings ?

[ComradeMan]

Yet most of the truly oppressed class in ancient Rome - the slaves, were generally illiterate.

Err- no they weren't. Especially the Greek slaves who were often tutors to Roman children. Again, the evidence from the graffiti suggests that there was a good deal of literacy amongst the slaves.


Besides, even people who were crudely literate wouldn't have been able to calculate the circumference of the Earth, whereas today a high school student could potentially do it.

They wouldn't have been able to send e-mails either, but that's not got anything to do with literacy. Anyway, Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the circumference of the Earth with an error under 2%. But again, there are people who are literate today that might not necessarily be able to tell you how a television works or calculate the distance to a star etc.


My main point is to counter Valdemar's ridiculous idea that somehow the ancients were more educated than people today, and modern people have essentially degenerated.

Except you are not countering anything when your statements are false/flawed from a historical point of view.


This regressive BS is completely contrary to the progressive historiography of Marxism, which believes that the world generally gets better and more advanced with time, not worse.

..."which believes".... :laugh:

[Sasha]

This thread is an embarrassment, and you are an embarrassment. One doesn't have to go digging in a slave empire to talk about standardization, but apparently some people around here have the most reactionary fetishes.

khad, keep it civil, verbal warning for flaming.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This thread is an embarrassment, and you are an embarrassment. One doesn't have to go digging in a slave empire to talk about standardization, but apparently some people around here have the most reactionary fetishes.


I have to disagree.


The roman empire ended up collapsing because it relied so heavily on slavery. Also because it did not represent every nation under the state. The Germans who were less developed ended up destroying the empire.

Basically, the system in rome worked while it existed. but the system itseld led to it basically being destroy.

kind of like how capitalism work until it hits a crisis. It works up until a point to where it has made a new obstacle that is a mortal threat to itself. then it goes into crisis.

Theres a difference between wanting to go back to such a time or tihnking of it as an idea (which would be reactionary) and finding a subject to be fascinating. for example, i could be fascinated by mythology but id doesnt make me superstitious or reactionary.

[ComradeMan]

I have to disagree.
The roman empire ended up collapsing because it relied so heavily on slavery. Also because it did not represent every nation under the state. The Germans who were less developed ended up destroying the empire.

That's not really what happened- although the "traditional" image of barbarian Germans with long hair and pseudo-viking helmets sacking Rome has remained a constant since the 19th century. The Roman empire imploded, there are many factors, terrible plagues and famines and the crisis of the 3rd century etc. However, the ethnic conflict between Romans and non-Romans within the empire is what finally brought it down.

Alaric the Visigoth had been trained in the Roman army, spoke Latin and like most of his Goths was fairly romanised within the confines of the empire. The growing racism towards the Goths "within" that led the betrayal and murder of Flavius Stilico (who was part Vandalic) and the subsequent massacre of non-Roman foederati in Roman cities tied with the ineptness and stupidity of the Western Emperor Honorious all conspired to bring the system crashing down.

[Rainsborough]

The Roman Empire, at least the western empire, collapsed simply because it had the longest and hardest to defend border while most of the wealth needed to sustain that defence lay with the eastern empire. There is no doubt that Romes reliance on 'foreign' mercenary armies helped its demise, but mostly it was pure economics.

[graymouser]

Err- no they weren't. Especially the Greek slaves who were often tutors to Roman children. Again, the evidence from the graffiti suggests that there was a good deal of literacy amongst the slaves.
There was stark differentiation between slaves in ancient Rome - the household slaves were quite different from the slaves working in the fields. And the fact was that the mining which supported ancient manufacturing was made possible by the simple expedient of working slaves to death - it was cheaper to buy new slaves than to feed them properly or have any kind of safety considerations. It is useless to talk about any social class in Rome as undifferentiated - and while the treatment of some household slaves was indeed honorable, the society did live off of those who were considered subhuman and forced to work until they died in the mines.

[Blake's Baby]

I have to agree here with GreyMouser and Iseul - if by 'generally' Isuel meant 'in the majority'. I'd think most slaves were illiterate. That doesn't mean there weren't literate slaves, even highly literate slavers. But most slaves (in the fields, in work gangs on roads, in the mines) would be illiterate.

