Gracchi Brothers

[Eniac]

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were celebrated as popular heroes of The People, and even glorified to the status of gods.
Possibly the first ever socialists in human history, they have introduced the agrarian reform almost identical to those of Ernesto Guevara, some two thousand years previously.
Marxist are quite passionate in celebrating their heroes, like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Che and such, I have seen people on this forum know so much about lives and works of these men, I myself admit I've spontaneously grown a personality cult of Marx, and I am not ashamed, but how come these great men, brothers Gracchi are nowhere to be found. Both of them gave their lives for the cause, and worked for social equality, and set the foundations of socialism.
In the times of Roman Republic a society much like ours was developed, capitalistic and rotten and I feel we have a fuckload to learn from their history, yet we can argue for days about Stalin being good or not, with no real results.

So I'd like this to be a general Roman Era thread and brothers Gracchi appreciation thread.

[Rafiq]

I prefer good Julius, who was at the same time a great military leader, a figure of authority but also a populare, a champion of the people come to descend upon the senate and to avenge the gracchi.

I also prefer his style, pragmatic, yet of some emotions. How he pardoned Cicero and Brutus but showed Cato, who a decade or two earlier was a spiteful thorn in the ass absolutely no mercy.

Julius Caesar is a hero in the same sense, good potential icon of the left.

But we don't glorify them for a good reason. It comes down to one word, one simple word: Slavery.

The real hero was Spartacus, and the slaves, not the plebs or proles, were the true forces of labor in Roman society.

[Sea]

In the times of Roman Republic a society much like ours was developed, capitalistic and rotten and I feel we have a fuckload to learn from their history, yet we can argue for days about Stalin being good or not, with no real results.I hate to poop on your party, but they so totally weren't.

[Eniac]

I hate to poop on your party, but they so totally weren't.

Oh, but they were, when you look at it, a society is capitalistic from the point there is currency, furthermore the roman bourgeois had not one, but two classes they oppressed, in line with their policy divide et impera, imagine what could have been if plebs, proleteriat, and slaves joined forces.

as for Caesar he'll never be a leftist idol, because he ended up a dictator and wanted all the power for himself. I do admire him greatly, if a dude is so fucking influential for his name to be spoken with awe 2000 years after his death he deserves some respect, and with his character and supremacy he is admirable as a historical figure, not as a leftist figure, though.

about slavery we have to admit it was considered normal at that certain time in history, like anti semitism was and like it was considered that women have no rights. Marx had some pretty conservative views in some ways (women's rights, homosexulism) as far as I've heard, but that doesn't stop us.
and the agrarian reform is huge fucking deal, I mean it's the earliest form of socialism I've found so far, older than communes of middle ages and common, so yeah I just think they deserve a place here.

and generally Roman society is not analyzed nearly enough, such an advanced civilization - never before, or after any civilization so far did last for so long, and it took us 1300 years to catch up with them. All I'm saying is I'd rather read some new and constructive analysis of Roman society than of Russian revolution, again.

[Rafiq]

I'd hate to break it to you but you're a bourgeois-liberal, and your conception of history is completely ideological. I wish you the best of luck in overcoming that.

[Eniac]

???

[slum]

Oh, but they were, when you look at it, a society is capitalistic from the point there is currency,

this is not how a capitalist mode of production is determined. rome was a slave society, regardless of the existence of currency, as slave labor produced surplus value. those who did not own slaves (although many people you would not consider 'bourgeois' owned slaves and remained producers at a level of basic subsistence) did not produce commodities for a market, either.

the existence of a vast empire and trade network does not capitalism make, either.



furthermore the roman bourgeois had not one, but two classes they oppressed, in line with their policy divide et impera, imagine what could have been if plebs, proleteriat, and slaves joined forces.there was no proletariat. social 'class' in rome was determined by inheritance of familial status (including adoption into noble families), participation in governance, ownership of property, and sometimes racial or 'national' origin. it is not possible to speak of either a bourgeoisie or a proletariat in a society based on slave labor and not wage labor.



as for Caesar he'll never be a leftist idol, because he ended up a dictator and wanted all the power for himself. I do admire him greatly, if a dude is so fucking influential for his name to be spoken with awe 2000 years after his death he deserves some respect, and with his character and supremacy he is admirable as a historical figure, not as a leftist figure, though.this is a reductionist statement that has more to do with moralism than economics and ignores the social and temporal context. a 'dictatorship' in roman terms was a specific political position that did not have the same implications it does today. same with a 'tyrant' in classical greece.

