Marx was wrong!

[overlord]

I beleive Marx seriously stuffed up. Primitive communism goes to fuedalism which goes to imperialism, and then communism right? Well, let's examine that.

Rome started as a collection of farmers, vagrants, pirates and refugees, (primitive communists/feudalists). They had no women so had to invade a neighbouring city to steal some. They founded a city state with a king, (feudalism). The 'Imperialism' of the Tarquins was then defeated and Rome became a Republic, (no communism?). It became a true empire under Caesar/Crassus/Pompey. One of the greatest generals in history, Spartacus, sparked a class revolution - to bring on communism? No! Spartacus' had no idea how to rule. Italy was in anarchous turmoil. Soon after Spartacus was defeated, Caesar's almost took the crown to proclaim monarchy, but with his death the empire was overthrown and the split between Imperialist, (Antony/Octavian) and Republican, (Brutus/Cassius) forces. The Imperialists won, the Senate became weaker and weaker, and with it the possibility of democracy. Roman rulers became more monarchial. Rome collapsed in the 460's, (where is communism when you need it?). The German kings up to Hitler set up their own 'Empires' in the shoes of Rome. In the East, the Byzantines strangthened monarchy. The Autocrator became known as 'Chronocrator' = ruler of time and 'Cosmocrator' = ruler of the universe. Where is communism? History just goes from one capitalist to the next!

So when is communism supposed to happen? IF we look to the (fake) communist regimes of the 20th century, we see communism took root not in advanced capitalist countries but primitve ones. :o Russia/China/Vietnam/Cuba, all feudal republics of aristocrats, NOT EMPIRES! No revolution in the US! And now look at Nepal, it nearly happened in backwards feudal NEPAL! BUT Never in an advanced country! So when we try to force advanced capitalism on the feudal peonries of South America, communism starts to take hold! Why not in Canada, Britian, Germany, US? Marx was wrong, that's why. People like Redstar will be waiting 400 years for nothing.

The verdict of history is that feudalism turns to communism which turns to imperialism, or bypasses communism altogether and I don't think you guys can prove me wrong.

[JazzRemington]

THe word is primitive communism. You know, primitive as in BEFORE civilization. History did not go from one capitalist tot he next, as the people in charge were not capitalists because they did not own the means of production, only the land.

Do you have ANY idea about what your just tried to argue against? Your post read like a psychotic rant.

[encephalon]

wow.. you not only need to learn what communism is, but what capitalism is. Even your fellow restrictees will tell you that.

Also: christ, that was the worst summation of ancient rome I think I've ever experienced. Are you drunk?? There weren't really any "german kings", at least in the sense that you're using it, until relatively modern times--and hitler was most definitely not a king.

Rome didn't fall, it moved with Constantine and continued to prosper for quite some time. The byzantine empire WAS the roman empire. What was left in the west were shambles.

Communism doesn't just appear in and out of history.. have you even read the communist manifesto???

[Herman]

I beleive Marx seriously stuffed up. Primitive communism goes to fuedalism which goes to imperialism, and then communism right? Well, let's examine that.

Rome started as a collection of farmers, vagrants, pirates and refugees, (primitive communists/feudalists). They had no women so had to invade a neighbouring city to steal some. They founded a city state with a king, (feudalism). The 'Imperialism' of the Tarquins was then defeated and Rome became a Republic, (no communism?). It became a true empire under Caesar/Crassus/Pompey. One of the greatest generals in history, Spartacus, sparked a class revolution - to bring on communism? No! Spartacus' had no idea how to rule. Italy was in anarchous turmoil. Soon after Spartacus was defeated, Caesar's almost took the crown to proclaim monarchy, but with his death the empire was overthrown and the split between Imperialist, (Antony/Octavian) and Republican, (Brutus/Cassius) forces. The Imperialists won, the Senate became weaker and weaker, and with it the possibility of democracy. Roman rulers became more monarchial. Rome collapsed in the 460's, (where is communism when you need it?). The German kings up to Hitler set up their own 'Empires' in the shoes of Rome. In the East, the Byzantines strangthened monarchy. The Autocrator became known as 'Chronocrator' = ruler of time and 'Cosmocrator' = ruler of the universe. Where is communism? History just goes from one capitalist to the next!

So when is communism supposed to happen? IF we look to the (fake) communist regimes of the 20th century, we see communism took root not in advanced capitalist countries but primitve ones. ohmy.gif Russia/China/Vietnam/Cuba, all feudal republics of aristocrats, NOT EMPIRES! No revolution in the US! And now look at Nepal, it nearly happened in backwards feudal NEPAL! BUT Never in an advanced country! So when we try to force advanced capitalism on the feudal peonries of South America, communism starts to take hold! Why not in Canada, Britian, Germany, US? Marx was wrong, that's why. People like Redstar will be waiting 400 years for nothing.

The verdict of history is that feudalism turns to communism which turns to imperialism, or bypasses communism altogether and I don't think you guys can prove me wrong.

You have no clue about anything at all, do you? Before you come here ranting how much you have Marxism, go and read some works of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Lenin, Eugene V. Debs, School Economics, etc.

[ComradeOm]

You don't need to understand what communism is, you need a fucking history book

[Hiero]

Russia was an old empire. China was semi feudal, semi colonail. Nepal is the same as China. Cuba was semi colonial. None of these countries turned imperialist, their economy is not strong enough to be imperialist.

In Russia people were sick of the Monarch. The Boleshiviks proposed that the proletariat and peasants should take control of the country and moved towards building socialism, rather then let the bourgioesie build capitalism. That latter plan would have never worked as Russia would have to rely on invests from outside Russia, or they get a good divide of Germany.

In China it was a fight against colonialism/imperialism and feudalism, and much like in Russia Communists proposed the workers and peasants take control of the state and economy and start to build socialism. The same is for Vietnam.

So Marx is not wrong because he could have never forseen such developments of capitalism. The contradiction between the proletariat and feudal Monarchs as well as colonailism, were much stronger then the contradiction between Western European bourgioesie and their proletariat. Though there were at times were it look like the Western European proletariat were going to take control of their countries. It was just lucky in these backward nations that Communist were able to organise the masses for socialism.

