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

[Queercommie Girl]

As for Gramsci's characterization of Caesar and Napoleon I, he did have something quite right: both of them ended republics in favor of empires. With Caesar it was because the form of the republic was spent; with Napoleon it was because of the contradictions between the revolutionary classes in France.

Caesar and Napoleon I were completely different. Both ended "republics", but the "republics" were of completely different types. The ancient Roman republic was not a progressive force at all. It was an aristocratic republic controlled by the ultra-corrupt Patrician Order, what Chinese Marxists usually refer to as the slavelord aristocracy class.

The slavelord aristocracy was one of the most brutal and reactionary classes that has ever existed in world history. In more primitive slavery societies, like ancient Shang, Inca and the Aztecs, they were responsible for mass human sacrifice and other horrifying practices that even the feudal landlord class would find barbaric, never mind capitalists and socialists. Although Caesar was no "socialist", the fact that he clearly damaged the interests of the slavelord aristocracy class must be a progressive move. In fact, any political force that opposes the slavelord aristocracy must be relatively progressive, whether they are feudal, capitalist or socialist in nature.

The problem with Western liberals is that they only look at the superstructure and not the economic base. Liberals think any kind of "republic" or "democracy" is better than a dictatorship. Genuine Marxist-Leninists focus primarily on the economic base. We should recognise that a plebian dictatorship is more progressive than an aristocratic republic.

When Chinese Marxists look at China's own history, everyone agrees that the transition from slavery to feudalism in China from around 1000 BCE to 200 BCE was a significantly progressive move. In ancient Rome, the Caesarist era was the beginning of a similar slavery-feudalism transition, but the slavery society of the Greco-Roman world was the most developed in the world, so consequently Caesar could not overthrow the patrician (slavelord aristocracy) class as a whole. This is an application of Lenin's "weakest link" doctrine to an earlier stage of human history. In ancient China where the slavelord aristocracy was a much weaker force, their rule was completely broken, and nothing akin to the patrician elites who owned massive numbers of slaves existed in China ever again since the feudal dictatorships of the Qin and Han Dynasties.

[graymouser]

Caesar and Napoleon I were completely different. Both ended "republics", but the "republics" were of completely different types. The ancient Roman republic was not a progressive force at all. It was an aristocratic republic controlled by the ultra-corrupt Patrician Order, what Chinese Marxists usually refer to as the slavelord aristocracy class.

The slavelord aristocracy was one of the most brutal and reactionary classes that has ever existed in world history. In more primitive slavery societies, like ancient Shang, Inca and the Aztecs, they were responsible for mass human sacrifice and other horrifying practices that even the feudal landlord class would find barbaric, never mind capitalists and socialists. Although Caesar was no "socialist", the fact that he clearly damaged the interests of the slavelord aristocracy class must be a progressive move. In fact, any political force that opposes the slavelord aristocracy must be relatively progressive, whether they are feudal, capitalist or socialist in nature.

The problem with Western liberals is that they only look at the superstructure and not the economic base. Liberals think any kind of "republic" or "democracy" is better than a dictatorship. Genuine Marxist-Leninists focus primarily on the economic base. We should recognise that a plebian dictatorship is more progressive than an aristocratic republic.

When Chinese Marxists look at China's own history, everyone agrees that the transition from slavery to feudalism in China from around 1000 BCE to 200 BCE was a significantly progressive move. In ancient Rome, the Caesarist era was the beginning of a similar slavery-feudalism transition, but the slavery society of the Greco-Roman world was the most developed in the world, so consequently Caesar could not overthrow the patrician (slavelord aristocracy) class as a whole. This is an application of Lenin's "weakest link" doctrine to an earlier stage of human history. In ancient China where the slavelord aristocracy was a much weaker force, their rule was completely broken, and nothing akin to the patrician elites who owned massive numbers of slaves existed in China ever again since the feudal dictatorships of the Qin and Han Dynasties.

You seem to be reading some things into Roman history that weren't there: specifically, your use of the term "slavelord aristocracy" and the idea that Julius Caesar did something to impact that class.

It's simply factually incorrect to try and link the patrician class exclusively with slave-holding, or to consider it as having been primarily a wealthier class than the equites. Slave ownership was not limited to nor was it particularly distinctive for the patrician class that ruled through the Senate. In point of fact, the main distinction that the patricians had was that they were the traditional elite, whereas the equites were the nouveaux riches. Plebeians of the higher orders were just as much a part of the slaveholding system as the patricians. It mattered not one whit whether a slave's master was a patrician or a plebeian. So your whole "slavelord aristocracy" model would also have to embrace the plebeians as well as the patricians.

