Julius Caesar

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Not sure if this should be in learning or not so here it goes: I have read that Caesar was very popular among the poor people of ancient Rome and he enacted much legislation to their benefit. So how do revoltuionaries here respond and react to someone like Caesar? Do we still call for nothing less than socialism or anarchism, even if we were talking about a time period 2000 years ago in ancient times? Or should we have been fighting for the next stage in history, which would be I guess monarchy or bourgeois democracy??

Are there any good people in ancient times? I mean they all believed in slavery and discrimination and stuff we today would not believe in.

[chimx]

well if you agree with marx, than you were probably as giddy about bourgeois revolutions and their toppling of feudal systems as he was--if you agree with marx.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I have read much about Julius Caesar: A great account by him from a Marxist Perspective is "The Assasination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome" by Michael Parenti.

Julius Caesar was a full-out populist, using populism as a means for gaining personal power, but nonetheless he gave the people rights, bread, and freedom.

He mantained strict control over the ogliarchical senate, who were composed of Patriarchs and the rich, who made all the decisions on how to exploit and enslave the people more.

He tried to lower Rome's racist policy towards conquered peoples, and gave food to the hungry by abolishing the Grain Tax and other such acts.

He was lucky to even get so far into the system before assasination - most other men who tried to reform using populism were quickly outrightly murdered.


Feudalist, but the best of his times.

[Sadena Meti]

Two major assumptions in this thread:

1. That Julius Caesar existed.
2. That the history we have of him is accurate.


But I'm too lazy to debate either.

[( R )evolution]

So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [email protected] 04, 2006 06:17 pm
So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.
One could say the same thing about god or jesus.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PeacefulA:

If you read 'The Assassination of Julius Caesar' by Michael Parenti (who writes from a Marxist angle), you will see that Caesar was the last in a long line of ruling class reformers who tried to ameliorate the worst excesses of the decaying Republic.

Many before him had been assassinated by the Senate, directly or indirectly, for attempting to make the mildest of reforms.

Caesar, while no friend of the poor (he came from one of the oldest aristocratic families in Rome), realised that a healthy Roman imperium needed loyal soldiers who had to come from the mass of the people. If they were not bought off with a few concessions, some land, and some say in how they were ruled, they would be of little use to the Army, and the Empire would suffer.

The greed of other rich Romans prevented them from agreeing with him, so they got rid of him. In revenge, one of his relatives, Ocatavian, seized power, ended the Republic, and proclaimed himself Caesar Augustus.

More details in Parenti's book, which I can highly recommend.

Good people?

Try Spartacus....

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:58 pm
well if you agree with marx, than you were probably as giddy about bourgeois revolutions and their toppling of feudal systems as he was--if you agree with marx.
He doesn't agree with Marx, remember? He's the guy who supports anarchism through ballot box and/or magical fairy spells.

[chimx]

but he confuses me, because he seems to agree with marxist historical periodization

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+November 05, 2006 12:37 pm--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ November 05, 2006 12:37 pm)
Machiavelli [email protected] 04, 2006 06:17 pm
So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.
One could say the same thing about god or jesus. [/b]
What a stupid comment. No one could say that, any who would is a fool.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+November 05, 2006 01:37 am--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ November 05, 2006 01:37 am)
Machiavelli [email protected] 04, 2006 06:17 pm
So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.
One could say the same thing about god or jesus. [/b]
Hmm, not aware of too many statues of god but anyway a "god" is mythical entity, not a real person. As for Caesar, there are numerous historical and contemporary accounts of a Julius Caesar having existed, including books written by him; there are no contemporary accounts of a Jesus Christ having existed and the only "historical" evidence for him is found in the Bible.

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed - whoever questions that fact that Julius Caesar didn't exist is ignoring a great deal of historical evidence and is, frankly, a fool.

In response to the question, I agree with what Rosa said. He was a smart politician and an aristocrat, not some pre-Marxian saviour of the people :P

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 05:37 pm
In response to the question, I agree with what Rosa said. He was a smart politician and an aristocrat, not some pre-Marxian saviour of the people :P
So therefore we should had we been around at this time, not have supported Caesar?? If so who/what should we have supported if we had lived in ancient times??