Today the question of why revolution never occured after WW2 and the decline of worker parties and unions in the 1st world is answered by looking at the labor aristocracy.

[overlord]

Thank you Hiero for the intelligent response.

Do any other comrades have the brains to actually address the question or shall we forever be hung up over symantics? ie:



wow.. you not only need to learn what communism is, but what capitalism is. Even your fellow restrictees will tell you that.


So prove me wrong if you're such a clever guy. The fact you didn't says something.

[overlord]

HAHAHHAHAHAHA! I need to reply to this as well!!!!


wow.. you not only need to learn what communism is, but what capitalism is. Even your fellow restrictees will tell you that.


Well, itn't that funny. I just learnt from you guys that capitalism is statism for the protection of private property! Therefore the libertarian definition is more or less defunct - BY YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION!


There weren't really any "german kings", at least in the sense that you're using it, until relatively modern times--and hitler was most definitely not a king.

Ah! The Vandals who took PROVINCIA AFRICA were not GERMANS! The OSTROGOTHS who took Illyria/Dacia were not German! The Franks who took North Gaul were not German! The Visigoths of Celtiberia were not German! The Lombards who took North Italy were not German! GREAT!



Rome didn't fall, it moved with Constantine and continued to prosper for quite some time. The byzantine empire WAS the roman empire. What was left in the west were shambles.

What history are you reading? Rome fell. The Byzantines abandoned Roman institutions, spoke Greek, had a despotocrator. We had an empire turn to Monarchy mate!



Communism doesn't just appear in and out of history.. have you even read the communist manifesto???


Are you admitting Marx's error? How many imperiums need to fall before we have communism? Not sure about you, but the British Empire is long gone.

[encephalon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:32 AM




Well, itn't that funny. I just learnt from you guys that capitalism is statism for the protection of private property! Therefore the libertarian definition is more or less defunct - BY YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION!

You are saying Rome was capitalist. Even your fellow libertarians will correct you on this.



Ah! The Vandals who took PROVINCIA AFRICA were not GERMANS! The OSTROGOTHS who took Illyria/Dacia were not German! The Franks who took North Gaul were not German! The Visigoths of Celtiberia were not German! The Lombards who took North Italy were not German! GREAT!


No, they weren't. They were vandals, ostrogoths, etc. There were no Germans until there was a germany. These were some of many cultures that were predecessors to the culture that we collectively define as German.



What history are you reading? Rome fell. The Byzantines abandoned Roman institutions, spoke Greek, had a despotocrator. We had an empire turn to Monarchy mate!

Constantine moved the Capitol of Rome to byzantium in order to fight off islam more effectively. The Roman culture flourished there and abandoned "Rome," the city. It continued to be an Empire.

Have you even taken a basic course on western history?



Are you admitting Marx's error? How many imperiums need to fall before we have communism? Not sure about you, but the British Empire is long gone.

No.. in fact, I'm quite positive now that you've not even read the communist manifesto. You're attributing facets to marx's works that don't even exist.

[greymatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:48 AM
Constantine moved the Capitol of Rome to byzantium in order to fight off islam more effectively. The Roman culture flourished there and abandoned "Rome," the city. It continued to be an Empire.
Islam was founded in the 7th century CE, and Constantine moved the capital of his empire to Byzantium in 330 CE. Also, Rome was never abandoned. Instead, it was made capital of the western roman empire.

Make sure you know your history from now on. :D


No.. in fact, I'm quite positive now that you've not even read the communist manifesto. You're attributing facets to marx's works that don't even exist.

There's not much contained in the manifesto, it's more of a propaganda pamphlet than anything. If you like, there are some good articles available on the internet. Capital is also a very worthwhile read.

[encephalon]

Islam was founded in the 7th century CE, and Constantine moved the capital of his empire to Byzantium in 330 CE. Also, Rome was never abandoned. Instead, it was made capital of the western roman empire.

Make sure you know your history from now on.


You're correct--I should have said "the east" in general. Constantinople didn't play a big role in defending the west from the turks until much later. I apologize for fast forwarding :P

However, Rome was abandoned. Once Constantine became head of the east and west (thus establishing a unified rome once again), less and less attention was given to the west--mainly because of the lucrative trade in the east. This left rome open to attack by "barbarians" of all sorts. The power structure of Rome itself moved to the east, and the west was left alone. Constantinople unified Rome under one emporer again--there wasn't another east/west power struggle for a while. By the late 400s, no western roman empire existed until charlemagne some 300+ years later.

So make sure you know your history ;)



There's not much contained in the manifesto, it's more of a propaganda pamphlet than anything. If you like, there are some good articles available on the internet. Capital is also a very worthwhile read.


I've read capital, thanks. I am replying to overlords assertion that capitalists kept popping up throughout history without any communist revolution, when even the communist manifesto, as short as it may be, explicitly states that there weren't any capitalists before the modern era. If I'm going to argue with these people about communism, I at least expect them to read the communist manifesto.

But please, on with your arrogance and assumptions that other communists aren't nearly as informed about marx as you. It's a great quality.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:56 PM
Do any other comrades have the brains to actually address the question or shall we forever be hung up over symantics?
Semantics? You demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of both communism and European history.

[overlord]

You are saying Rome was capitalist. Even your fellow libertarians will correct you on this.


:lol: Who says all capitalists are libertarian? Rome was capitalist. You could own slaves, trade them freely, rent them out to work mines, farms. Brutus charged some Greek town like 60% interest at one stage for his cash. Crassus was the greatest property investor of all time by burning people's houses down and making them sell up cheap while the houses were still on fire. Rome beleived in the protection of property rights. Our British common law is in its basic form - Roman law, the foundation of the right to own property.


Constantine moved the Capitol of Rome to byzantium in order to fight off islam more effectively. The Roman culture flourished there and abandoned "Rome," the city. It continued to be an Empire.

Have you even taken a basic course on western history?

In six months i'll have a history degree and shall therefore be a 'historian'. Personally, I like the Byzantine empire even better than the Latins because of thier sheer audacity. Love figures like good ole Bulgaroctinus.

