A Communist Roman Empire?

[TheComrade]

How do you think it could have panned out? If - instead of say Gauis reforming the army he had come up with the idea of absolute equality? I know its far fetched by Rome was almost a Nazi state - what if it had been reversed? Thoughts..?

[ComradeOm]

It simply couldn’t happen. Rome was not a capitalist society, there was no proletariat, the forces of production were miniscule compared to today. In short the material conditions for communism, or anything required to create those conditions, did not exist and would not come into being until a millennia later.

[Morpheus]

I don't see why capitalism or industrialization are absolutely required for communism. Rome actually had a small proletariat, along with slaves & other poor people who could potentially have been the force behind a communist revolution. I doubt the army or other Roman leaders would have done such a thing, because it didn't serve their class interests. Gaius & other relatively left-wing leaders were what we'd call reformists today. We know there were people who were more radical because there were people from the ruling class who wrote about them, attacking them. We don't know much about them, though, because the radicals came more from the lower classes, who were largely illiterate, and so wouldn't leave much in the way of writings even if they weren't being persecuted.

[Lamanov]

:huh: :huh: :lol:
:huh: :lol: :huh:
:lol: :huh: :huh:

[rossith]

heh very productive DJ-TC :P

well yes there were a relatively small proletariat but it really depends on what tinme of the roman empire you are actually talking about. if you talk about the later empire then there was masses of slaves and a poor working class equivilent. although production was miniscule compared to todays production, in roman times it would still hae been relatively mass production for the scale of production achieveable. anyway im tired and im starting to confuse myself so....bi! :ph34r:

[TheComrade]

I accept all your points - there was no centralised industrial sector... It wouldn't have fitted in with Roman society - a society based on class - authority - and supreme rule - even pre-Empire - noone would question the Senate even though SQPR stands for Senate and People of Rome!! (Senatus Populusque Romanus :P!!)

[Orthodox Marxist]

Civis Romanus Sum

[TheComrade]

You are a Roman citizen? Wow - must be quite old...unless your actually planning to establish a New Roman Empire (but that sounds a bit too like Mussolini and Hitler...)

[ack]

Tua Mater It Ad Ludum.

[Technique3055]

I honestly think any ancient society could've been much, much, much more successful of a society of it was communist (utopian socialism would be the system of choice for such societies).

If you think about it, what put people ahead in the Roman Empire?

People were born into power and wealth, and there literally was no way to rise out of poverty and gain power. Very simply - Person A was wealthier than Person B because of the family he had, and Person A's family was wealthier than Person B's because of the generations before them, and so on.

What did Person A's family have that Person B's family didn't have that gained it more wealth and power? Since there was no industry (or very, very, very little), what forms of capital did one person have to make them more wealthy than another person? Only two things come to mind - More slaves and more land. At some points in Roman history, slaves outnumbered citizens five to three. Overall throughout the history of the empire, it has been suggested that almost 40% of all people living in the empire were slaves.

Ever heard of Spartacus? For those of you who haven't, he created an army of 70,000 rebel slaves and started a rebellion for freedom against the empire. He defeated two Roman legions before his army was defeated. Ever heard of the Spartacist League?

Had the slaves been organized properly, it is VERY possible that an army of Roman slaves could've overthrown the Roman State and established a new one. With all slaves freed, the only other thing to do would be to carry-out some agrarian reform, redistribute some land, and what other means would one person have to get ahead of another?

[TheComrade]

Very good point - although I think Spartus was only interested in slave liberation - not in establishing a new government. I don't think he could have maintained order in a senate. I think it is difficult - also - to say 'had the slaves been organised properly' because the fact is they weren't! And I believe that they would have refused to accept proper - Roman style - organisation claiming it to be as terrible as their own enemy (which is true!) How could you organise slaves? They - with their homemade/looted weaponry are not trained soldiers...