Sorry if this question sounds bad but I've been watching the HBO series Rome and though to myself: who would I as a rev-leftist have supported if I lived at this time? The Republic? Caesar? Trade unions? No one?? :wacko:

PS If you really don't think JC (Julius Caesar) existed..you might be loonier than me!! :lol:

[which doctor]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 04, 2006 07:20 pm
Two major assumptions in this thread:

1. That Julius Caesar existed.
2. That the history we have of him is accurate.


But I'm too lazy to debate either.
Yeah, and the dark ages didn't exist either. :unsure:

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 05:12 am
but he confuses me, because he seems to agree with marxist historical periodization
I wasn't agreeing with it, I was only questioning it. I am still learning and as such I want to hear from all points of view, including ones I don't particularly agree with. I wasn't saying that I believe in stages of history, cause I don't but was just questioning if that's what members here feel.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 05, 2006 05:53 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 05, 2006 05:53 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 05:12 am
but he confuses me, because he seems to agree with marxist historical periodization
I wasn't agreeing with it, I was only questioning it. I am still learning and as such I want to hear from all points of view, including ones I don't particularly agree with. I wasn't saying that I believe in stages of history, cause I don't but was just questioning if that's what members here feel. [/b]
You don't believe in stages of history?

[loveme4whoiam]

So therefore we should had we been around at this time, not have supported Caesar?? If so who/what should we have supported if we had lived in ancient times??
Interesting question. But lets be serious, the average prole back then (or pleb to use the "correct" term) didn't have a political view - they just supported the person who gave out money and other tangible substances. Of course, that is a simplification, but an accurate one. People didn't have the time or energy to care about things like that unless they were from the aristocratic classes, in which case that was all they cared about.

So really, you wouldn't support anyone in the way we support Communism now. However, if you are asking that if we were put into a position where we could care about Caesar's politics, where would we stand? I honestly don't know, or care - what happened happened and I don't see any need to play "what if" games about trivial events (by trivial, I mean the opinion of a single pleb in Ancient Rome, not Caesar's politics.)

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:05 pm
I honestly don't know, or care - what happened happened and I don't see any need to play "what if" games about trivial events (by trivial, I mean the opinion of a single pleb in Ancient Rome, not Caesar's politics.)
Sooo we should only study the history of ancient Rome by caring about what aristocrats like Caesar thought? The opinion of plebs are trivial?? That doesn&#39;t sound very revolutionary to me... <_<

[loveme4whoiam]

I am saying that we should study history by the events and thoughts that shaped it - the opinion of a single pleb did not alter anything within the political framework of the time (and I would argue the same is true now - although I&#39;m sure you would disagree with me <_<) Was it not important? Well thats a subjective question - for instance I&#39;m sure it was important to the pleb himself; to the political processes of the time, I sincerely doubt it.

Read the whole of my post and I said as much there.

As someone said above who you should really be supporting is Spartacus. Now there was a guy who was ahead of his time - the fact that you look to Caesar, who was as has been pointed out was nothing but a pragmatist and a reformist (due to the pragmatism) says a lot about your current political beliefs.

And don&#39;t be coming at me with "that doesn&#39;t sound revolutionary"... coming from you I should take that as a damn compliment.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Dude, I was not looking to Caesar I was asking questions whether we should or should not support him - I think the consensus is that we should not support him.

Then I asked what/who should we support? It was a serious question.

Sparacus? Well, OK, he was around for awhile then he died. So now what? And doesn&#39;t this put too much emphasis on the individual I mean dude no one great person can do shit it&#39;s up to the people to rise up and rebel , no leaders no parties no masters nothing. Well that&#39;s what I think anyway, but please I want to hear from all sides here.

[Vargha Poralli]

Then I asked what/who should we support? It was a serious question.

it would not have matterd at that time.

[loveme4whoiam]

Sparacus? Well, OK, he was around for awhile then he died. So now what?
So now what what? You have just proved that this is an irrevelant question, unless you wish to time-travel back to Ancient Rome and involve yourself in it&#39;s politics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Loveme4, we do not really know what the proletariat thought in those days, but we can infer much from the way they acted and the way that the ruling-class spoke about them, and they were much like working people today: they wanted a say in how their lives were governed, and they wanted some control over their lives.