Now, you're saying Rome never fell, so marx can't be wrong? HAHAHAHA! HAVE IT YOUR WAY! How do you explain the fact it retracted into dark age feudalism and chaos under German, (ooops sorry) ......ummmm.....SAXON/ANGLE/JUTE/OSTROGOTH/VISIGOTH/etc.etc administration - when it should have morphed into communism if Marx was indeed correct?

Hiero came close in that he said out capitalism was more advanced than earlier forms known to Marx, but i still think Marx was attempting a broad sweep of a definition about the impending arrival of communism as the perfection of a historical process. People like Redstar are waiting for this to happen. I am attempting to say it hasn't, it won't it never will.

SO SOMEONE PROVE ME WRONG!!!!! GO ON, PLEASE!! WITH A CHERRY ON TOP!

[overlord]

Semantics? You demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of both communism and European history.


I don't claim to be an expert on communism but how was my European history wrong? i.e: what planet are you from?

[encephalon]

Who says all capitalists are libertarian? Rome was capitalist. You could own slaves, trade them freely, rent them out to work mines, farms. Brutus charged some Greek town like 60% interest at one stage for his cash. Crassus was the greatest property investor of all time by burning people's houses down and making them sell up cheap while the houses were still on fire. Rome beleived in the protection of property rights. Our British common law is in its basic form - Roman law, the foundation of the right to own property.


The distinguishing sign of capitalism is capital, not property. Wage-labor helps, too. Not to mention the birth of a factory system, where artisans lose their own means of production--tools, etc--and have to instead use machinery owned by capitalists. Rome might have developed into capitalism, but for various reasons it did not.



In six months i'll have a history degree and shall therefore be a 'historian'. Personally, I like the Byzantine empire even better than the Latins because of thier sheer audacity. Love figures like good ole Bulgaroctinus.


I'm a history major as well, and the only reason I'm still in school is my foreign language requirement. I'm also majoring in English. All of my history requirements are fulfilled, and then some. So I guess historians disagree on things every once in a while, now don't they?



Now, you're saying Rome never fell, so marx can't be wrong? HAHAHAHA! HAVE IT YOUR WAY!

Now that's not what I said, is it? Nice try, but I said Rome wasn't Capitalist, and therefore the desintegration of Rome in the west has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor the desintegration of any other system before capitalism. Is that so difficult to understand?



How do you explain the fact it retracted into dark age feudalism and chaos under German, (ooops sorry) ......ummmm.....SAXON/ANGLE/JUTE/OSTROGOTH/VISIGOTH/etc.etc administration - when it should have morphed into communism if Marx was indeed correct?


ROME WAS NOT CAPITALIST.



Hiero came close in that he said out capitalism was more advanced than earlier forms known to Marx..

No, he didn't. He stated the reason that Socialist revolutionaries prevailed when Tsarist Russia and China fell. Pay attention.



.. but i still think Marx was attempting a broad sweep of a definition about the impending arrival of communism as the perfection of a historical process. People like Redstar are waiting for this to happen. I am attempting to say it hasn't, it won't it never will.


We already knew where you stand and what opinions you hold. And what is it with your fixation on redstar???

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:45 AM
I don't claim to be an expert on communism but how was my European history wrong? i.e: what planet are you from?
How about this:

Rome started as a collection of farmers, vagrants, pirates and refugees, (primitive communists/feudalists). They had no women so had to invade a neighbouring city to steal some. They founded a city state with a king, (feudalism). The 'Imperialism' of the Tarquins was then defeated and Rome became a Republic, (no communism?). It became a true empire under Caesar/Crassus/Pompey. One of the greatest generals in history, Spartacus, sparked a class revolution - to bring on communism? No! Spartacus' had no idea how to rule. Italy was in anarchous turmoil. Soon after Spartacus was defeated, Caesar's almost took the crown to proclaim monarchy, but with his death the empire was overthrown and the split between Imperialist, (Antony/Octavian) and Republican, (Brutus/Cassius) forces. The Imperialists won, the Senate became weaker and weaker, and with it the possibility of democracy. Roman rulers became more monarchial. Rome collapsed in the 460's, (where is communism when you need it?). The German kings up to Hitler set up their own 'Empires' in the shoes of Rome. In the East, the Byzantines strangthened monarchy. The Autocrator became known as 'Chronocrator' = ruler of time and 'Cosmocrator' = ruler of the universe.


This is quite probably the worst possible rendition of the history of Rome that I have ever seen. Are they handing out free degrees where you come from?

[Forward Union]

Rome was capitalist? I've never heard such bullshit. Rome was a Feudal society, almost a caste with 'servi' at the bottom, liberī above them, and civēs or royalty, above everyone. The servi were slaves, bought and sold or just traded/given away as property, and fulfilled most of the jobs no one else wanted to do (including participation in human-blood sports) Liberi sounds fairly nive, but this was divided up even further, most men in this class were members of the army, or had a certain craft. The upper class still isn't fully understood, but apparently it was possible to get into this class through the military.

Fundamentally, people were largely, not free to buy and sell a lot of land, it was often designated on your position in society, rome was in fact Feudal, from an economic standpoint. and a sort of monachy/oligarchy with some extremely centralised democracy (influenced by the greeks)

All the peoples business (and many social issues) were dealt with through a branch of the SPQR known as the Praetores Peregrini.

But let's move on a bit, because you also mentioned the roman empire post-constantine, the "holy-roman empire" or "First Reich"

Still not an example of a capitalist system im afraid, it was deeply Feudal. Land was still largely distributed on a caste basis, all social and economic issues were dealt with by the Reichstag, which broke down into The Council of Electors, The Council of Princes and The Council of Imperial Cities. (I know, I know, sounds like something from lord of the rings) these people dealt with the economy, there is room to argue that there were elements of capitalism within these two structures.

The original Roman empire still having forums, markets and trading between people, I would assume that most of this was done viva barter, and money was probably rarely used. Of course it was "proto-capitalism" regardless of whether you believe marx or not, Feudalism gave way to Capitalism in Europe, and you can see elements of capitalism within any feudal system.

Your argument that "oh my god we've always been capitalist so you loose" is simply ridiculous. We haven't always been capitalist, but Feudalis mand capitalism have one huge thing in common, they're both shit.