And it's a fantasy to think that Caesar was actually acting against the slave-owners in any way, shape or form. He was really trying to solve the power imbalances between the patricians and the equites by politically disenfranchising the patrician Senate. This was not a "plebeian dictatorship" - while Caesar was a popularis, he was still fully entrenched in the patrician class himself - and in fact Caesar did a tremendous amount to strengthen the Roman slave system by sheer volume. At times of major conquests like Caesar's, there would be such a surplus of slaves that masters would work them to death rather than care for them since it was cheaper to simply buy a new one. Nothing "progressive" about it. Caesar didn't pose a threat to the patrician class in terms of economic activity - slavery and so on - but rather he stood for their political disenfranchisement. At best he would have spread around the ager publicus a bit less unevenly. Everything else is an ahistorical invention of Parenti's.

FWIW, I don't think there was anything particularly progressive about any of the slave societies we've been discussing; I would hope that the Lenin quote about Greek republics in my signature would make that clear, if nothing else. I remain a devoted student of ancient history, it's a subject that fascinates me, but I've never been anything but hyper-aware that slavery made a mockery out of any pretense to democracy in Greece and Rome.

[Queercommie Girl]

You seem to be reading some things into Roman history that weren't there: specifically, your use of the term "slavelord aristocracy" and the idea that Julius Caesar did something to impact that class.

It's simply factually incorrect to try and link the patrician class exclusively with slave-holding, or to consider it as having been primarily a wealthier class than the equites. Slave ownership was not limited to nor was it particularly distinctive for the patrician class that ruled through the Senate. In point of fact, the main distinction that the patricians had was that they were the traditional elite, whereas the equites were the nouveaux riches. Plebeians of the higher orders were just as much a part of the slaveholding system as the patricians. It mattered not one whit whether a slave's master was a patrician or a plebeian. So your whole "slavelord aristocracy" model would also have to embrace the plebeians as well as the patricians.

And it's a fantasy to think that Caesar was actually acting against the slave-owners in any way, shape or form. He was really trying to solve the power imbalances between the patricians and the equites by politically disenfranchising the patrician Senate. This was not a "plebeian dictatorship" - while Caesar was a popularis, he was still fully entrenched in the patrician class himself - and in fact Caesar did a tremendous amount to strengthen the Roman slave system by sheer volume. At times of major conquests like Caesar's, there would be such a surplus of slaves that masters would work them to death rather than care for them since it was cheaper to simply buy a new one. Nothing "progressive" about it. Caesar didn't pose a threat to the patrician class in terms of economic activity - slavery and so on - but rather he stood for their political disenfranchisement. At best he would have spread around the ager publicus a bit less unevenly. Everything else is an ahistorical invention of Parenti's.

FWIW, I don't think there was anything particularly progressive about any of the slave societies we've been discussing; I would hope that the Lenin quote about Greek republics in my signature would make that clear, if nothing else. I remain a devoted student of ancient history, it's a subject that fascinates me, but I've never been anything but hyper-aware that slavery made a mockery out of any pretense to democracy in Greece and Rome.

Well "slavelord aristocracy" is actually a very standard and widely accepted term among Chinese Marxists (not just Maoists by the way) to describe the socio-economic systems of China's high antiquity (4000 - 2000 years ago).

There is nothing wrong with the term itself, but perhaps I've been imposing a Chinese socio-economic category onto ancient Rome?

Admittedly, I know more about Chinese history than I know about Roman history. But according to an introductory text on ancient Rome and Caesar written in China, which is largely from a Historical Materialist perspective, it does state that Caesar was relatively progressive for its time. The text claims:

1) Caesar lived at the end of the Roman republican age, when there was fierce struggle between the "democrats" and the "patrician aristocrats";

2) Caesar came from a famous patrician family, but politically he was close to the plebians. Even when he was young, he dared to directly challenge gross corruption and misconduct in the Roman bureaucracy;

3) Caesar wanted "freedom" for his people. During the time of the Roman Republic, only slavelords and freemen who lived in the city of Rome were counted as actual "Roman citizens", but Caesar expanded "Roman citizenship" to include slavelords and freemen of other Italian provinces, and even Roman provinces outside Italy, such as Gaul. He also freed many slaves and turned them into freemen, even though he didn't abolish slavery as such; In addition, he put an end to the persecution of Jews and people of other minority religions;

