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

[RED DAVE]

(1) Caesar led one of the armies that defeated the slave revolt led by Spartacus.

http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/caesar.html

(2) Caesar was an agent of Roman imperialism, including the conquest of Gaul and the cold-blooded murder of Vercingetorix.

Your boy, DNZ, was a smart, demogogic leader of the ruling class. Typical for you that he should be one of your heroes.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

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)?

Because they will institute capitalism, which is rule over the working class. And some of us, at least, are for soicalism, which is the rule of the working class.

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"?

Fabulous that you use a term also use by that great proletarian leader Mussolini. Again, this is capitalism, which some of us oppose.

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;
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?

Because all of this is capitalism, which, as you might remember, you're here at revleft because your against.

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

Because under capitalism, this is impossible. You are positing that a regime that is the enemy of the working class will permit the freedom of the working class to flourish.

Rots of ruck.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

(1) Caesar led one of the armies that defeated the slave revolt led by Spartacus.

"It is believed": This was not mentioned at all in Ted Grant's "gentlemen's history" account of the Roman republic.

Because they will institute capitalism, which is rule over the working class. And some of us, at least, are for socialism, which is the rule of the working class.

You've got your politics and economics mixed up.

Fabulous that you use a term also use by that great proletarian leader Mussolini. Again, this is capitalism, which some of us oppose.

I'm not referring at all to Mussolini's fascist coup, but to the original March on Rome. You know, crossing the Rubicon and such?

Because all of this is capitalism, which, as you might remember, you're here at revleft because your against.

Isn't the "transitional" consensus around here the nationalization of the commanding heights plus cooperatives everywhere else? That's outlined in Points 3 and 6, personified in Lassalle and Lukashenko.

[S.Artesian]

Isn't the "transitional" consensus around here the nationalization of the commanding heights plus cooperatives everywhere else? That's outlined in Points 3 and 6, personified in Lassalle and Lukashenko.

No, that's not the "transitional consensus," since the point of transition is transformation, that is to say actions taken by organs of workers power; class-specific power, not your hodge-podge petty-bourgeois horse on manback junk populist neo-Stalinism.

You are a troll of immense proportions, bigger even than Rosa L.

[S.Artesian]

Has nothing to do with the "length" of the supposed discourse. Has to do with the content-- and the content is that you distort the actual history of events, relations of classes, substance of theories in order to divert every discussion into the paths of your own narcissistic, self-aggrandizing concerns. That's what defines a troll.

And you are that troll.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:

divert every discussion into the paths of your own narcissistic, self-aggrandizing concerns. That's what defines a troll.

You then proceed to divert this discussion onto little old me:

You are a troll of immense proportions, bigger even than Rosa L.

Well, we already know you are a boss-class lackey, so it's not surprising you display reasonably clear trollish tendencies yourself, chief among which is your propensity to label anyone who disagrees with you a 'troll'.

It's called 'projection', I believe.

[Dimentio]

Sadly, progressive policies have often sometimes needed authoritarian leaders to be able to be implemented.

[graymouser]

This is dangerous nonsense, and has nothing to do with Roman history.

Caesar was not some democrat trying to make the Assembly into the ruling power of the then-nascent Empire. He was an aristocrat trying to outmaneuver his enemies in the Senate by appealing, as a demagogue, to the plebeians and using the Assembly to give sanction to his actions and his increasing titles.

You clearly have no grasp whatsoever of the class questions in Roman politics. The Tribal Assembly was never an instrument of people's democracy; it was more or less a patronage scheme, where the plebeians were dependent upon senatorial patrons and in return gave political support. Caesar, by being the richest man in the dying Republic basically became the patron of the whole lot of them. Of course, this is not a "people's" history; as others have pointed out, it gave not one iota of freedom to the slaves and had no voice for the freedmen. For fuck's sake, even your hero Kautsky understood that Caesar was no democrat (re-read Foundations of Christianity if you're confused).

And this idea that Caesarism is somehow useful in the third world is beneath contempt.

[RED DAVE]

Sadly, progressive policies have often sometimes needed authoritarian leaders to be able to be implemented.

Could you go into details? This is a remarkable statement from someone on a website called revleft. Do you have a soft spot in your heart for that grave digger of the Russian Revolution, Stalin? I mean, who's your hero?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

I don't have heroes. Neither do I think that political revolutions led by authoritarian leaders would yield much success. The prevalence of such figures is rather a testimony that the people at that point was not ready for any deeper transformative change of the means of production.