[overlord]

This is quite probably the worst possible rendition of the history of Rome that I have ever seen. Are they handing out free degrees where you come from?


No, I asked you what I said wrong. You still don't know do you? I'm not surprised. If you're criticising the quality of what I wrote then read a book if that is more to your liking. This is an internet forum for christsakes. If you can't tell the difference get some thicker glasses. I'm not writing you a bloody journal article.

So what did I say wrong.... punk?


Rome was capitalist? I've never heard such bullshit.

No, they were a bunch of commies like you. :rolleyes:
Rome was an empire. Empires are capitalist or even 'state-capitalist' as you guys like to say. Hell, you will even say Stalin was a capitalist since he controlled the means of production. Now, which was more capitalist? The USSR or Rome? ... I WONDER?



Rome was a Feudal society, almost a caste with 'servi' at the bottom, liberī above them, and civēs or royalty, above everyone. The servi were slaves, bought and sold or just traded/given away as property, and fulfilled most of the jobs no one else wanted to do (including participation in human-blood sports) Liberi sounds fairly nive, but this was divided up even further, most men in this class were members of the army, or had a certain craft. The upper class still isn't fully understood, but apparently it was possible to get into this class through the military.


Feudalism is a more primitive form of capitalism but capitalist nonetheless. (Why can't humans be capital?) That being said, Rome was far less feudal than Dark Ages Europe. Now, capitalism is associated with the rise of the merchant class.

DID ROME HAVE MORE OR LESS MERCHANTS THAN DARK AGE EUROPE? ... I WONDER?


ROME WAS NOT CAPITALIST.


There were quite a few capitalists in Rome and it was LEGAL. Modern Capitalism is enshrined by ROMAN LAW and there were huge numbers of merchants traversing the Roman roads. But they didn't exist ...because I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

You really mean to say Rome was not as advanced as our capitalsim, true, but Rome in its classical form was a REPUBLIC. REPUBLIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIC, just like the United States. What happened? It turned to monarchy!

[peaccenicked]

I beleive Marx seriously stuffed up. Primitive communism goes to fuedalism which goes to imperialism, and then communism right? Well, let's examine that


This is wrong. Marx did not have a linear approach towards human development, he suggested probable courses of societies closest to the mainstream of development. Communisn is not a prediction but a proposed best solution of all historical contradictions, class, age,race, gender, etc. It recognises foremost human choice. Communism merely suggests that all human beings are capable of sharing the space we live in. Communism is rationalism democratised. (Determined by logic or not)

The debate about European History or even the attempts to explain Marx dont seem relevant to these fundamental points.

PS.

An intelligent reading of Marx does suggest a great degree of faith in human evolution, a belief in rationalism.


If anything Marx underestimated the power of money over reason.

Witness the nuclear threat against Iran, and the weakening of the ozone layer.

Marx did not reckon an advanced imperialist culture could buy off most of its established left wing critics, and predominantly silence them in preparation of a nuclear strike.

[encephalon]

There were quite a few capitalists in Rome and it was LEGAL. Modern Capitalism is enshrined by ROMAN LAW and there were huge numbers of merchants traversing the Roman roads. But they didn't exist ...because I'm wrong. rolleyes.gif

You really mean to say Rome was not as advanced as our capitalsim, true, but Rome in its classical form was a REPUBLIC. REPUBLIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIC, just like the United States. What happened? It turned to monarchy!

I repeat:
The distinguishing sign of capitalism is capital, not property. Wage-labor helps, too. Not to mention the birth of a factory system, where artisans lose their own means of production--tools, etc--and have to instead use machinery owned by capitalists. Rome might have developed into capitalism, but for various reasons it did not.

A republic is not capitalism. You're confusing economic-form with state-form.. whether it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the two, I can't tell.

Sorry to break it to you, but trade comes in many forms besides capitalism. The existence of money is not equal to capitalism, and the state structure--be it democracy, republic, dictatorship or otherwise--does not determine the economic structure.

For fuck's sake, man, I don't know how to put it to you in simpler terms. Even in an econ101 class, you could learn that Rome did not fit into what is called capitalism. Urgh.

[overlord]

This is wrong. Marx did not have a linear approach towards human development, he suggested probable courses of societies closest to the mainstream of development

Then my apolylogies to good ole Marx. May he rest in peace.


A republic is not capitalism. You're confusing economic-form with state-form.. whether it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the two, I can't tell.

I really don't give a damn about the political system - Libertarianism, (though I will always have libertarian beliefs). I don't think it can actually exist thanks to people's greed for power and control. The best we can hope for is republic of aristocracts or a plutocracy - which is what libertarianism tends to anyway. These governments have usually provided stable economies for the growth of wealth.

And I don't think Marx was saying a Libertarian government is a necessary precursor for communism anyway so why the insistence that Rome wasn't real capitalism? I know it wasn't libertarian. But the Confederates were 'libertarian' as well as feudal so why not mix them?

And If libertarianism is necessary for a communist revolution, how will libertarianism come? No one votes for it anyway thanks to the silly democracy which rewards big spenders.



Sorry to break it to you, but trade comes in many forms besides capitalism. The existence of money is not equal to capitalism, and the state structure--be it democracy, republic, dictatorship or otherwise--does not determine the economic structure.

Capital = caput = head, (of cattle). How is absence of money not capitalism? And republics are usually capitalist except DPRKNorth Korea. It's monarchy that gets in the way.



For fuck's sake, man, I don't know how to put it to you in simpler terms. Even in an econ101 class, you could learn that Rome did not fit into what is called capitalism. Urgh

Please don't get upset on my account. I know you don't like it but I don't think you'll find a society more rampatly capitalist than Rome, (except Medieval Iceland + Tax havens?). You could trade anything. Rome was possibly one the first civilisations to have hyperinflation under Constantine. You could BUY the IMPERATORSHIP from the Pretorian Gaurd!!!

HANC ROMA PLUS CAPITALISTICA QUAM U.S.AM ERAT

[KC]

Originally posted by marxists.org
Capitalism: The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Rome obviously wasn't capitalist. Read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01c.htm).