The modern idea of the &#39;mob&#39; was an invention of ruling-class historians and theorists (like Cicero, whom Engels called the most odious man in history -- I paraphrase).

You can find the details in the Parenti book I referred to.

As to support for Caesar: we would have done so as a rope supports hanging man, to quote Lenin.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Therefore the right way should have been in ancient Rome some variation of ancient anarchy. The proleteriat rising up in MASS and destroying the state and destroying Rome. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And here is an excellent book on Spartacus, too:

Urbainczyk, T. (2004), Spartacus (Bristol Classic Press).

[loveme4whoiam]

I guess that is true - I do only really know about Roman politics from the ruling-classes side, because as you say, we don&#39;t have much information to go on.

But my point remains valid, despite the fact that they wanted a voice in politics (if the inference is correct, which I reckon it is) they just didn&#39;t have one, so it is immaterial what plebs thought of Caesar.

Lol, I do like Engels&#39; opinion of Cicero; not because I agree or disagree (I haven&#39;t read any of his works to say) but that he picked him out of the whole swath of history :D

If I ever finish with all the reading I am doing for my Military History course, I will read the book I think :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Peaceful:


Therefore the right way should have been in ancient Rome some variation of ancient anarchy.

You need to avoid such abstractions.

The &#39;right&#39; way would have been to find out much more before doing anything.

Recall, that back then the productive forces could not have supported a socialist/anarchist community, and, as Marx said, the whole filthy process would have started again.

There is nothing that could have ben done in those days to free the great mass of the population; that is no longer true.

Of course, that does not mean support should not have been given to those fighting back, or fighting for reforms.

As Spartacus showed, it is better to fight than to submit.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 05, 2006 06:57 pm

There is nothing that could have ben done in those days to free the great mass of the population; that is no longer true.


That is so sad and depressing&#33;&#33;&#33; :unsure:

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:52 pm
Are there any good people in ancient times?
Yes, one of my favorite philosophers Diogenes of Sinope, and the philosophical group known as cynics. Diogenes was known for his encounters with alexander the great;


Once, while Diogenes was sunning himself, Alexander The Great came up to him and offered to grant him any request. Diogenes told him to "Stand less between the sun and me."

Other than that it is highly doubtful you will find any good people looking through the oppressors of history, look to the philosophers, the artists, and the vandals and rebels to find good people.

As for julius caeser it is highly doubtful that he was a revolutionary regardless of his dealings with the poor of the time, considering he was a roman ruler, which is saying something just in that, it means he was just not a blood thirsty vain tyrant, like the rest of them.

I would have rebelled against him, and rome.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Speaking of Julius Caesar, comrades might like this article by Terry Jones (of Monty Python fame, and noted anti-war activist), from yesterday&#39;s London Observer:


Terry Jones

Sunday November 5, 2006

The Observer

In 59BC, Julius Caesar declared he was so shocked by the incursions of the dangerous Helvetii tribe into Gaul, and the suffering of the Gaulish peoples, that he had himself appointed &#39;protector of the Gauls&#39;. By the time he&#39;d finished protecting them, a million Gauls were dead, another million enslaved and Julius Caesar owned most of Gaul. Now I&#39;m not suggesting there is any similarity between George W Bush&#39;s protection of the Iraqi people and Caesar&#39;s protection of the Gauls.

For a start, Julius Caesar, as we all know, was bald, whereas George W Bush has a fine head of hair.

In any case, George W Bush is not personally making huge amounts of money out of it. The money-making is all left in the capable hands of companies like CACI International, Blackwater Security and Haliburton.

It&#39;s true that Vice-President Dick Cheney&#39;s stock options in his old company, Haliburton, went up from &#036;241,498 in 2004 to &#036;8m in 2005 - that&#39;s an increase of 3,281 per cent.

But then Dick Cheney is bald.

The point I&#39;m trying to make is that there is absolutely no comparison to be made between Julius Caesar&#39;s invasion of Gaul in 58-50BC and George Bush&#39;s invasion of Iraq.