However, literacy rates among the population as a whole were probably higher than at any succeeding time up to the 18th century, or maybe even later. The evidence for literacy among the population is scattered but pretty compelling (eg graffitti on walls and tiles, sculpture, words and measurements scratched or painted on amphorae, the caches of documents found at sites like Vindolanda and Dura Europos, manufacturing stamps with initials or names on pottery, the vast numbers of stylii and seals from documents found on non-official sites throughout the Empire, etc).

[ComradeMan]

Errhum... the slave population of the Roman Empire was between 20-30% (max). Contrary to the image that is often portrayed ancient Rome was not as dependent on slavery as people often make out. In Italia the slave population was probably as high as 40% because that where all the rich patricians had their estates, the majority of these were farm slaves, and then urban slaves- who often lived better than poor Romans.

The slaves sent to the mines were by no means the majority and it was indeed a death sentence, but the farm slaves were well-fed and kept healthy by overseers who were usually liberti or freedmen- who counted for about 5% of the imperial population.

The slavers par excellence of the ancient world were the Spartans- with their "helots" who outnumbered the Spartans at up to 7 to 1.

[Blake's Baby]

Errhum... the slave population of the Roman Empire was between 20-30% (max)...

Errhum, I think you can work out that I don't think think slaves were a majority of the population from the fact that I said most slaves were probably illiterate, but society as a whole was predominantly literate.

The fact is that slaves were drawn from sectors of the population (eg conquered barbarians, debtors sold into slavery - who would be predominantly poor anyway - and the children of slaves) that were less likely to be literate. So slaves were less likely to be literate than the the average of the population of the Empire. The existence of some literate household slaves, business-owning freedmen and Greek tutors doesn't change this overall picture.

Slaves were, by definition, those with the fewest advantages in Roman society. Not necessarily as individuals because as has already been mentioned there were highly educated slaves, but as a class. Those slaves that were educated would be far more likely to attain freedom, thereby removing many of them from the slave class anyway. So even with fresh influxes of educated slaves and the education of household slaves (to be secretaries or stewards etc) the slave population would still have higher than average levels of illiteracy.

[ComradeMan]

There was no class of slaves as the slaves themselves were separated into various "classes".

The urban slaves would have had to have some degree of literacy in order to keep the household accounts and do the errands etc.

[Fopeos]

I would recommend Livy's early history of Rome to any socialist. It's all about class struggle and how Rome's republican government evolved to deal with it. There are detailed accounts of early protests and labor stoppages which forced the patricians to grant concessions. I believe we can learn from and take inspiration from all class struggles. Even if the socities in question collapsed in antiquity.

[Blake's Baby]

There was no class of slaves as the slaves themselves were separated into various "classes"...

Disagree. The very fact of being unfree means that they are of the same class. Their relationship to the means of production wasn't different. They couldn't own it, in fact sometimes they were it.


...The urban slaves would have had to have some degree of literacy in order to keep the household accounts and do the errands etc.

And why do you think what you have said here disagrees with


... some literate household slaves, business-owning freedmen and Greek tutors ... there were highly educated slaves ... slaves that were educated ... educated slaves and the education of household slaves (to be secretaries or stewards etc) ...?

[Queercommie Girl]

However, literacy rates among the population as a whole were probably higher than at any succeeding time up to the 18th century, or maybe even later. The evidence for literacy among the population is scattered but pretty compelling (eg graffitti on walls and tiles, sculpture, words and measurements scratched or painted on amphorae, the caches of documents found at sites like Vindolanda and Dura Europos, manufacturing stamps with initials or names on pottery, the vast numbers of stylii and seals from documents found on non-official sites throughout the Empire, etc).


That might be true in the West, but during certain periods in ancient China, India and the Middle East, there were also quite high literacy rates (relatively speaking of course, since in antiquity literacy rates were always very low generally speaking). China and India in the 19th century had very low literacy rates though.

[Blake's Baby]

Perhaps I should have made it clear that as I'm discussing the Roman Empire and comparing it to later populations, I mean later populations in the same area - western and southern Europe, western Asia and north Africa.

[RGacky3]

People are fogetting the free propertyless citizens, many of whome left being paid farmworkers or renters to being urban workers after slaves took over the rural work, a lot of the manufacturing (goods and services, commodities), was done by free propertyless wage labor. Slavery was a lot more for large agriculture/mining, whereas manufacturing was more small scale.