[GoaRedStar]

I beleive Marx seriously stuffed up. Primitive communism goes to fuedalism which goes to imperialism, and then communism right? Well, let's examine that.

Actually it goes from primitive communism to a slave society (which by the way was what rome ,egypt , greece ,persia ,and china was at the time) then it goes to fuedalism and then capitalism.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:11 AM
No, they were a bunch of commies like you. :rolleyes:
Rome was an empire. Empires are capitalist or even 'state-capitalist' as you guys like to say. Hell, you will even say Stalin was a capitalist since he controlled the means of production. Now, which was more capitalist? The USSR or Rome? ... I WONDER?

The USSR probably.


Feudalism is a more primitive form of capitalism but capitalist nonetheless.

If Feudalism was Capitalism, then we wouldn't bother using two different words to describe it. here, have a free dictionary (http://www.dictionary.com)


DID ROME HAVE MORE OR LESS MERCHANTS THAN DARK AGE EUROPE? ... I WONDER?

I've never counted. The dark age isn't very well documented, mybe dats were dey get da name?


There were quite a few capitalists in Rome and it was LEGAL. Modern Capitalism is enshrined by ROMAN LAW and there were huge numbers of merchants traversing the Roman roads. But they didn't exist ...because I'm wrong. :rolleyes:

cap·i·tal·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Feudalism:
A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.
A political, economic, or social order resembling this medieval system.

Now for some very basic logic, here we have two different systems. Rome, fits into the latter one, therefore logically, rome was Feudal. Regardless of whether there was money, trading, and merchants. You could say Feudalism and Capitalism share some basic principals, I'd have to agree.


You really mean to say Rome was not as advanced as our capitalsim, true, but Rome in its classical form was a REPUBLIC. REPUBLIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIC, just like the United States. What happened? It turned to monarchy!

Are you saying the US should replace it's republic with a Monarchy?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I recall Rome was founded by three tribes, though one or two of the tribes were artificial they still governed affairs tribally. Each tribe was composed into phratries, and each phratry was divided into gens. The members of a gentes would elect its representative, then the phratry would elect is representative (10 gens made a phratry), and finally the phratries would elect its chief. What happened from there is that when Rome spread through plundering some of its members weren't of the tribes, and had no say in Rome’s affairs (the Plebeians). In the case of the Patricians some of its members had individually accumulated property, and the posts that were originally were electoral became hereditary.

Rome was a slave society-- a predecessor to feudalism, it used methods of primitive accumulation to gain surplus, meaning a slave population. Rome didn't have an advanced market economy, they plundered mostly, or they held a lot of debt over citizens, and when they couldn't pay up they became slaves. The slaves didn't own any means of production, and weren't paid. Rome divided into many territories because it got to big to maintain a vast empire. From the divisions of Rome came feudalism. Under Feudalism the slaves became serfs, they owned a means of production (spinning wheel, farming tools ect.) and were allowed to produce for themselves, though they had to pay their lord through work on his property by goods or service because they lived on the lords property.

Some of the peasants or serfs were able to produce enough for themselves that they could become merchants or burghers. To put simply it the merchants became too big for the monarchy to control, and the monarchy tried many methods to control them which just ended up throwing fuel on the fire--leading to the overthrowing of the monarchy. The burghers or bourgeoisie developed their handicrafts into manufactories, which became industrial factories. The bourgeois displaced the peasants, who had to work at the factories, and became the proletariat. The proletarians didn't own the tools they used to make products, and had to pay rent to an owner in monetary form. The creation of goods for exchange instead of need developed from the merchants and the burghers, only under capitalism is the exchanging of commodities universal

[ummProfessional]

i just got a simple question, when do you guys believe that communism will occur or take place or whatever?? because im just wondering what actually is it going to take place or what event will occur that will give way for communism..?

[overlord]

yAY! This site is back up. lets get down to business.

goaredstar:


Actually it goes from primitive communism to a slave society (which by the way was what rome ,egypt , greece ,persia ,and china was at the time) then it goes to fuedalism and then capitalism.

And it went from feudalism back to slavery after the rennaisance, OH DEAR!!! Now what does rennaisance mean but resurgence of Roman cities and culture?

So you have a 'resurgence' of art and culture and this is supposed to be more 'primitive' than feudalism?? :lol:

Additives free:


QUOTE (overlord @ May 26 2006, 12:11 AM)
No, they were a bunch of commies like you.
Rome was an empire. Empires are capitalist or even 'state-capitalist' as you guys like to say. Hell, you will even say Stalin was a capitalist since he controlled the means of production. Now, which was more capitalist? The USSR or Rome? ... I WONDER?



The USSR probably.


You're having a laugh aren't you! Did you know in Rome you could buy stock in road and aquaduct construction firms? And ussr is more capitalist! HAH! You're having a laugh!

Hell, i'm off to Cuba to start peddling my wares!


Now for some very basic logic, here we have two different systems. Rome, fits into the latter one, therefore logically, rome was Feudal. Regardless of whether there was money, trading, and merchants. You could say Feudalism and Capitalism share some basic principals, I'd have to agree.


You don't know what feudalism is. Feudalism is a very rigid class structure of vassalage. Show me any historian who describes Rome as feudal. Show me the serfs!!!! In the days of the republic you had small time free farmers.
Byzantines - now that was feudalism. Everyone however agrees that was a degeneration of something better.


El kaboom: That was a very good history.



Rome was a slave society-- a predecessor to feudalism


A QUESTION FOR ALL WHO DENY THE CAPITALIST NATURE OF IMPERIUM ROMANUM!

You know the confederate states? They were a republic just like Rome. THEY HAD SLAVES! Oh, I guess that means they were more primitive than a feudal system :o What a Revelation! I just don't beleive you guys! Do you actually beleive the stuff you post?

So lets get this straight! The initially Southern Monarchial American REVOLUTIONARY Republic turned to a Republic with slaves! Which is according to you guys below feudalism :huh: ?

You guys probably think libertarianism is the only form of capitalism. Rome was not libertarian so it wasn't capitalist? You think all capitalists are libertarians?! They are just the soppy weak kneed lefties of our movement. I guess none of you have heard of ULTRA CAPITALISM. This was the CSA. This was Rome.

