Managed democracy in ancient Rome? (Gramsci and more on the Tribal Assembly)

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/julius-caesar-lost-t147255/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html



Continuing from some of the past discussions in the above links, I read parts of Gramsci's Prison Notebooks this weekend:

http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Antonio%20Gramsci/prison_notebooks/state_civil/ch02.htm


There can be both progressive and reactionary forms of Caesarism; the exact significance of each form can, in the last analysis, be reconstructed only through concrete history, and not by means of any sociological rule of thumb. Caesarism is progressive when its intervention helps the progressive force to triumph, albeit with its victory tempered by certain compromises and limitations. It is reactionary when its intervention helps the reactionary force to triumph – in this case too with certain compromises and limitations, which have, however, a different value, extent, and significance than in the former. Caesar and Napoleon I are examples of progressive Caesarism, Napoleon III and Bismarck of reactionary Caesarism.

[...]

The Caesarism of Caesar and Napoleon I was, so to speak, of a quantitative/qualitative character; in other words it represented the historical phase of the passage from one type of State to another type – a passage in which the innovations were so numerous, and of such a nature, that they represented a complete revolution. The Caesarism of Napoleon III was merely, and in a limited fashion, quantitative; there was no passage from one type of State to another, but only "evolution" of the same type along unbroken lines.

In the modern world, Caesarist phenomena are quite different, both from those of the Napoleon III type – although they tend towards the latter.

And thus Gramsci was the first Marxist to reconsider the political legacy of Julius Caesar, paving the way for people's history and contemporary implications decades later. However, I'm skeptical about Gramsci's characterization of the true Napoleon's regime.



Although the most obvious feature of Caesarism is the real or perceived existence of, to correct the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle, a "social[ly radical] and [politically] revolutionary people's [elected, non-hereditary, de facto] monarchy," I'd like to focus on what Lenina Rosenweg called "bloc party system of the DDR" (or of the rest of Eastern Europe under the Soviet sphere of influence) with respect to similarities in ancient Rome during the time of the Julius Caesar of people's history. In all cases of Caesarism (I'll correct Gramsci by saying that all "reactionary Caesarism" is mere Bonapartism and that genuine Caesarism can only be progressive), this central aspect of managed democracy is what made or broke the real or perceived existence of such "strongman" figure.

In the case of ancient Rome, the locus of managed democracy rested with the Tribal Assembly, the planned transfer of power to which was the tipping point that led to Caesar's assassination. It was as simple as transferring the ability to elect the Dictator Perpetuo, not limited by six-month constraints, from the very patrician Senate to the much more plebeian and Populares-controlled Tribal Assembly. There, some before-unseen fissures of divide among the Populares would have erupted, after the Optimates were consigned to history's footnotes, but bloc-based control by the Populares would have remained.

[RED DAVE]

W know that that what you are doing is trying to sneak in an apology for Stalinism. It won't work. LaSalle was full of shit. Gramsci was not necessarily right.

Get your nose out of a book, and go out and do some political organizing. A year or so in some political organization or, heaven forefend, a union, will teach you more about democracy that grubbing around in the dust of Ancient Rome.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

W know that that what you are doing is trying to sneak in an apology for Stalinism. It won't work. LaSalle was full of shit. Gramsci was not necessarily right.

Yeah, Gramsci was very much an apologist for the Stalin regime when writing his Prison Notebooks. :rolleyes:

[Optiow]

Caesar was an idiot, and he did not help either the people of Rome or the millions of Gauls he repressed. He was a reactionary through and through.

If anything, the men who deserve any praise are the Gracchi, who did actually try to bring social justice into Rome.

Both Caesar and the Gracchi were killed, but for different reasons. Caesar was killed because he was an authoritarian dictator, and the Gracchi were killed because they were allies of the people.

I think Red Dave is right. You can't apologize for Stalinism by calling Caesar a progressive.

[Tim Finnegan]

The Caesarism of Caesar and Napoleon I was, so to speak, of a quantitative/qualitative character; in other words it represented the historical phase of the passage from one type of State to another type – a passage in which the innovations were so numerous, and of such a nature, that they represented a complete revolution.What was Gramsci referring to when he says that Caesar's regime "represented the historical passage from one type of State to another type"? I would assume that he was referring to the establishment of the Empire by Octavian, but that was more like the establishment of an executive-for-life than what I would've thought of as a revolutionary change, so perhaps I'm missing something?

[agnixie]

What was Gramsci referring to when he says that Caesar's regime "represented the historical passage from one type of State to another type"? I would assume that he was referring to the establishment of the Empire by Octavian, but that was more like the establishment of an executive-for-life than what I would've thought of as a revolutionary change, so perhaps I'm missing something?

