Julius Caesar: the lost people's history of the Tribal Assembly?

The first time I wrote about Julius Caesar from the perspective of people's history, I wrote mainly of his radical economic populism:

Also: http://www.revleft.com/vb/caesarism-...185/index.html

Only today, though, did I notice these comments on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJNAoqy2SRw

If this is indeed the case, then we see here an Anti-Republican political model, going against Benevolent Tyrants. It's not about a social contract between the benevolent tyrant and the masses, since it's clear the benevolent tyrant fails his end of the bargain. It's a social contract between one form of absolutism/autocracy and one form of democracy, with Caesar being a sort of "dictator for democracy."

[Liberal republicanism has always been a means of legitimizing bourgeois oligarchy in the triangle of democracy, "monarchy" (rule-of-one), and "aristocracy" (rule by "the best").]

Julius Caesar was a populist demagogue who promised free plebeians a greater share of Rome's imperial loot if they would support him against the then-reigning Senatorial oligarchs. He was still a slaveowner who slaughtered POW's of conquered nations in reactionary ritual sacrifices; the most famous of his victims was the brave Vercingetorix. The fact that reactionaries hated him doesn't make him more revolutionary than Obama. The Gracchi and other populist reformers wanted to mitigate the class divide, not abolish it; their goal was a slightly kinder version of the slave empire. Ancient emperors like Akhenaten or Wang Mang, who sometimes get an undeserved revolutionary reputation for expropriating their own vassals, were not communists either. If you want a revolutionary leader from the classical Roman world, look no further than Spartacus.

Comrades will find a Marxist analysis of this period in Rome's history in Michael Parenti's The Assassination of Julius Caesar.

Both Kléber and Jakob are reading modern, capitalist, content into ancient, slavery-based forms. Of course, nothing, except confusion, can come out of interpreting Rome's internal strifes in terms of democracy/dictatorship, proletariat/bourgeoisie, etc. The issues were completely different, the actors were completely different, everything was about something else, like in the joke about the two mental patients who both have never gone to Glasgow, and so had to conclude that their mistakenly thinking they were acquainted to each other should be explained by the idea that "then it must have been other two gentlemen".

Luís Henrique

The Huey Long of imperial Rome. Big deal. Much more akin to a Peron than to a class enemy of system of exploitation. Spare us this praise for noble monsters.

The thing with Caesar is not who Caesar was or that he was what we today would class as a war-criminal (which the majority of the ruling class in Rome consisted of), but that he had broad support from the public and acted as an enemy of his own class and therefore was murdered.

Most leaders in history have blood on their hands, even if they don't do anything.

Exactly. The thing is not to pretend that such a historical configuration producing an individual acting in that capacity has any relevance to the current and future prospects for social revolution.

All of this pining and whining for a Caesar is just another refraction of the antipathy of petty-bourgeois poseurs to the proletariat's revolution.

Rosa, I used this book specifically in my programmatic work. The first go at it was only with his economic measures.

You're parroting gentlemen's history.

Misconstruing my class background, are we? Who are the only ones that can advocate workers-only voting membership policies as well as more generic politico-ideological independence? :rolleyes:

I just think that is quite compatible with Third World Caesarism / Managed Democracy / Anti-Republicanism / Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie - and tactics such as people's war, Focoism, PDPA-style military coups, and especially a "March on Rome."

I cannot speak for DNZ. I do not like ancient Rome because it has any relevance for us today, but because I simply like history.

I didn't say this was "democracy/dictatorship, proletariat/bourgeoisie," in fact I used none of those words, or do you consider class struggle itself to be a childish oversimplification? That postmodern nonsense is basically a pessimistic rejection of the human mind's ability to analyze society and history using dialectical materialism. Take what you are saying to its conclusion, and no one has the authority to write about anything, because nobody has an absolutely omniscient understanding of the world or any aspect of it. The passage of 2,000 years does not change the fact that there was class struggle in ancient times, oppressed people did fight back, and it was against people like Julius Caesar.

He did not act as an enemy of his own class, least of all consciously; rather he acted as its most far-sighted representative. Caesar wanted to shore up the power of the Roman state by giving the plebes a fairer deal and making them more loyal to the patrician elite, which was tiny compared to the whole population of its empire. He was in favor of higher grain subsidies for the proletarii of the cities but did nothing to give them, or the slaves, political power. Caesar's crimes of empire against conquered peoples can not be washed from his hands any more than a liberal might argue that John F Kennedy was knocked off by the mafia and the far right for trying to clean up the USA's act and is so excused for his dirty attempt to recolonize Cuba.

Marx blindly accepted the gentlemen's history account of Caesar.

Caesar's class base of support rested in the common folk serving in the military, not among "far-sighted" patricians.

Did you bother to read my original post above listing the radical economic reforms? They're more than mere grain subsidies (i.e., the breads and circuses of the later Roman Empire).

Did you bother to read my original post above mentioning the Tribunal Assembly?

But neither Parenti nor I are washing his hands on that front. We merely focused on domestic policy.

True, but at least he was on the side of Spartacus against the likes of both Cicero and Caesar.

Every serious Roman leader at that time depended on the military. You needed legions to march on Rome.