[B.E. Jones]

The renaissance was more to do with the Arts. Bringing back free thinking outside of the religous spectrum that was prominent in the dark ages. It brought of a age of neo-classicalism into society that was more widely accepted then previously before.

It really didn't go as far as to resort back to the political and economic fashions of the "classical" time period. During this time actually Monarchs became more prominent figures then before. As the king became more powerful and more influencial it lead to the loss in power by the Feudal Lords.

So to my understanding the renaissance doesn't have much to do with it.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:14 AM

You know the confederate states? They were a republic just like Rome. THEY HAD SLAVES! Oh, I guess that means they were more primitive than a feudal system :o What a Revelation! I just don't beleive you guys! Do you actually beleive the stuff you post?

So lets get this straight! The initially Southern Monarchial American REVOLUTIONARY Republic turned to a Republic with slaves! Which is according to you guys below feudalism :huh: ?

You guys probably think libertarianism is the only form of capitalism. Rome was not libertarian so it wasn't capitalist? You think all capitalists are libertarians?! They are just the soppy weak kneed lefties of our movement. I guess none of you have heard of ULTRA CAPITALISM. This was the CSA. This was Rome.
You're not taking account of other material conditions that differ from Ancient Rome and the 1800s in America. :lol:

The rest just seems to be complete ideological gibberish which I'm not able to follow. Maybe you need to shut the fuck up and actually read a history book.

[overlord]

You're not taking account of other material conditions that differ from Ancient Rome and the 1800s in America.


All material conditions aside, the CSA was Rome politically. Foreigners enslaved, whites as cives. Very low taxes, republic. I suppose that wasn't capitalist. It wasn't libertarian true but it was ultra capitlalist. Don't say it was pre-feudal.


The rest just seems to be complete ideological gibberish which I'm not able to follow. Maybe you need to shut the fuck up and actually read a history book.

It must have been very hard for you to read those last three lines. Doesn't surprise me coming from a commie. I'll bet you had your dictionary out... donkeyboy. Keep cogitating for a few weeks and you might come up with something I can quickly refute.

As for the rest of you, just try and tell me again Rome or its buddy the CSA wasn't capitalist and I'll have you for breakfast.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Overlord: it's not that todays form of capitalism has always existed, it developed.
The same thing can be said about the Communism we here wish to have, it's developing-- people share sometimes don't they :D ?

Also if you're trying to prove that capitalism is human-nature, you can't really prove it, because the only thing that is known about human nature is that we as humans wish to survive. The way people act under capitalism is their expression of survival under its lense. Humans have to adapt in order to survive.

I can't prove that Communism is human nature, just as you can't prove that capitalism is. But I like the lense of Communism better, and it seems it may develop that way.

[bcbm]

This post could've been ended ages ago...

Marx argued that society would move from advanced industrial capitalism (capitalism not developing until the late 18th century, at the same time as industrialism) to communism. Rome was not industrialized, advanced, or capitalist. The end. Next.

[overlord]

Also if you're trying to prove that capitalism is human-nature, you can't really prove it, because the only thing that is known about human nature is that we as humans wish to survive. The way people act under capitalism is their expression of survival under its lense. Humans have to adapt in order to survive.


Capitalism survives under laws of human nature, communism does not.



I can't prove that Communism is human nature, just as you can't prove that capitalism is. But I like the lense of Communism better, and it seems it may develop that way.

Sure people share. They are greedy for love, adoration and benevolence. This is pure tribal human nature. And if the sharing found in modern capitalism is not enough for you what makes you imagine there would be more to share in a communist country given no-one is allowed to hire anyone to get anything done?


This post could've been ended ages ago...

Marx argued that society would move from advanced industrial capitalism (capitalism not developing until the late 18th century, at the same time as industrialism) to communism. Rome was not industrialized, advanced, or capitalist. The end. Next.

It is the end... the end of communism. The advanced industrial countries are now undergoing de-industrialisation! The workforce is becomming less union oriented, increasingly self-employed, service based and socialism is disappearing!

Admit that communism is an industrial ideology. It has no place in the modern world. Its only rising up in the south American backwaters which have been feudal until the early 20th century, societies which have not become truly modern and industrialised. Such societies included China, Korea, Vietnam and Russia. When will you people admit it?

[bcbm]

Communism isn't reliant on Marx's analysis being the only correct one.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 08:13 AM
Capitalism survives under laws of human nature, communism does not.
It's not the end of history.
You act like all history is a finalized series of events that are seperate from eachother.

Now you purposely forget that you acknowledged ealier that all Communist states hitherto weren't/ aren't really Socialist or Communist.


Sure people share. They are greedy for love, adoration and benevolence. This is pure tribal human nature. And if the sharing found in modern capitalism is not enough for you what makes you imagine there would be more to share in a communist country given no-one is allowed to hire anyone to get anything done?

You don't need to hire anyone, much of the menial work will be done by machines, and people won't come to communism because they'll wake up one day and decide sharing is better.


It is the end... the end of communism. The advanced industrial countries are now undergoing de-industrialisation! The workforce is becomming less union oriented, increasingly self-employed, service based and socialism is disappearing
Now you're trying to attack communism in general because you got proved wrong about how Rome was totally capitalist, and that because Rome was capitalist so is our nature.

What you described above is in happening in the first world, and when the third world becomes more modernized and demands better conditions where will the corporations go to? They'll run out of places to go.

[overlord]

Communism isn't reliant on Marx's analysis being the only correct one.

That's good because I'm sure he wasn't quite correct, to say the least. That is of course unless he was thinking of what libertarians would call the marxist social democracies of Western Europe.


Now you purposely forget that you acknowledged ealier that all Communist states hitherto weren't/ aren't really Socialist or Communist.


I know 20th century regimes celebrating Marx were not truly communist. The fact is however that their revolutionaries tried to be communistic, and failed. When again will you get the mass impetus towards Marxism we had in the 20th century?


Now you're trying to attack communism in general because you got proved wrong about how Rome was totally capitalist, and that because Rome was capitalist so is our nature.