While the regimes looked superficially similar, it essentially established a monarchy without pretence of democracy out of an increasingly feudal classical republic. There was still a certain pretence of tense cohabitation of aristocratic republic and popular democracy since the 6th century even if by the time of Sylla it had essentially been thrown to the wind. Although I'm not entirely sure what Gramsci means either there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What was Gramsci referring to when he says that Caesar's regime "represented the historical passage from one type of State to another type"? I would assume that he was referring to the establishment of the Empire by Octavian, but that was more like the establishment of an executive-for-life than what I would've thought of as a revolutionary change, so perhaps I'm missing something?

As I said above, comrade, Gramsci wasn't referring to Octavian at all. He was referring to the institutional changes implemented by Julius Caesar. I think he knew more than most others that those changes were way more than just a mere Dictator Perpetuo position, which I think is more akin to today's non-life-serving long presidencies without term limits (FDR, Chavez, etc.) than to some executive-for-life position. I've mentioned the key change with respect to the Tribal Assembly.

[Kléber]

Caesar and the Gracchi stood for a "democracy" of slaveowners and the subjugation of peoples; the populares in the Tribal Assembly did not represent proletarians and slaves.

Spartacus was the real revolutionary hero of antiquity, his rebellion united all the oppressed in struggle against the barbarous Roman slave state.

[Jose Gracchus]

Naturally, but what does one expect when you have a would-be theoretician whose thinks he's divined a statistical class category called "lumpen-scum"?

Also, DNZ, your interpretation of the dictatura in Roman law is totally wrong and incorrect. It was nothing like a bourgeois president; the dictator was subject to no normal restraint of law (the dictatura being considered an "extraordinary" magistracy), hence why the dicator rei gerundae causa was to be limited to a year's length. The innovation of the dictator perpetuo was simply to create an absolute monarchy-by-another-name for Caesar with the thinnest veneer of constitutional legitimacy. Marcus Antonius in his lex Antonia abolished the dictatura entirely from the Roman constitution, in the wake of Caesar's assassination, so delegitmized the institution was by Caesar. Consequently, Octavian was obliged to combine unusual grants of constitutional power (the imperium proconsulare maius and the tribunica potestas) which gave him de jure legal authority over the Roman military and state and colonial administration in every way that mattered, while not having to actually occupy the key magistracies where such power was supposed to be ensconced. Therefore he was able to drape himself as purportedly merely the first man in the Roman state, but it was actually such that it would be impossible for any group of Senators or magistrates to have any legal challenge (of course by then he drenched the senatorial class in blood and the Senate was stuffed with his creatures, so it was just formalizing the real political realities of the time) to his rule.

The Tribal Assembly was a dead institution by Caesar's strongmanship, as has been explained to you ad nauseum before (I am sure you will go on ignoring this, and presenting out-of-context Gramsci and Parenti quotations rather than actual historical scholarships - disgracefully dubbed 'gentlemen's history' - though). The only possible function it could serve is by mobilizing clients via patronage for artificial public displays of political support.

[Kiev Communard]

The Tribal Assembly was a dead institution by Caesar's strongmanship, as has been explained to you ad nauseum before (I am sure you will go on ignoring this, and presenting out-of-context Gramsci and Parenti quotations rather than actual historical scholarships - disgracefully dubbed 'gentlemen's history' - though). The only possible function it could serve is by mobilizing clients via patronage for artificial public displays of political support.

Bravo, you have summarised it all splendidly, the only thing I have to add is that the Tribal Assembly ceased to exist as a meaningful entity after the massive grants of citizenship to former Roman socii ("the allies") among the Italic peoples after the Social War of 90-88 BCE, so that the majority of new electors were completely unconnected with the traditional Roman institutions and were much less inclined to tolerate the rule of traditional senatorial aristocracy, on which the coherence of the Roman Republic actually rested.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Tribal Assembly was a dead institution by Caesar's strongmanship, as has been explained to you ad nauseum before (I am sure you will go on ignoring this, and presenting out-of-context Gramsci and Parenti quotations rather than actual historical scholarships - disgracefully dubbed 'gentlemen's history' - though). The only possible function it could serve is by mobilizing clients via patronage for artificial public displays of political support.

I have not ignored the issue of patronage at all. After all, in a managed multi-/bloc party system, it's so obvious that people are definitely preferred to fill the organs in advance. Nobody who's not in favour with those doing the preferring gets the job.