Yes, and I read Parenti's book.

The Tribal Assembly was for plebeians - free Roman landowners who weren't part of the aristocratic ruling families. Workers, slaves and foreigners were not represented.

Julius Caesar did also grant power to free Greek landowners in Athens, but that's not real democracy because slaves, women and national minorities did not have political rights. He also wanted higher grain subsidies for the urban proletariat who were mostly unemployed and dependent on state and private charity, but again, there was no extension of political power to the propertyless, the enslaved, or "barbarians" under Caesar.

Domestic and international policy can not be separated. Ironically it is often the plebeians who are more imperialist than patricians, because the big aristocrats want to maintain peace with the neighbors, feast and party, while the poorer landowners want to start wars so they can capture land, slaves and wealth, to become patricians. This was not only true in ancient times. In colonial Latin America the royal bureaucracies granted rights to slaves and indigenous people while the creoles, the colonial-born "middle class" of white landowners, were generally the most racist, favored the most brutal repression of oppressed communities. In the present-day United States, the hegemony of imperialist capital is maintained by reactionary-minded, mostly white petty bourgeois and proletarian citizens who understand they have some slight privilege from living in an imperialist country, and are brainwashed to defend it with fanatical zeal which they direct against immigrants and perceived liberal members of the elite.

Caesar had absolutely nothing at all to do with the suppression of the Spartacus uprising. It was Crassus who suppressed it.

Except only Caesar marched legions on Rome. What does that say about the class base of support for his rivals, not just Pompey and Crassus?

At least there's someone who can openly disagree with my reasoning for Third World Caesarism (instead of Maoism, Permanent Revolution, or run-of-the-mill Third World authoritarianism) while having read Parenti's book.

Workers? I know slaves and foreigners were not represented, but for sure the proletarii were represented by some body.

The petit-bourgeoisie is indeed the most politically unstable class, but that's not the point.

My point was that Caesar wasn't a revolutionary.

It says that his rivals lost because they couldn't defend the capital. Sulla also broke the "no troops in Rome" rule, was he socialist?

Thanks, well it was an interesting book. Now what exactly is Third World Caesarism?

The Tribal Assembly restored by Julius Caesar only represented plebeian (non-aristocratic) citizens. Citizenship was reserved for freeborn adult men born in Rome. In the Athenian "democracy" restored by Caesar, similar qualifications applied.

The proletarians did not have any official representation which was recognized by the Roman Republic or Empire, although mobs of them participated in political events and as a class they sometimes briefly asserted themselves. During Spartacus' revolt, landless poor joined the revolutionary slave army. Years later, the Christian church, in its early utopian communist phase, organized the proletariat of Roman slums into ancient anarchist co-ops. The churches were eventually co-opted by the state; the revisionist priests entered the Roman bureaucracy while the apostolic communist elements were purged. We only know about this because some radical Christians fled to Egypt and stashed their literature at Nag Hammadi before they were hunted down and murdered by assassins of the Roman Pope.

It was my point. Caesar, like Hitler, realized how useful their anger and ambitions could be. In courting the middle classes and desperate layers of the unemployed, these men were demagogues not revolutionaries.

You have a Visitor Message.

This Third World Caesarism is really quite a hodgepodge. It is not the job of communists to rehabilitate imperialist slaveowners or boost bourgeois nationalists. As for Parenti's claim that Julius Caesar represented the proletariat of the slums, I'd forgotten about that, it's completely wrong unless he was joking.

Who said anything about accommodating the "national bourgeoisie" at all? That's Maoism, not the Marxist center of the Second International including Lenin (accommodation of the "national petit-bourgeoisie"). Why didn't you post in that thread itself? :confused:

Well then I don't see what the difference is, aside from an eclectic bunch of historical fetishes and weird passages that seem to hint at reactionary positions, between Third World Caesarism and old school Marxism or the theory of Permanent Revolution where the proletariat leads the farmers, middle classes and lumpenproletariat against the ruling class.

"Old school Marxism" /= Permanent Revolution

Again...

What's so reactionary about the Third World possibility of "national" segments of the petit-bourgeoisie (sharecroppers, small tenant farmers, urban small business owners, etc.) seizing power on an eclectically "socialist" but explicitly anti-bourgeois platform (hence "national" and not comprador)?

What's so reactionary about the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie incorporating the tactics of people's war, Focoism, PDPA-style military coups (like 1970s Afghanistan), etc. culminating in a "March on Rome"?

What's so reactionary about the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie combining:

1) The program of Julius Caesar in people's history;
1) The program of Julius Caesar in people's history;
2) Proudhon's communal power advocacy;
3) Lassalle's state-aided cooperatives project;
4) Bismarck's Kulturkampf against the political influence of organized religion;
5) Putin's "managed democracy" party system but on a decidedly more left orientation; and
6) Lukashenko's state ownership and management over the commanding heights plus executive repression of bourgeois and/or liberal opposition (hence Caesarism /= Bonapartism) - all added to by Hugo Chavez-style charisma?



[All conditional upon conditions that allow politico-ideological independence for the working class, of course]

One day, you'll work for me DNZ.