I havn't been proved wrong. Rome was totally capitalist. Their capitalism transcended libertarian bounds into ultracapitalism because all citizens could buy and sell people and any form of capital they wished. Can't get much more capitalist than that. We had an imperial republic, WITH FACTORIES and STRIKING PLEBS, (no steam engine but did Marx say that was necessary?) which failed to convert to communism. It just got more and more monarchial. Anyway, my original question was simply the order of social configuration so we don't even have to discuss Rome. Let's discuss whatever the hell republic you like failing to turn into communism. Let's talk USA or British/French Empires. Where is the communism?


What you described above is in happening in the first world, and when the third world becomes more modernized and demands better conditions where will the corporations go to? They'll run out of places to go.

So they'll come back to the first world and revolutionary activity will be again kicked up? Perhaps, but havn't unions superceded the need for communism? Here in Australia thanks to new industrial relations laws a boss recently legally sacked a worker for sneering. That boss has been placed out of business by union blacklisting.

[overlord]

No reply? looks like i've owned all you criminals. Here's another one for capitalism. OWNED.

[Comrade-Z]

I would say that Ancient Rome had some capitalists and capitalist elements, but they were not the dominant class at the time. It was a bit similar to the early burghers during the middle ages who were concentrated in the just-then developing townships. It was also somewhat similar to Ancient Greece, which had some capitalists and capitalist elements (and it is interesting that, in both the enlightenment and in Ancient Greece, the rise of ideas like "democracy" corresponded with the rise of proto-capitalist material conditions). But the capitalists were not the dominant class in Ancient Greece. Rather, as in Rome, the slave-owners were the dominant class.

The Roman Empire also had some feudalistic elements existing along with the slave-owners, especially towards the end of the empire when the owners of the large latifundia estates started witholding grain from Rome's central authority and started splitting off on their own, and in turn changing their employees' status from slave to serf (because, without Rome's military authority backing them up, the latifundia owners weren't able to exert the same sort of control over their workers as they could before. Also, without Rome's central authority, slave transactions and other property transactions became more tenuous (because there needs to be a central authority in order to enforce uniform property relations, otherwise, people just steal from each other), so the slaves became tied to the land and became serfs. Military protection also became more about hiring mercenaries (sometimes with money, but more often with promises of land after a period of military service, partly because money was quickly becoming useless with the collapse of Rome's central fiat authority to guarantee a particular coinage's value), and it became more about loyalty to the individual latifundia than about Rome's central armies, thus once again foreshadowing the feudal society of the middle ages.

But despite these other elements contending for dominance, until about 400 AD the slave-owning class was still the dominant class in Roman society.

[Comrade-Z]

We had an imperial republic, WITH FACTORIES and STRIKING PLEBS, (no steam engine but did Marx say that was necessary?)

What I'm wondering is how did Rome have factories if it didn't have steam engines or some other type of power system (water-wheels, for instance, which were first introduced in Europe during the middle ages)? Because factories imply some amount of automated machinery and assembly (which requires a power source). Otherwise, you just have individual craftsmen working at simple individual looms and the like, like how it was during the middle ages before the industrial revolution. What this means is that you wouldn't have the same amount of division of labor in the manufacturing process. Thus, you wouldn't have large amounts of workers brought together to work in factories. Instead, you'd have individual craftsmen competing against each other. In this situation, the material conditions simply wouldn't exist for groups of workers to go on "strike."

So, really, some sort of power source is needed before you get that type of societal development.


All material conditions aside, the CSA was Rome politically. Foreigners enslaved, whites as cives. Very low taxes, republic. I suppose that wasn't capitalist. It wasn't libertarian true but it was ultra capitlalist. Don't say it was pre-feudal.

You are correct in that those two societies are comparable. But both of them were pre-feudal.

Actually, the slavery of the CSA was a bit peculiar for a number of reasons. First, it must be noted that before 1830 or so and the Nat Turner slave uprising, slavery was not "institutionalized" to the degree that it was afterwards. Meaning, more discretion was given to the individual slave-owner as far as how they would treat and use their slaves. Afterwards, the provincial governments started imposing restrictions on slave-holding--for instance, that it was illegal for slave-owners to teach their slaves how to read and write. In this we can see the beginnings of a shift from a slave society to a feudal society where authority lies not so much with individual slave-owners, but with provincial authorities.

You must also keep in mind that Senators were not directly elected in the U.S. until the 16th amendment in 1912. Before that Senators were appointed. In many states this is how governorships worked as well. Only the house of representatives has always been directly elected. (This is similar to the Roman "republic" and the French "Estates-Générale" pre-1789). With this in mind, it's difficult to call the CSA a "republic." Its elite functioned much more like a feudal aristocracy.

Which brings me to my point that the CSA was, in my opinion, in the process of transitioning to a more feudal society. Call it "advanced slavery" or "the highest stage of slavery," if you will.

The way the South treated slavery was also peculiar.

That's because, in the ancient world, people did not usually feel compelled to racially and divinely justify their slave-holdings. If you were part of an opposing army and you were captured, you became a slave, most likely. If your father needed money and sold you into slavery as a child, you became a slave. If you were badly in debt, you became a slave. Sometimes you could work or buy your way out of slavery. (Doesn't the Old Testament talk about how after 7 years you have to give slaves their freedom or something?) It had very little to do with one's "race."

That's also how slavery began in the New World. Many white Europeans came over as indentured servants. The Conquistadors and others employed Native Americans as slaves (and in incredibly brutal fashion as well!) Like I said, things were less "institutionalized." And around 1600 or so, I doubt you would have heard many people use "race" as a justification for enslaving someone. It was a simple question of "might makes right" and one's physical ability to enslave someone.

Later on, though, in the 1800s you begin to see the emergence of what I would call "divine-right slavery." This idea basically held that white people were morally superior and commanded by god to "lift up" and "civilize" and "Christianize" black people, and that black people, when left to rule themselves, were no good. The whole "White man's burden" argument, in other words.

So here we have a slave-owning aristocracy claiming that it has a "divine-right" to rule. The parallel with the Divine-Right Monarchs in Europe is obvious. It is also worth noting that at this time in history, almost everyone in the South held a "Providential Worldview," which stated that God controlled all human affairs. The people of the South were indeed religious, and I think there was a suitable basis emerging for building a feudal order in the South.