The balance between slave labor and free labor shifted between times of war (lots of slaves) and times of peace (not so many slaves), obviously the more slaves the worse it is for the workers.

[ComradeMan]

Disagree. The very fact of being unfree means that they are of the same class. Their relationship to the means of production wasn't different. They couldn't own it, in fact sometimes they were it ?

I think it's anachronistic to apply such "modern" class distinctions to an ancient society. The slaves were definitely differentiated in Roman society, so to speak of one slave class is risky- in Roman terms, a condemned slave in the sulphur mines of Sicily or a Greek slave, tutor to patricians, were worlds apart. The latter probably had a better life than the average Roman.

[Blake's Baby]

Your definitions of 'class' are sociological and unscientific. So what if different slaves' living conditions were different? Some proletarians (eg oil rig workers) earn more than some capitalists (eg directors of small struggling companies). But you know what? It's their relationship to the means of production that makes them proletarians or capitalists, not their standard of living.

Likewise in the ancient world whether one was owned or not-owned is an important difference. Whether one is slave or free was a pretty fundamental thing, to the extent that even those freed (ie, only ex-slaves) could not stand for political office. Can you imnagine a similar distinction now? Being unable to be a Congressman or Member of Parliament or town Mayor if one had ever had a proper job?

Relative luxury is only relative within limits. Otherwise you could claim that anyone who works a 35-hour week and gets 4 weeks holiday and doesn't have to go down a mine isn't a proper proletarian. It's still a cage, it just has more gilding on it.

[RGacky3]

Taking your example of the rig worker and director of a small struggling company, maybe a shop or whatever, when it comes down to it, removing strict class analysis, they are basically in hte same boat and have basically similar interests in many instances.

Small shop owners, even those that hire people, are not the "masters of the universe" or the real capitalists.

[ComradeMan]

Your definitions of 'class' are sociological and unscientific.

Can you define "class" scientifically? I don't think even Marx managed that.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm pretty certain 'relationship to the means of production' comes closer to a scientific defintion - by virtue of being a testable property - than 'amount of luxury they lived in' which is pretty much a subjective judgement. Theories of 'class' that rely on criteria such as relative luxury, relative level of education, self-diagnosis (eg 80% of the American population sees itself as 'middle class') etc say nothing about real social relationships.

If you have a concept of class (maybe you don't) then it must in some way be 'classifiable'. If don't, fair go, but then I'm not sure I'd understand much of what you're saying as we are in some fundamental respects speaking different languages. If you do, then those categories must be based on something. I'd suggest that 'how nice their master was' is not an adequate basis for establishing the class of a slave, and 'relationship to the means of production' is.

[RGacky3]

Actually take the oil rig worker further, and compare a oil rig worker in Norway to on in Nigeria.

[greer4]

that was a good read

[ComradeMan]

Can you imnagine a similar distinction now? Being unable to be a Congressman or Member of Parliament or town Mayor if one had ever had a proper job?

I hear what you are saying, but at the same time only a US born person can ever be president of the US- hence all that supposed "intrigue" with Obama.

[Blake's Baby]

It's true that no-one has ever had to make the agonising choice between persuing their career to become US president or following their dream of playing for Yorkshire Cricket Club, because there are no parts of America in Yorkshire (probably, except maybe airbases) for them to be born in; but this isn't really a class question is it? It would be more like being unable to become president if your dad earned less than $400 a week.

[ComradeMan]

It would be more like being unable to become president if your dad earned less than $400 a week.

Abraham Lincoln?

[Blake's Baby]

Sure. Something like that - no education, poverty-striken background, difficult to say that his dad was a landowner as there was all that fuss about land-claims and constantly moving when Abe was a child. By analogy, that might equate to either servile or other non-citizen status under Rome.

[Blackscare]

Taking your example of the rig worker and director of a small struggling company, maybe a shop or whatever, when it comes down to it, removing strict class analysis, they are basically in hte same boat and have basically similar interests in many instances.

Small shop owners, even those that hire people, are not the "masters of the universe" or the real capitalists.

Nononooooooo


In relation to the bit in italics, the entire point, basically, of Marxist class analysis is that regardless of one's personal material circumstances or income, relations to means of production still decide where one's interests lie. If a socialist revolution came about and this small shop owner could not continue to employ what employees he had and harvest surplus labor, his standard of living would decline even farther! Whereas a proletarian who was making more money pre-revolution would probably still stand to gain from increased control over his workplace (and probably, as a result, higher wages). He also probably wouldn't have his shit expropriated, which would almost certainly happen, at some point, to the small businessman.