4) Caesar increased the political power of the People's Assembly (a Chinese translation of the "Tribal Assembly") relative to the elitist Patrician Senate. Political positions were given to merchants and ordinary workers who were traditionally looked down upon by the patrician elite. Workers were also employed by Caesar to engage in public works programs in Rome itself, such as making the city look more appealing;

5) Caesar increased the amount of political centralisation in the Roman world; bureaucratic posts in Roman provinces (e.g. governors) were now appointed more on merit rather than by the recommendation of the corrupt Senatorial elites. He invited a Greek astronomer to change Rome's official calendar, which became the basis for the calendar most modern nations in the world use today (including China);

6) Caesar was a great military strategist, as well as a great literati. His writings are considered to be some of the best examples of Latin literature;

7) Caesar reduced corruption within the Roman bureaucracy and stabilised the Roman monetary economy;

8) Caesar was murdered by the Senatorial elites who were angry at his policies which significantly reduced their political and economic power.

[Queercommie Girl]

Plus, graymouser, I certainly do not completely write-off the positive values of slavery civilisation. Lenin and Mao said socialists should not completely dismiss the ideas of past civilisations. Both only mentioned feudal and bourgeois civilisation, but it should apply to slavelord civilisation too. The progress of human civilisation from the late tribal era to early slavery was actually a relatively progressive event, just like the transition from slavery to feudalism and from feudalism to capitalism in later centuries. Socialism and communism certainly isn't about "returning to the primitive tribal era". Primitivism is reactionary.

Of all the slavery societies of the ancient world, Greco-Roman slavery reached the highest levels of development. I'm not against Classical Civilisation at all. Indeed, Classical Civilisation is the basis for much of Western culture today. Philosophically, even Marxism itself comes from the intellectual line of Classical Philosophy ---> Enlightenment Thought ---> Marxism. If socialists should learn the positive elements of slavery, feudal and capitalist civilisations, then there is still much to be learned from Greco-Roman philosophy and culture.

[graymouser]

Well "slavelord aristocracy" is actually a very standard and widely accepted term among Chinese Marxists (not just Maoists by the way) to describe the socio-economic systems of China's high antiquity (4000 - 2000 years ago).

There is nothing wrong with the term itself, but perhaps I've been imposing a Chinese socio-economic category onto ancient Rome?

Yeah, that sounds right. I have no problem with the term in Chinese history, which is admittedly not my strong suit, but with its application to Rome or the Mediterranean more gneerally. It's important to remember that in Rome the official classes were based more on heredity than on economic status.

Admittedly, I know more about Chinese history than I know about Roman history. But according to an introductory text on ancient Rome and Caesar written in China, which is largely from a Historical Materialist perspective, it does state that Caesar was relatively progressive for its time. The text claims:

1) Caesar lived at the end of the Roman republican age, when there was fierce struggle between the "democrats" and the "patrician aristocrats";

This is a misreading of the differences between the optimates and populares. Because of examples like the Gracchi - the genuine reformers of ancient Rome - the populares are sometimes mistaken for a more democratic party, but in reality their differences were in terms of tactics and not program.

2) Caesar came from a famous patrician family, but politically he was close to the plebians. Even when he was young, he dared to directly challenge gross corruption and misconduct in the Roman bureaucracy;

That's an overstatement. Caesar, like the Gracchi and Marius, had some attempts at land reform, which was the burning issue of late Republican Rome. That's true; but objectively it was one of those cases where the aristocracy was just being too damn stubborn to do what was needed to ensure social peace in Rome.

3) Caesar wanted "freedom" for his people. During the time of the Roman Republic, only slavelords and freemen who lived in the city of Rome were counted as actual "Roman citizens", but Caesar expanded "Roman citizenship" to include slavelords and freemen of other Italian provinces, and even Roman provinces outside Italy, such as Gaul. He also freed many slaves and turned them into freemen, even though he didn't abolish slavery as such;

Caesar enslaved a million people in Gaul. His attitude toward slavery was unambiguously positive.

As for citizenship, that was part of his legacy. Again, you have to look at these things as pragmatic actions within the context of the Roman Republic. The differences between the Romans and the Italians outside of Rome had come to a head in the Social War a generation earlier. The Italian cities that hadn't revolted were given citizenship after the war; Caesar was finishing the incorporation of the Latins.