[Dimentio]

I don't have heroes. Neither do I think that political revolutions led by authoritarian leaders would yield much success. The prevalence of such figures is rather a testimony that the people at that point was not ready for any deeper transformative change of the means of production.

[graymouser]

I don't have heroes. Neither do I think that political revolutions led by authoritarian leaders would yield much success. The prevalence of such figures is rather a testimony that the people at that point was not ready for any deeper transformative change of the means of production.

My post was aimed at DNZ, not you.

[Dimentio]

I replied to RED DAVE, not you

[Luís Henrique]

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.

Of course there was class struggle in Ancient Rome. What there was not was a bourgeoisie; a proletariat; any socialist perspective for the downtrodden masses. So class struggle in Ancient Rome was class struggle between other classes, not between proletariat and bourgeoisie; and for different aims, not for either the survival of capitalism or its revolutionary suppression. Any materialist take on ancient Roman history must start from realising this; superimposing modern concepts into it is bogus, and leads to anachronic and a-historic conclusions, such as "Caesar's crimes" or "Caesar's radicalism".

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

by appealing, as a demagogue, to the plebeians and using the Assembly to give sanction to his actions and his increasing titles

That's the gentlemen's history that Parenti fought against in his book.

The Tribal Assembly was never an instrument of people's democracy; it was more or less a patronage scheme, where the plebeians were dependent upon senatorial patrons and in return gave political support.

That's the same liberal criticism of the communal councils and communes in Venezuela, relative to "patronage" by the PSUV and Chavez.

For fuck's sake, even your hero Kautsky understood that Caesar was no democrat (re-read Foundations of Christianity if you're confused).

My original thread asked if Marx himself was wrong on Caesarism. By extension, if Marx blindly accepted gentlemen's history re. Caesar (and he did), then Kautsky's account was wrong also.

And this idea that Caesarism is somehow useful in the third world is beneath contempt.

One of its siblings is the two-stage Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry.

[Dimentio]

Why couldn't Julius Caesar be a ruthless imperialist and a warm-hearted populist politician at the same time?

[graymouser]

That's the gentlemen's history that Parenti fought against in his book.

The concept of "gentleman's history" is basically a long ad hominem excuse by Parenti to dismiss anything he doesn't like in ancient and modern historiography. It is of course true that Roman writers represented the aristocracy, but that doesn't validate Parenti's fantasy of Caesar as a man "of the people" or even give a sound concept of what "the people" meant in ancient Rome.

You cannot take the pro-plebeian gestures of the populares and the openly pro-aristocratic stance of the optimates in isolation. The Roman Republic was a slave society growing into a world empire, and the plebeian class that Caesar and the earlier populares based themselves on was increasingly a class subsidized by the ill-gotten gains of imperial war. The underlying question was not the plebeians versus the patricians, but the patrician ruling class's dominance over the slaves and the peasantry of Italy and the new provinces, in which the plebeians mostly played a role in the decaying internal politics of Rome itself.

Honestly, as a Marxist and a student of ancient Roman history (ancient history was my minor in college), I have to say that Parenti's book is embarrassingly bad. If you want to get this period, you'd do much better with Kautsky's excellent Foundations of Christianity.

That's the same liberal criticism of the communal councils and communes in Venezuela, relative to "patronage" by the PSUV and Chavez.

So? The PSUV really is a tremendous, corrupt patronage machine, and not in any respect a workers' party or a revolutionary party. What is going on in Venezuela today is not socialism of any century, but a form of left populism.

My original thread asked if Marx himself was wrong on Caesarism. By extension, if Marx blindly accepted gentlemen's history re. Caesar (and he did), then Kautsky's account was wrong also.

Have you actually read Kautsky's account? It shows a much clearer class understanding of history than your posts here do. I also think that Lenin's quote about the Greek republics ("freedom for the slave-owners") applies in spades to Caesarism.

One of its siblings is the two-stage Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry.

You mean the incorrect theory that the Bolsheviks abandoned in 1917?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sadly, progressive policies have often sometimes needed authoritarian leaders to be able to be implemented.

Could you go into details? This is a remarkable statement from someone on a website called revleft. Do you have a soft spot in your heart for that grave digger of the Russian Revolution, Stalin? I mean, who's your hero?

I think Red Dave needs to go back to Political Science 101.