Bravo, you have summarised it all splendidly, the only thing I have to add is that the Tribal Assembly ceased to exist as a meaningful entity after the massive grants of citizenship to former Roman socii ("the allies") among the Italic peoples after the Social War of 90-88 BCE, so that the majority of new electors were completely unconnected with the traditional Roman institutions and were much less inclined to tolerate the rule of traditional senatorial aristocracy, on which the coherence of the Roman Republic actually rested.

Between 90-88 BCE and Sulla's dictatorship the Tribal Assembly may not have been meaningful, but it gained new meaning after it was gutted during that dictatorship. That majority of new electors you mention became even less inclined to tolerate the rule of the traditional senatorial aristocracy after the senatorial coup. Thus, enter the genuine March on Rome by Julius Caesar.

[Jose Gracchus]

Caesar's march on Rome worked because he was backed by crack troops seasoned by the war of bloody triumph in Gaul, not due to any meaningful political role played by the Tribal Assembly. A total crock.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I meant to imply that those same "crack troops" were among those less inclined to tolerate the rule of the senatorial aristocracy after Sulla's senatorial coup.

[Kiev Communard]

I meant to imply that those same "crack troops" were among those less inclined to tolerate the rule of the senatorial aristocracy after Sulla's senatorial coup.

No, it was these "crack troops" that initially supported Sullan and Pompeian anti-Tribal Assembly actions and later supported Caesar out of opportunistic desire to gain more wealth and land for themselves. The truly "popular" movement of Clodius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher) (who was killed by Senators in 52 BCE), while co-operating with Caesar before his departure for Gaul in 58 BCE, opposed him in the years preceding Clodius's murder.

[graymouser]

Between 90-88 BCE and Sulla's dictatorship the Tribal Assembly may not have been meaningful, but it gained new meaning after it was gutted during that dictatorship. That majority of new electors you mention became even less inclined to tolerate the rule of the traditional senatorial aristocracy after the senatorial coup. Thus, enter the genuine March on Rome by Julius Caesar.
Your grasp on democracy is stunningly poor. Caesar was not transforming the Tribal Assembly into the ruling power of Rome, but a mute rubber stamp for his policies. He took away any election of the magistrates by the comitia tributa or of tribunes by the concilium plebis, effectively preventing any shade of popular democratic rule.

If you understood Roman history beyond Michael Parenti's distortions, you would understand that the comitia tributa was not functional as an instrument of popular rule, and at best served as a balance for Senatorial ambition. Caesar controlled the bureaucracy, and had already shown his willingness to depose any tribunes who tried to resist his will - which is more or less how every rubber-stamp legislature in history has ever worked. The fact that you find it impressive that he was doing this to the comitia tributa rather than to the Senate as Octavian would as such indicates only that you aren't much of a political sophisticate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your grasp on democracy is stunningly poor.

Not at all. Unlike Trotsky I don't confuse democracy with rule-of-law constitutionalism (thus his, Stalin's, Lenin's, and Kautsky's mistake re. "bourgeois-democratic" revolutions and the "dialectic" re. posing them against "socialist" revolutions).


Caesar was not transforming the Tribal Assembly into the ruling power of Rome, but a mute rubber stamp for his policies. He took away any election of the magistrates by the comitia tributa or of tribunes by the concilium plebis, effectively preventing any shade of popular democratic rule.

If you understood Roman history beyond Michael Parenti's distortions, you would understand that the comitia tributa was not functional as an instrument of popular rule, and at best served as a balance for Senatorial ambition. Caesar controlled the bureaucracy, and had already shown his willingness to depose any tribunes who tried to resist his will - which is more or less how every rubber-stamp legislature in history has ever worked. The fact that you find it impressive that he was doing this to the comitia tributa rather than to the Senate as Octavian would as such indicates only that you aren't much of a political sophisticate.

How is that ultimately different from the patronage of party-list PR systems whereby, as I've said similarly above, if you're not in the good graces of an electoral machine's executive committee, you're not on the "party list"?

Also, now look who's taking up the Great Man of History position? Caesar the "strongman" figure is there only as long as his whole Populares base of support is with him, either in "popular" form, big-picture patronage form, or bigwig-style (but informal) collective leadership form. Were he to have lived longer but pursued hare-brained policies contrary to the wishes of any of those three areas (like perhaps dividing Rome's central economic administration into territorial administrations smaller than Roman provinces, or bifurcating the same administration into agriculture and some other pre-industrial economic sphere), 1964 would have had a bigger historical precedent.