4) Caesar increased the political power of the People's Assembly (a Chinese translation of the "Tribal Assembly") relative to the elitist Patrician Senate. Political positions were given to merchants and ordinary workers who were traditionally looked down upon by the patrician elite. Workers were also employed by Caesar to engage in public works programs in Rome itself, such as making the city look more appealing;

The Gentile Assemblies (it's misleading to call them anything else, the Romans were divided into arbitrary groups of families called gens which are sometimes called "tribes" but it's not any ethnic or biological division) were not exactly the democratic organs that popular imagination makes them out to be. Again, you have to consider the class dynamics: the Gentile Assemblies were a poorly organized body composed of several highly differentiated classes. They were simply a counterweight, and with the Tribunes no longer able to effectively create policy after the Gracchi, they were basically a tool for the populares.

5) Caesar increased the amount of political centralisation in the Roman world; bureaucratic posts in Roman provinces (e.g. governors) were now appointed more on merit rather than by the recommendation of the corrupt Senatorial elites. He invited a Greek astronomer to change Rome's official calendar, which became the basis for the calendar most modern nations in the world use today (including China);

Roman bureaucracy outside of the army was small and based on loyalty more than merit. Again, class politics comes into this in a way that a simple anti-aristocratic viewpoint misses; the backbone of the Roman state from Caesar onward were not "merchants and workmen" but the equites, relatively rich plebeians.

The Julian calendar was good but not perfect - it was superseded by the Gregorian calendar because it was slowly losing days. (The Russians used the Julian calendar up to 1917; by then the momentous October 25 was actually November 7.)

6) Caesar was a great military strategist, as well as a great literati. His writings are considered to be some of the best examples of Latin literature;

Well, you can't argue with that on the face of it. Caesar was one of the great imperial conquerors of all time, and students read his Comentarii de bello gallico for its straightforward clarity.

7) Caesar reduced corruption within the Roman bureaucracy and stabilised the Roman monetary economy;

It has to be emphasized that Roman bureaucracy was perhaps a percent of what the Chinese bureaucracy was. They really relied more on the military and local elites to manage the empire than on a native Roman bureaucracy; it existed but it was small and never that splendid. As for monetary policy, the currency was actually fairly stable. Caesar's biggest contribution was to correct a liquidity crisis in 49 BC by putting forward a law from a century or two earlier limiting personal cash on hand.

8) Caesar was murdered by the Senatorial elites who were angry at his policies which significantly reduced their political and economic power.

This has to be looked at in the class conflict between the patricians and the plebeian equites. The patrician class was declining and no longer had the level of unity necessary to lead an increasingly complex empire. The equites were rising, but politically disenfranchised. The solution Caesar sought was to centralize rule in his person, effecting a truce between these classes. His reign had some positive ramifications for the lower plebs, but they weren't the central conflict in his time. Failure to understand this class differentiation gives the false idea that Caesar was on the side of an economically lower social class as opposed to the rising nouveaux riches.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This was not a "plebeian dictatorship" - while Caesar was a popularis, he was still fully entrenched in the patrician class himself - and in fact Caesar did a tremendous amount to strengthen the Roman slave system by sheer volume.

The patrician class was declining and no longer had the level of unity necessary to lead an increasingly complex empire. The equites were rising, but politically disenfranchised. The solution Caesar sought was to centralize rule in his person, effecting a truce between these classes. His reign had some positive ramifications for the lower plebs, but they weren't the central conflict in his time. Failure to understand this class differentiation gives the false idea that Caesar was on the side of an economically lower social class as opposed to the rising nouveaux riches.

There are such political groups as those belonging to existing ruling classes that wish to transform themselves into part of a new ruling class.

Caesar may have been a patrician, but I think he was one of those select few who wanted to implement a new class system and be part of the new ruling class instead of the declining patrician class (or even stand above the new ruling class and the other remaining or newer classes). That is what you call true long-term ruling-class insight, much like the alleged "bourgeois" revolutionaries of the Cuban revolution who threw themselves into the ranks of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie because of American sanctions. This is not what passes for typical "long-term ruling class insight" via reforms and standing above all the classes including the declining ruling class.

[Hence the political if not social potential of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World, as opposed to the socially revolutionary but politically-lagging-at-present proletarian demographic minority]