Czy

It was never the will of Marius or any other of the populares, (most especially including caesar) for Rome to become a principate. This was the doing of a desperate senatorial aristocracy through Augustus. As far as a good profile picture goes, I'd choose whatever speaks to you best.

[1/3] Hi there! =)

My politics are defined by participation in the process of recreating society so that it will provide the most people with the most happiness. To ensure this, no relatively small group of people should control most of the resources of a society without a method of peacefully displacing them if they fail to serve the common good, because in that scenario we can expect to see a hierarchy with large deficits of utility due to the exploitation of the majority by the minority.

[2/3]
This is the case with capitalism, where the bourgeois underpay the proletariat for their labor before overselling the fruits of that labor back to them, a series of transactions that only serves to make them more powerful over time through the accruing of profits. But the working class at large must be made aware that this structure is as artificial and illegitimate as that of a monarchy, and so capitalism must be abolished. The only way to do this is by changing the base of society,which can be accomplished by workers taking control of the means of production away from their exploiters. I find the best path to this to be through workers associating with one another in industrial unions, fortifying their numbers until a general strike can be enacted in that industry, the nation or even the world.

The superstructure of a society with a base of proletarian control should be operated on the basis of consensus decision making or democracy. But by "democracy" I don't mean as in the plutocratic oligarchies of bourgeois parliaments or congresses, but an international assembly of recallable delegates whose voting power are equal to the exclusive population of the autonomous workers organization they have been elected from. The delegates can only vote as an individual if their constitutions do not have a referendum among themselves on the matter, which would take precedence. In such a society, I believe that most people would have enough food, water, shelter and medical care to be able to lead fulfilled lives with those they care about, while the assembly as a whole would provide for the needs of those that cannot work due to debilitating illness.

[3/3]

I shared my political beliefs in the form of an essay because I know more about what I think than what is implied by the labels I can find for myself, so thanks for your patience in reading all of that. However, I believe that I'm correct in labeling myself a revolutionary industrial unionist who supports the Industrial Workers of the World, although I am equally comfortable with describing myself as a anarcho-syndicalist and a libertarian communist/anarcho-communist, as the material basis and foundational principles of each of these tendencies coalesce in a way that reflects my personal philosophy.

Anyway, I hope that was all helpful in answering your question, and I'm curious as to how you would describe your own political philosophy as well~ =)

i'm not a lolbertarian, i'm a cowardly liberal! thanks though, merry xmas

Oh I was always a socialist I just chose trotskyism in tendencies because it was the one I was closest to (plus I admire Trotsky). I am probably close to democratic socialism but generally I am a mix of different socialist and communist tendencies.

http://www.iww.org/history/library/i...lies-to-Moscow

Sulla was championed by the optimates and was instrumental in the murder of countless popular reformers. His modern day equivalent would have been someone like Pinochet or other reactionary despots. Marius is much better.

Why Sulla?