I mean, Julius Caesar had the nerve to pretend that the Roman state was being threatened by what was going on in Gaul. He claimed he had to carry out a pre-emptive strike against the Helvetii in the interests of homeland security. In reality, his motives were political. He desperately needed a military victory to boost his standing in Rome and give him the necessary popular base to seize power.

George W Bush, on the other hand, was already in power when he invaded Iraq and, in any case, he didn&#39;t need to boost his popularity, because the popular vote had nothing to do with his getting into power in the first place. Julius Caesar was also a very adroit propagandist who made damn sure that his version of events prevailed. He even wrote eight books about his wars in Gaul to make sure it did. George W Bush doesn&#39;t need to go to such lengths. He has Fox News.

When Julius Caesar claimed his glorious victory over the Helvetii, he made it sound as if he had destroyed a vast army of &#39;wild and savage men&#39;. Julius Caesar reckoned he had slaughtered more than 250,000 &#39;insurgents&#39;. In fact, documents found in the remains of the Helvetii camp showed that out of 368,000 people, only 92,000 had been capable of bearing arms.

In other words, it wasn&#39;t an army that Julius Caesar massacred, but a whole population including women, children, old and sick, which, I suppose, is one thing that George W Bush and Julius Caesar do have in common: pretending civilians are armed insurgents.

But there the similarity ends. One of the most fundamental differences between Julius Caesar and George W Bush is that Julius Caesar counted his dead, whereas George W Bush can&#39;t be bothered. It seems that, as commander-in-chief, George W Bush instructed his soldiers not to count the enemy dead. So the fact that he still sticks to an estimate of only 30,000 dead Iraqis, even when a recently published study in the Lancet suggests he&#39;s slaughtered at least 655,000, can only be the result of his extraordinary modesty.

Why else would he dismiss the study as pure guesswork or claim it had used a &#39;methodology [that] is pretty well discredited&#39;, even though the US government has been spending millions of dollars a year to train NGOs in this exact same methodology? Julius Caesar would have seized on the figures with alacrity.

And that is the biggest difference of all: Julius Caesar was an ambitious, vainglorious, would-be tyrant. George W Bush is a modest and self-deprecating one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1940066,00.html

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 10:52 pm
Not sure if this should be in learning or not so here it goes: I have read that Caesar was very popular among the poor people of ancient Rome and he enacted much legislation to their benefit. So how do revoltuionaries here respond and react to someone like Caesar? Do we still call for nothing less than socialism or anarchism, even if we were talking about a time period 2000 years ago in ancient times? Or should we have been fighting for the next stage in history, which would be I guess monarchy or bourgeois democracy??

Are there any good people in ancient times? I mean they all believed in slavery and discrimination and stuff we today would not believe in.
Caesar was neither of feudal class or bourgeoisie, but of the nobility in a slave-based civilisation. The problems of ancient Rome was primarily unemployment and lack of ownership of land, reminding a little bit of the situation in some Latin American countries.

Caesar could probably be defined as a populist general taking over a country at the brink of a civil war and the instituting social reforms [i.e Hugo Chavez].

[loveme4whoiam]

That is one of the best rips of Bush I have ever read. Terry Jones has written at least one history book called Barbarians, which (I believe - I only saw the TV show) attempts to alter the common misconception of barbarians as, well, barbaric. A smart guy overall, as this article clearly shows.

Nice find Rosa, this one goes in the scrapbook :P

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 06:05 pm
People didn&#39;t have the time or energy to care about things like that unless they were from the aristocratic classes, in which case that was all they cared about.

So really, you wouldn&#39;t support anyone in the way we support Communism now.
interesting theory. The Jacobin Babeauf of the French Revolution, considered one of the founders communism, called himself Gracchus Babeuf. He took this name from The Brothers Gracchi, considering himself to be the 3rd brother.

Tiberius and Gaius actually predated Julius Caesar by about a generation or two. They were both "upper" plebians that became leaders in the "tribune of the people", a body which essentially heard the grievences of the people and tried to enact social reform.

Tiberius pushed forward progressive campaigns to break up large land owners estates and give it to small farmers that would work the land themselves. This led to his assassination.