The thing to remember about the petite-bourgeoisie is that, while their income may be surprisingly low in some instances, they still usually have a lot of capital tied up in their business that they stand to lose. Oftentimes the most successful day of a small business person is when they sell their business and finally get to really cash in on the capital that they've accumulated and fed back into their business.


As for the part in bold, you're just talking about differences of magnitude. We've all heard the whole "private dictatorship" speel but it's still basically true. Even if it sometimes manifests itself in a seemingly trivial way it is almost always true that accumulated capital correlates directly to power. A small businessman who makes less in the way of day-to-day discretionary income than certain proletarians will still likely have more influence in his community because what capital he does have is represented by some enterprise that is seen as an asset or utility within the community that generates tax revenue and probably provides a service that locals would not like to see leave.

[RGacky3]

. If a socialist revolution came about and this small shop owner could not continue to employ what employees he had and harvest surplus labor, his standard of living would decline even farther!

I don't know if thats the case, if you take out the problems that the shop owner get from unfair competition from the real capitalists his living standards would probably go up, even if he cannot hire.


In relation to the bit in italics, the entire point, basically, of Marxist class analysis is that regardless of one's personal material circumstances or income, relations to means of production still decide where one's interests lie.

But tahts what I'm talking about, the more ACTUAL money you have, the more control you have, if your a lawer who invests a lot of money, you have more control over the means of production than a small shop owner in terms of workable control.


Whereas a proletarian who was making more money pre-revolution would probably still stand to gain from increased control over his workplace (and probably, as a result, higher wages). He also probably wouldn't have his shit expropriated, which would almost certainly happen, at some point, to the small businessman.


Actually not, an athelete who's income comes from advertising, will loose his income due to the fact that these corporations that advertise no longer exist.


The thing to remember about the petite-bourgeoisie is that, while their income may be surprisingly low in some instances, they still usually have a lot of capital tied up in their business that they stand to lose. Oftentimes the most successful day of a small business person is when they sell their business and finally get to really cash in on the capital that they've accumulated and fed back into their business.


Thats true, but these guys are nothing compared to things like private equity or investment firms, guys that might be making a wage (or commission) to buy and sell .... bits of the world.


A small businessman who makes less in the way of day-to-day discretionary income than certain proletarians will still likely have more influence in his community because what capital he does have is represented by some enterprise that is seen as an asset or utility within the community that generates tax revenue and probably provides a service that locals would not like to see leave.

ALL Capital that does not go toward feeding, clothing and housing goes toward actual buisinesses, unless its hiding under a mattress, and a persons stand in the community, i.e. what people think of him, has NOTHING to do with class analysis, you know who else might have a lot of influence? Union organizers, priests, and so on, but thats not class analysis.

[Blake's Baby]

Are atheletes proletarian? I'd locate them in the petite-bourgeoisie.

[RGacky3]

Are atheletes proletarian? I'd locate them in the petite-bourgeoisie.


Athelets "PRODUCE" advertising, technically they are (they have unions), but they arn't forced in the same way workers are, to sell their labor.

[Blake's Baby]

The Police have unions, I'm not sure they're part of the proletariat.

Atheletes don't produce advertising.

They also own the 'means of production' (in so far as that term has any meaning here), ie their own bodies. They're more like independent contractors, I'd argue.

So, not part of the proletariat, part of the petite-bourgeoisie.

[RGacky3]

Atheletes don't produce advertising.


Yes they do, thats what they are getting paid for ticket sales are not nearlyl enough for their salaries, its advertising that gets them paid, TV advertising, they are producing entertainment, entertainment is'nt a product you can sell (unless your selling tickets), but what you can sell is advertising, which is what atheletes provide.


They also own the 'means of production' (in so far as that term has any meaning here), ie their own bodies. They're more like independent contractors, I'd argue.


In that case so are manual laborers because they own their own bodies too. Thats a silly analysis, their "production" i.e. what they are getting paid for, is essencially getting people to watch TV and see advertisements.


The Police have unions, I'm not sure they're part of the proletariat.


Well, they are.

[Blake's Baby]

No.