Also keep in mind that slave-trading was gradually coming to an end. First in 1810 importing new slaves into the U.S. was outlawed, as per guidelines written in the U.S. Consitution (although some people still tried to get around that). And there were discussions about outlawing the slave-trade within the U.S. I think it would have been only a matter of time before that had occured (which happened anyway with the Union victory in the Civil War). Thus, you would have had a slave population that was "tied to particular masters"--tied to the land, in other words. They would have become de facto serfs. Indeed, this is pretty much what happened anyways after the Civil War, with slaves often returning to their former masters, this time as nominally "free men," because they had no opportunities elsewhere.

Really, this whole "divine-right-white-superiority" mentality wasn't shattered in the South until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s. One could argue that that was the point at which the South finally left the last remnants of feudalism behind and entered the modern capitalist era.

Also worth noting is the "States-rights" provincial model of the CSA, which shares many similarities with how Germany was still organized into some 30 feudal fiefdoms before German unification in 1871. It's also similar to how the original 13 colonies were organized originally with the Articles of Confederation. Not to long afterwards, though, the rising capitalists of the North and their advocates, such as Alexander Hamilton, pushed for a stronger central government, so as to benefit the rising financial interests and capitalists of the North. I think this is yet another piece of evidence that suggests that the South was entering a stage of feudalism during the lead-up to the Civil War.

Edit: I would like to point out that the continually-expanding frontier in the U.S. meant that land never became a scarce and prized possession. Land-holding never had the same amount of influence as slave-holding in the U.S. until after the Civil War when land became, for the first time, a scarce, prized, and influential possession. This factor--the continually expanding frontier--retarded the emergence of feudalism proper (a system based on land-holding) in the South and never allowed feualism to achieve its fullest visible expression in the South like we can see elsewhere in the world, such as Europe during the middle ages.

So, where we're we? Ah yes...


As for the rest of you, just try and tell me again Rome or its buddy the CSA wasn't capitalist and I'll have you for breakfast.

To further elaborate on my already well-demonstrated points:

You may look at our society and think, "Hey, we have foreigners enslaved! We're capitalist. They must have been capitalist too!"

The difference is that the slavery of our foreigners today takes different forms (wage-slavery) and produces different social outcomes. However much we dominate Iraq, we will run into some trouble if we start trying to enslave and sell Iraqi individuals and ship them back to the U.S. to work as slaves on plantations (which don't really exist anymore anyways).

Additionally, even if you argued that there exists a slave-owning class in the U.S. nowadays, this class would by no means be the dominant class. Nowadays, owning manufacturing equipment and fluid capital is much more important than owning land (feudalism) or human capital (slavery). The capitalist class, which owns the manufacturing equipment and fluid capital (currency, commodities, stocks, etc.) is by far the dominant class.

The U.S. is clearly a capitalist society, whereas Ancient Rome and the CSA clearly were not.


Admit that communism is an industrial ideology. It has no place in the modern world. Its only rising up in the south American backwaters which have been feudal until the early 20th century, societies which have not become truly modern and industrialised. Such societies included China, Korea, Vietnam and Russia. When will you people admit it?

I think you could make the case that "Bonapartist socialism" (large central government, monolith party and/or Great Leader figure, various types of progressive reforms, heavy emphasis on isolated development independent of foreign capital, etc.) is an ideology of industrializing societies. One could argue that fascism is a type of Bonapartist socialism, minus the progressive reforms. You are correct, this often occurs in rapidly industrializing countries where the proletariat is swelling in numbers and power, but where the capitalist class is still too weak to rule through “normal” measures. Thus, the rising capitalist class must resort to military dictatorship, a "Bonapartist mediator" who will industrialize the country and strengthen the capitalist class (think Bismarck, Porforio Diaz in Mexico, Peron, Stalin, Hussein in Iraq, etc.) and/or must mass-mobilize the most reactionary sections of the populace.

But this has nothing to do with communism.


Sure people share. They are greedy for love, adoration and benevolence. This is pure tribal human nature. And if the sharing found in modern capitalism is not enough for you what makes you imagine there would be more to share in a communist country given no-one is allowed to hire anyone to get anything done?

Society without slavery? Enslavement is human nature! Some people are naturally superior and meant to be masters, and some people are naturally inferior and meant to be slaves! What could we possibly get done without slavery? Work for slips of green paper? That would never work. People need to be driven with the whip to make them get anything done!

And if the use of money found in modern slavery is not enough for you, what makes you imagine there would be more to use money for in a capitalist country given no-one is allowed to enslave anyone to get anything done?


Here in Australia thanks to new industrial relations laws a boss recently legally sacked a worker for sneering. That boss has been placed out of business by union blacklisting.

Hooray. What an achievement for the working class. :rolleyes: <_<

It&#39;s about goddamn time we got some shaded auction blocks&#33;


I havn&#39;t been proved wrong. Rome was totally capitalist. Their capitalism transcended libertarian bounds into ultracapitalism because all citizens could buy and sell people and any form of capital they wished. Can&#39;t get much more capitalist than that.

It sure is nice of you to warn us that that&#39;s the type of society you supporters of capitalism aspire to. Thanks&#33; :)

[Comrade-Z]

This is somewhat off-topic, but while we are on the topic of proto-capitalist elements in ancient societies, I&#39;ll go ahead and give you this link here (http://www.friesian.com/greek.htm#why). This non-materialist professor inadvertently uses materialist reasoning to explain why Greek philosophy emerged in the time and place that it did. The thrust of the argument is that the proto-capitalist merchant elements in some of the ancient Greek city-states, such as Athens, created the material foundations for the emergence of Enlightenment-ish ideas.

I found it all rather convincing for explaining why those Enlightenment ideas have emerged when they have in history...at least until this author abandons materialism and starts irrationally frothing at the mouth about how communism is "evil-incarnate" and such (you&#39;ll see...).

[JimmyC]

Marx was wrong: That isn&#39;t a theory. That&#39;s a fact of life.

[Marx_was_right&#33;]

How is Marx wrong? Proof? Explain yourself&#33; The US empire is overextended with soldiers in every country. Americans are eating themselves to death. Capitalism is dying and if you cannot see that than I just cannot help you.