Gaius advocated land reform, the seizure of lands illegal obtained by the rich to give to poor farmers, extension of citizenship to non romans as well as price regulation on grain. He was eventually assassinated as well.*

The popularity of the Gracchi brothers clearly shows that there was social unrest in Rome, and displeasure with the holding of land in lantifundios by a select rich few. The poor supported political leaders which proposed land distribution to the poor. Some even used violence to achieve these ends. Clearly Rome&#39;s poor cared a great deal about their low socio-economic position.

*actually, gaius had his servent/slave kill him with his sword instead of face dying by his enemies hands. hardcore.

[Dimentio]

The Roman plebs, was mostly unemployed or did shoddy manufacturing, while all labor where taken of by slaves. There were many riots, much populism and many calls for an equal distribution of land, especially for the Veterans who had fought war in Gaul, Africa and Mesopotamia and found that their farms had been bought by rich plutocrats and their wives turned into prostitutes.

[loveme4whoiam]

Originally posted by chimx+November 06, 2006 07:14 pm--> (chimx @ November 06, 2006 07:14 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2006 06:05 pm
People didn&#39;t have the time or energy to care about things like that unless they were from the aristocratic classes, in which case that was all they cared about.

So really, you wouldn&#39;t support anyone in the way we support Communism now.
interesting theory. The Jacobin Babeauf of the French Revolution, considered one of the founders communism, called himself Gracchus Babeuf. He took this name from The Brothers Gracchi, considering himself to be the 3rd brother.

Tiberius and Gaius actually predated Julius Caesar by about a generation or two. They were both "upper" plebians that became leaders in the "tribune of the people", a body which essentially heard the grievences of the people and tried to enact social reform.

Tiberius pushed forward progressive campaigns to break up large land owners estates and give it to small farmers that would work the land themselves. This led to his assassination.

Gaius advocated land reform, the seizure of lands illegal obtained by the rich to give to poor farmers, extension of citizenship to non romans as well as price regulation on grain. He was eventually assassinated as well.*

The popularity of the Gracchi brothers clearly shows that there was social unrest in Rome, and displeasure with the holding of land in lantifundios by a select rich few. The poor supported political leaders which proposed land distribution to the poor. Some even used violence to achieve these ends. Clearly Rome&#39;s poor cared a great deal about their low socio-economic position.

*actually, gaius had his servent/slave kill him with his sword instead of face dying by his enemies hands. hardcore. [/b]
Huh. In that case I gingerly retract that part of my statement, as there obviously were cases where plebs pushed their way into positions of power. Cheers for the info chimx, always nice to learn new things like that :)

[Dimentio]

The Roman republic had two houses, the citizen congregation and the senate. The senate was composed of the nobility and seen as more honourful than the citizen congregation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Loveme4, thanks for that, but the Gracchi were not ordinary folk; recall that Plebians were not aristocrats, but they could and sometimes were very rich and politically powerful.

This is what Wiki says:


Tiberius was born in 163 BC, son of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus and Cornelia Africana. The Gracchi, though not of patrician stock, were one of the most politically important families of Rome, very rich and well connected. His maternal grandparents were Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Aemilia Paula, Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus&#39;s sister, and his own sister Sempronia was the wife of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, another important general. Tiberius was raised by his mother, with his sister and his brother Gaius Gracchus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

And:


The Gracchi brothers, while championing causes for the common people, were themselves members of the highest Patrician order of Rome. Their father was a consul and their mother was of the distinguished Scipio family. Tiberius started his political career under the wings of C. Scipio Amelianus but later was to be opposed by the powerful Senatorial elite of which he was originally a member. As a quaestor in Spain, Gracchus got his first bitter taste of the &#39;Optimates&#39; (the Patrician elite party in Rome). The Roman army had suffered miserably against the Celtic tribes and he proposed a treaty that was written to spare the lives of up to 20,000 Roman soldiers. The treaty was firmly rejected in Rome, because passage would&#39;ve been akin to admitting defeat. This terribly disappointing incident marked Tiberius&#39; break from the Optimates and the beginning of his opposition to the elite authority as a member of the Populares party.

More here:

http://www.unrv.com/empire/tiberius-gracchus.php

So, members of the ruling-class; not of patrician &#39;stock&#39;, but politically of the patrician &#39;order&#39;.

There were all kinds of reasons why the rich responded to popular pressure; in this case, it was probably: give them reform or they will give you revolution.