the reverence of individuals as prime historical actors ('good' or 'bad' in a 'leftist' sense) is also a poor approach to understanding social change. history is informed by economics (class struggle), not individuals. any man could have been caesar. it is not caesar who was influential per se, but the material forces at work in the world he inhabited.



about slavery we have to admit it was considered normal at that certain time in history, like anti semitism was and like it was considered that women have no rights. Marx had some pretty conservative views in some ways (women's rights, homosexulism) as far as I've heard, but that doesn't stop us.this is irrelevant. the issue is not that slavery was considered 'normal' or 'acceptable' (quick, everyone denounce slavery in case some bozo reading this thinks marxists are in favor of it!), but that the wealth seen in the roman ruling classes was extracted from the surplus labor of slaves (as well as simple appropriation in the form of military conquest, which is also where most slaves came from). this is not a discussion about morality (at least, i'm not interested in having that discussion)


and the agrarian reform is huge fucking deal, I mean it's the earliest form of socialism I've found so far, older than communes of middle ages and common, so yeah I just think they deserve a place here.i am excited to see a post here about the brothers gracchi and yes, roman agrarian reform is an interesting subject (as is roman civ in general) viewed from a class lens. i do not agree that it is a form of socialism. it was a political project undertaken for economic reasons. the gracchi and their untimely end are very romantic, though, which i appreciate (really!).

but we have to begin an analysis from an understanding of rome as an ancient society run on slave labor, military conquest, and subsistence agriculture. it is not analogous to a capitalist mode of production.



and generally Roman society is not analyzed nearly enough, such an advanced civilization - never before, or after any civilization so far did last for so long, and it took us 1300 years to catch up with them. All I'm saying is I'd rather read some new and constructive analysis of Roman society than of Russian revolution, again.why the idealization of roman 'progress' and advancement? this is the sort of thing rafiq is calling 'ideological'. there wasn't any 'catching up' with roman society; history isnt a ladder reaching skyward from 'barbarism' with each ensuing stage of human organization or mode of production morally/socially (your pick) superior to the others.

i'd be very eager to read more about rome from a marxist perspective, as well as classical athens. the one (extant) marxist classicist i know of, peter w. rose, just put out a new book called (i think) class in bronze age greece which may be of interest to you as well.

i'm excited to see ancient history stuff here and i hope people will continue to post on it. vale

[Sotionov]

I prefer the stoic philosopher Gaius Blossius, who was the one who persuaded Tiberius Gracchus to fight for a land reform in favor of the plebs. After Tiberius was killed, we went to Anatolia where he was the mind behind and a participant in the first attempt of a social revolution in history, with the aim of abolishing slavery and serfdom.

To paraphrase one latter thinker- the point of philosophy is not just to interpret the world, but to change it.

Also, I think we can find in Cicero a seed of communist thought. Of course he was not a communist, and his comments have an moralist-elitist sound to them, but still, the rejection of trade and wage-labor in that age is certainly interesting.

E.g. he writes firstly:

"The first demand of justice is, that no one do harm to another, unless provoked by injury; the next, that one use common possessions as common, private, as belonging to their owners. Private possessions, indeed, are not so by nature, but by ancient occupancy, as in the case of settlers in a previously uninhabited region; or by conquest, as in the territory acquired in war; or by law, treaty, agreement, or lot."

And his passage is simply mind-blowing, at least IMO:

"What can commerce produce in the way of honor? Everything called shop is unworthy an honorable man. Merchants can gain no profit without lying, and what is more shameful than falsehood? Again, we must regard as something base and vile the trade of those who sell their toil and industry, for whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves.”

[Rafiq]

Cicero was a piece of shit and Caesars greatest mistake was showing him mercy

[Eniac]

this is not how a capitalist mode of production is determined. rome was a slave society, regardless of the existence of currency, as slave labor produced surplus value. those who did not own slaves (although many people you would not consider 'bourgeois' owned slaves and remained producers at a level of basic subsistence) did not produce commodities for a market, either

ok, when you put it like that it is not capitalistic, indeed, but it is somewhat analogue because of the way money circulated and behaved, and that whole society spun around capital, so I thought it was capitalistic, but not when speaking about capitalist mode of production.

also slaves were treated "well " in Roman society they were fed and dressed so in a way they got paid I suppose, but alright the mode of production differs, period.




this is a reductionist statement that has more to do with moralism than economics and ignores the social and temporal context. a 'dictatorship' in roman terms was a specific political position that did not have the same implications it does today. same with a 'tyrant' in classical greece

I'll be honest and admit I do not fully understand what is reductionist, but I agree it has more to do with moral than economy. And I still claim that, he cannot become a 'leftist idol ', because of his megalomania, for someone to become that it requires contribution to the cause and action and understanding and action (Che is the ideal example here, everyone pretty much loves this guy), and I guess he has to have some morals, too.


