Rome 133 BC, the life of Tiberius Gracchus

[Dimentio]

What is your opinion on Tiberius Gracchus?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlLCToH4lAg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D38eqaWvHuw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrAUo4RQUXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNlQCk7aOR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO94LTJPJsY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xz_ciMj4J0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlLCToH4lAg

Was he a revolutionary, a reformist or just another opportunist?

[Sentinel]

I'd say he and his brother Gaius were a mix of all those. While very progressive for their time, they did turn a blind eye to most of the horrendous injustices characteristic for the Roman society at the point.

They were wealthy politicians and did mostly work within the system (reformism). They didn't really try to change the very fundaments of society, but rather merely fought for reforms to make it more humane (for Roman citizens).

However, Gaius did start a revolt against the senate in the end and was backed by the poorest (free) citizens of the city. I guess these things would give him some 'revolutionary points'.

[Lenin's Law]

A very progressive (for his time of course) reformist I'd say. Very interesting to read about his life; Rome's political circles were extremely conservative and militaristic. I'm not sure that true people's revolution would have been possible given the historical epoch and situation of the vast majority at the time. Sparatacus probably was the best hope for this and he and his followers were crushed brutally, as were the more modest reformers like Gracchus.

[cop an Attitude]

If you like that look into Solon's reforms in Athens. he did away with the areopagus oligarcy and replaced it with a limited democracy (and i dont mean a democratic republic). only land owning, white, male natives could vote, but it was an assembly of the people for some part.

[zimmerwald1915]

"reformist" and "opportunist" have little to no meaning outside their historical context, that is, outside of late capitalism. This thread has a strong case of projecting present categories into the past.

That said, Gracchus was no revolutionary.

[Dimentio]

A very progressive (for his time of course) reformist I'd say. Very interesting to read about his life; Rome's political circles were extremely conservative and militaristic. I'm not sure that true people's revolution would have been possible given the historical epoch and situation of the vast majority at the time. Sparatacus probably was the best hope for this and he and his followers were crushed brutally, as were the more modest reformers like Gracchus.

Spartacus had no interest in winning power. What he wanted was to lead the slaves out of Italy, back to their native countries or nations not yet under Roman control. Sadly, almost no one during that period questioned slavery. On the other hand, the Romans did not base their slavery upon ethnic or racist factors, and if you were a slave, your grandchild could become a Roman citizen.

Rome was actually to supplant a large part of their slave labour base with both serf-based production and utilisation of water-powered primitive "machines" shortly before the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the ascension of the catholic church.

[Dimentio]

"reformist" and "opportunist" have little to no meaning outside their historical context, that is, outside of late capitalism. This thread has a strong case of projecting present categories into the past.

That said, Gracchus was no revolutionary.

Uh? So anything prior to 1848 could not possibly be revolutionary according to you? By the way, many pre-modern politicians and rebels have carried out opportunist tactics in order to gain power.

[zimmerwald1915]

Show a little historical perspective. "Reformist" and "opportunist" have meanings that relate specifically to the workers' movement. They did not and could not possess those meanings before the workers' movement existed. I am assuming based on his tone that the OP is making use of those meanings. Therefore, I am calling him out on projection.

Note that I did not include "revolutionary" in my admonishment. A revolutionary in any society consciously tries to re-form (note the hyphen) the society past the point which it has already reached. That is, a revolutionary tries to change the social mode of production.

[BobKKKindle$]

"Reformist" and "opportunist" have meanings that relate specifically to the workers' movement.

Not at all - "opportunism" in particular is a human attribute which can be used to refer to anyone who you think deserves the label, regardless of whether they are living under capitalism and even if they have no connection whatsoever to the workers movement.

[Leo]

Spartacus had no interest in winning power. What he wanted was to lead the slaves out of Italy, back to their native countries or nations not yet under Roman control.

Although that was the initial aim of the rebelling gladiators, actually according to one of the historians writing about the revolt (Florus), the slaves were considering attacking Rome at one point after military victories.

Also Appian says that "Since Spartacus divided the profits of his raiding into equal shares, he soon attracted a very large number of followers" and "Spartacus did not permit merchants to import gold and silver, and he forbade his own men to acquire any. For the most part, he purchased iron and copper and did not censure those who imported these metals". Another Roman historian, Pliny says that "Spartacus did not allow gold or silver in his camp. How our runaway slaves tower above us in largeness of spirit!"

Obviously these actions cannot have been imposed on the mass of the slave army by Spartacus but must have reflected the desire of the majority for a more equal society.

For more detailed info and analysis on Gracchus and Spartacus, I would recommend this article: en.internationalism.org/wr/247_spartacus.htm


Not at all - "opportunism" in particular is a human attribute which can be used to refer to anyone who you think deserves the label

Well, of course anyone can call anything by any label, this doesn't change the specific meanings of terms.

[Dean]

In a time of increasing class conflict, he was a reformist who sought to benefit from that conflict as the Roman Plebian hero. He continued to support a class system, of course.

[Dimentio]

Not at all - "opportunism" in particular is a human attribute which can be used to refer to anyone who you think deserves the label, regardless of whether they are living under capitalism and even if they have no connection whatsoever to the workers movement.

Yes, you are an opportunist if you take the opportunity to advocate a popular political idea during a specific moment, without really believing in it yourself.

[spartan]

Wasn't his brother Gaius much more radical?

[zimmerwald1915]

Not at all - "opportunism" in particular is a human attribute which can be used to refer to anyone who you think deserves the label, regardless of whether they are living under capitalism and even if they have no connection whatsoever to the workers movement.
Did I say that the meaning associated with the workers' movement was its only meaning? I certainly don't remember saying it, and looking back through my posts I don't see any such statement. What I said was that the OP's tone and audience suggested that he used the meaning of "opportunism" that is historically associated with the workers' movement. What is difficult to understand about this?