Dimentio wasn't posting about hard-on authoritarian leaders. The mildest authoritarianism comes to the fore when tackling the problem of Bourgeois Federalism. See, FDR had problems passing some of his more progressive legislation against "states' rights" opposition:

Within this “managed democracy” the most obvious element is the National Leader or pan-national equivalent, even if there is no organizational emphasis here. Such role, for purely executive matters, is best described as “neo-patrimonial” in light of historian Yoram Gorlizki’s observation of “patrimonial authority coexisting alongside quite modern and routine forms of high-level decision making” that characterized the late Stalin era. Such role also could move in and out of the presidency like Putin. The presidency itself could have semi-strong veto power, weaker than the strong veto power held by US and Ukrainian presidencies (overridden only upon a two-thirds legislative majority in all legislative chambers), but stronger than merely the one-time ability to ask legislatures to reconsider certain legislation like in Hungary, Italy, and Portugal. For example, questions on war and peace that are addressed by legislatures could be put to a referendum after a presidential veto. Meanwhile, “judiciary reorganization” or the less euphemistic presidential “court packing” of specifically constitutional courts – apart from the nominally independent but regular court system – would facilitate more radical social reforms. Moreover, the transition to full communal power could see the National Leader’s obvious influence on the developing communal power as a bulwark against opposition governments in the municipalities, provinces, prefectures, and federated states. Despite all this power, the president should be subject to legislative confidence, and a National Leader outside the presidency should also be the leading member of a party (all the more so as president).

[Die Neue Zeit]

The concept of "gentleman's history" is basically a long ad hominem excuse by Parenti to dismiss anything he doesn't like in ancient and modern historiography. It is of course true that Roman writers represented the aristocracy, but that doesn't validate Parenti's fantasy of Caesar as a man "of the people" or even give a sound concept of what "the people" meant in ancient Rome.

Julius Caesar was about to eliminate the senatorial class when he was assassinated.

Honestly, as a Marxist and a student of ancient Roman history (ancient history was my minor in college), I have to say that Parenti's book is embarrassingly bad. If you want to get this period, you'd do much better with Kautsky's excellent Foundations of Christianity.

[...]

Have you actually read Kautsky's account? It shows a much clearer class understanding of history than your posts here do. I also think that Lenin's quote about the Greek republics ("freedom for the slave-owners") applies in spades to Caesarism.

Yes I have read Kautsky's account. As for Lenin on Greek republics, Paul Cockshott made that qualification when advocating modern-day demarchy instead of elections.

So? The PSUV really is a tremendous, corrupt patronage machine, and not in any respect a workers' party or a revolutionary party. What is going on in Venezuela today is not socialism of any century, but a form of left populism.

The PSUV is a "petit-bourgeois workers party." It is not a "bourgeois workers party" like Labour. It is not a proletarian-not-necessarily-communist party like the Chartist movement, the parties of the Paris Commune, or the IWCA. It certainly is not a communist workers sect like the Hekmatists.

You mean the incorrect theory that the Bolsheviks abandoned in 1917?

The ironic triumph of 'old Bolshevism' (and the troika)

[graymouser]

Julius Caesar was about to eliminate the senatorial class when he was assassinated.

Caesar was willing to make himself the sole ruler of the empire over the Senate. In class terms this was a conflict within the aristocracy - Caesar, by moving to supreme power, was decapitating the Senate politically. This was a natural outcome of the breakdown of power-sharing between the ruling class of the empire that had caused the protracted political crisis of the Republic. Octavian was able to create a solution that gave a vestigial role to the Senate and thereby secure their support. If you seriously think that Caesar's endgame would have been substantially different from Octavian's, you are fantasizing. We are talking about a brutal aristocrat and general whose populism was paper-thin, and you have not dealt with either the problems of the slave system or the empire.

Yes I have read Kautsky's account. As for Lenin on Greek republics, Paul Cockshott made that qualification when advocating modern-day demarchy instead of elections.

Demarchy is a solution to what, precisely? What was needed in Russia was the revitalization of democracy, not appointments by lottery. Randomly appointing people to various offices is the kind of oddball middle-class theory usually dreamt up by groups like the Green Party.

The PSUV is a "petit-bourgeois workers party." It is not a "bourgeois workers party" like Labour. It is not a proletarian-not-necessarily-communist party like the Chartist movement, the parties of the Paris Commune, or the IWCA. It certainly is not a communist workers sect like the Hekmatists.

The PSUV is not a workers' party, in any sense, because it is not based on the working class and its institutions. It is a state party, primarily based upon the Venezuelan state bureaucracy - which remains a bourgeois state. It is in no way based on the petite bourgeoisie, and there is nothing whatsoever scientific about your characterization of it.