. history is informed by economics (class struggle), not individuals
individuals get admired, though, I think that was what the discussion was about.

Roman agrarian reform appears quite socialistic to me, because the more or less same agrarian reform was applied much later by socialists, but Gracchi brothers weren't really, they did a logical move and they did "the right thing " , it's a wonderful coincidence that most of us here feel that socialism (that is what socialism leads to, and that is communism) is logical and right thing to do.

I don't know why it appeared that I idealize Roman society, actually why it writes that in the original post, anyway I don't, I do admire it though, so I guess I tried to stress that admiration a bit too much. The facts stand - they were pretty advanced and then suddenly barbarism, and we most certainly did catch up with then in the terms of science and philosophical thought, the history did kinda repeat itself after the downfall of the empire.

and I am quite amazed by how rafiq knew I was bourgeoisie liberal based only on how I described Romans or how I see Caesar as bad because he wanted unlimited power for himself, permanently, I'm aware of Roman term of dictator and political role of one, Caesar was not it, he was what we would today call a dictator or at least that is what it says in all the books.

[Sotionov]

Cicero was a piece of shit and Caesars greatest mistake was showing him mercy I just found some of his words interesting, I didn't say I liked him. He was very elitist, which can be seen from the comments about the plebs and democracy in his On Republic, he was sort of a theoretical Bismark in the sense we was for giving a little leniency (economically and politically) to the plebs in order to pacify them, but Caesar wan't any better, he was sort of a Lenin in the sense that he was playing on popular support so that he could more easily become a dictator.

[Eniac]

I prefer the stoic philosopher Gaius Blossius

frankly I've never heard of him, but will look him up, he seems quite interesting!

I have heard of Cicero but I've never actually read any of classical literature, including Cicero, that paragraph, however, is stunning.

[Rafiq]

I just found some of his words interesting, I didn't say I liked him. He was very elitist, which can be seen from the comments about the plebs and democracy in his On Republic, he was sort of a theoretical Bismark in the sense we was for giving a little leniency (economically and politically) to the plebs in order to pacify them, but Caesar wan't any better, he was sort of a Lenin in the sense that he was playing on popular support so that he could more easily become a dictator.

It is good you compare him to Lenin.

However neither strived toward "becoming dictators" in the modern context of the word.

[Buffalo]

I prefer good Julius, who was at the same time a great military leader, a figure of authority but also a populare, a champion of the people come to descend upon the senate and to avenge the gracchi.

Caesar was largely concerned with his own personal glory rather than any socalistic ideals. Just because he was a populare doesn't make him the next Che Guevara. When people like Crassus, who gained his wealth by screwing people over, called themselves populare at one point yu know that the political position isn't about the people. It was purely about power.

The Gracchi brothers were the only ones who truly cared about the people. They failed terribly at what they tried to accomplish, but what they were doing was truly revolutionary.

Sorry, by the way, for replying so late.

[Rafiq]

Caesar's intentions are irrelivant. He was no Sulla or Pompey, who joined the optimates when it benefited him. He was a populare at heart, a pragmatic and machiavellian one. He is no spartacus, but as a symbol, the idea of a Caesar is worth divulging into. What seperated Julius from the gracchi is that he attained massive power, the anti-sulla, a very strong political base from which he strove to eliminate the senetorial class. It is too bad his naivity and mishaps regarding forgiving his enemies cost him his life. Caesar was reluctant to spill the blood of the senate or engage in revolutionary violence and this cost him his life.

[Luís Henrique]

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were celebrated as popular heroes of The People, and even glorified to the status of gods.
Possibly the first ever socialists in human history, they have introduced the agrarian reform almost identical to those of Ernesto Guevara, some two thousand years previously.
Marxist are quite passionate in celebrating their heroes, like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Che and such, I have seen people on this forum know so much about lives and works of these men, I myself admit I've spontaneously grown a personality cult of Marx, and I am not ashamed, but how come these great men, brothers Gracchi are nowhere to be found. Both of them gave their lives for the cause, and worked for social equality, and set the foundations of socialism.
In the times of Roman Republic a society much like ours was developed, capitalistic and rotten and I feel we have a fuckload to learn from their history, yet we can argue for days about Stalin being good or not, with no real results.

So I'd like this to be a general Roman Era thread and brothers Gracchi appreciation thread.

Hal Draper's Two Souls of Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/1-ancestors.htm) pretty well explains why the Gracchi weren't socialists at all.

Indeed, they couldn't be, for the Roman society was not capitalist.

Luís Henrique