No.

And, surprisingly, no.

Advertisers produce advertising. People who work in advertsising agencies, graphic designers, printers, computer programmers, video makers... what some successful athletes can do is endorse products. This does not mean they 'create' advertising, any more than any other celebrity 'creates' advertising.

'Athletes' then have only existed since the beginning of TV advertising? Or is it only since then that have changed their class position? Athletes are still athletes even if 1 - there are no TV cameras; and 2 - no-one knows who they are. What you are thinking of is 'celebrities' who may be athletes and may not. Either way being an 'athlete' is not in any way equal to 'persuading people to watch adverts'.

How are the Police producing surplus labour for capitalism? They don't generate revenue through expanded reproduction. Please explain exactly what they do to make them part of the proletariat.

[RGacky3]

Its not endorsing the products, its them playing, which makes people want to watch, and what happens inbetween is commercials, THATS where they are getting their money and THAT is why they are rich, if there were no TV cameras they would'nt get paid (or they'd just get paid from a bit of the ticket sales and they would probably be as wealthy as your average proletariate.

Its not celebraties, any athlete is getting paid because people watch them on tv stations that are paid by advertising.

The police work for a wage, they are as much proletariate as firemen and teachers (who also work for the state), what they do is provide (in theory) security and tranquility so that capitalism can function.

[Blake's Baby]

So you insist that there were no athletes before there were TV cameras? Or am I still failing to get at wehat you're claiming?

[RGacky3]

No there WERE athletes, but they were not paid nearly as much

[Blake's Baby]

They were paid less, and therefore they weren't proletarians?

Or am I failing to grasp your point again?

[RGacky3]

When you work in construction, your value extracted by the Capitalist is the house that is built, when you work in a factory, the value extracted by the Capitalist is what you produce in the factory.

Before TV came along the only value extracted by Capitalists was ticket sales to the games, i.e their "entertainment value" thats why they were paid less because less value could be extracted from juts ticket sales, in that sense they were obviously proletarians, their value (entertainment value) was being exracted in exchange for being paid a wage.

With TV comming along you have a whole new market and a whole new area to extract value, now people don't pay for TV stations so how do they make money? Advertising, so TV stations are competing for viewers so that their value to advertisers goes up, when athletes get paid now, its much less the ticket sales they are selling (or people paying directly to watch them), and its more and more sales from advertisers paid to TV stations who pay sports federations (or teams) to film and broadcast their games, who in turn pay the athletes to play so that they can continue getting that advertising money.

So the value extracted from athletes today is the value from advertising that they create by getting people to watch their games (and thus be exposed to advertising), THAT is why they are making insane amounts of money, its not direct entertainment (people paying to watch them), its advertising.

[Blake's Baby]

So you do believe that only highly paid sports stars are proletarians, but atheltes in unsuccessful teams aren't. That seems pretty crazy to me.

[RGacky3]

NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, read the goddamn post, I typed it out very detailed on purpose.

Whether or not they are proletarians depends on your definition of proletarian, what I am saying is that their extracted value DOES NOT COME FROM people paying to watch them, or from their actual playing the game and creating entertainment value, it comes from advertising.

How much they are paid does'nt matter in what I was saying.

[Blake's Baby]

...
So the value extracted from athletes today is the value from advertising that they create by getting people to watch their games (and thus be exposed to advertising), THAT is why they are making insane amounts of money, its not direct entertainment (people paying to watch them), its advertising.

And therefore if no-one watches their games/they aren't on telly, the atheletes are not having any 'value extracted' so they aren't proletarian. Only the atheletes that are succesful so their teams can negotiate lucrative sponsorship deals are thus proletarian under this schema.

You may have been careful but that doesn't mean you actually understand what you're saying.

[RGacky3]

And therefore if no-one watches their games/they aren't on telly, the atheletes are not having any 'value extracted' so they aren't proletarian.

Yeah exactly, if no one watchest their games, and they are not on TV, they won't get paid will they.


Only the atheletes that are succesful so their teams can negotiate lucrative sponsorship deals are thus proletarian under this schema.


I'm not talking about sponsorship deals, they don't get paid be advertising DIRECTLY, (except for the big guys of coarse), but the people that pay them are getting paid by people who make their money from advertising, THUS, they are ultmately having their value extracted by making a market for advertising.