[graymouser]

Not at all. Unlike Trotsky I don't confuse democracy with rule-of-law constitutionalism (thus his, Stalin's, Lenin's, and Kautsky's mistake re. "bourgeois-democratic" revolutions and the "dialectic" re. posing them against "socialist" revolutions).

How is that ultimately different from the patronage of party-list PR systems whereby, as I've said similarly above, if you're not in the good graces of an electoral machine's executive committee, you're not on the "party list"?

Also, now look who's taking up the Great Man of History position? Caesar the "strongman" figure is there only as long as his whole Populares base of support is with him, either in "popular" form, big-picture patronage form, or bigwig-style (but informal) collective leadership form. Were he to have lived longer but pursued hare-brained policies contrary to the wishes of any of those three areas (like perhaps dividing Rome's central economic administration into territorial administrations smaller than Roman provinces, or bifurcating the same administration into agriculture and some other pre-industrial economic sphere), 1964 would have had a bigger historical precedent.
Once, I tried to read an apologia for the Soviet Union under late-stage Stalinism called Is the Red Flag Flying? by Albert Szymanski, a sociologist who is probably best known for his involvement in the journal "The Insurgent Sociologist." Szymanski used a tortured argumentation similar to yours to argue that there was effectively public sanction of the policies of the CPSU, because otherwise popular dissent would undermine it. However, this type of sanction exists in every undemocratic state; we could hardly say that Mubarak's rule in Egypt, for instance, was democratic simply because it was ended by the masses in the street. This is non-democracy, it is tyranny in the trappings of popular rule.

The most democratic moment (keeping in mind the Lenin quote in my signature, that ancient democracies were in fact democracies of slave-owners) in ancient Rome was the popular uprisings around the Gracchi. Julius Caesar had actually subverted and undermined this - the tribunician office had already been stripped of the radical potential that the Gracchi found in it, and he was finishing it off. Again, you simply are not a political sophisticate - you do not grasp that, in the conversion of an organ of popular democracy (whether the comitia tributa under Caesar or the Soviets under Stalin) into a rubber-stamp is the undermining and destruction of that organ. It went so badly and clearly wrong that Octavian had to rehabilitate the Senate in order to create a rubber stamp for his own rule.

As for the "Great Man" theory - Julius Caesar and Octavian represented the same basic class interests in Roman society. Both of them rested on the up and coming class of equites who would serve as the military and bureaucratic elites under the Empire, and whose ambition was frustrated by the rule of the aristocracy in the Senate. The idea that he was supported mainly "from below" ignores the fact that a good deal of his plebeian support came not only from the proletarii but the equites. Your inability to grasp the way the Roman de jure class system did not line up with its de facto classes is a major blind spot in your attempt to hash together some "people's history" here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Forgive my exaggeration re. "Great Man" stuff. It's just that, under your scenario, it would have impossible for the organized sections of proletarii and equites to remove Julius Caesar from power.

I opposed that. When I said "popular" I put it in quotes for a reason. I had in mind a repetition of the March on Rome or a derivative Breakthrough Military Coup from inside the city. I certainly did not have in mind slave riots. I then reiterated "big-picture patronage form, or bigwig-style (but informal) collective leadership form" because those are other means of removing the leader from power. I also cited examples of provocations that trigger such leaders' removal by those three means.

[graymouser]

Forgive my exaggeration re. "Great Man" stuff. It's just that, under your scenario, it would have impossible for the organized sections of proletarii and equites to remove Julius Caesar from power.

I opposed that. When I said "popular" I put it in quotes for a reason. I had in mind a repetition of the March on Rome or a derivative Breakthrough Military Coup from inside the city. I certainly did not have in mind slave riots. I then reiterated "big-picture patronage form, or bigwig-style (but informal) collective leadership form" because those are other means of removing the leader from power. I also cited examples of provocations that trigger such leaders' removal by those three means.
Actually, my point was that Caesar had destroyed the institutions by which the plebeian class could have legally removed him or even built up a counter-force. Given his military power, it's unrealistic to talk about other means of removing the leader; Caesar literally had control of the massive Roman military. The key military leaders were loyal to him, personally, and Caesar's personal fortune was the largest in the Empire. The only realistic means of removing Caesar from power was the one that was actually used: he had to be stabbed to death.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Military-based patronage goes both ways. The more prestigious generals under Caesar could have been "parachuted" (like into a parliamentary riding by some central leadership) into the Tribal Assembly and especially the bureaucracy, but from there can plot. That's part of what I meant by my counter-argument, including my doubt over the long-term loyalty of the "key military leaders."

They can stab a hare-brained Caesar to death however many times they want, but without building bureaucratic, patronage, military, etc. support first, they'll be ruined.