Results 1 to 7 of 7
Ancient Imperialism
We all hear about Imperialism in the modern age. While I'm still not an expert on Marxist writings, I understand, basically, that Lenin wrote about Imperialism being a result of the Bourgeois greed, and as such, they expand their interests into other nations with armed force.
However, I'm interested in a Marxist interpretation of Imperialism in the Ancient world. Rome, Persia, Greece etc. In the case of Rome, can Imperialism be defined as expansionism in the interests of the senatorial class? Of course, in Rome, on occasion, the Emperor himself would declare war. Can this be explained by contemporary Marxism.
Last edited by Aussie Trotskyist; 16th September 2012 at 06:38.
How are we to unite the proletariat if we cannot even unite ourselves?
Workers parties of the world, UNITE!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=946
-"I don't know what "progressive" sex ed is. Unless there's a revolutionary way to make a woman pregnant, that is." - Ismail
The imperialism of Ancient civilizations and the Imperialism as defined by Lenin are two different constructions, so it wouldn't be correct to say that Imperialism could be used in the interests of the senatorial class as capitalism had yet to exist.
THE REV-LEFT STUDY GUIDE PROJECT
Contribute today and help facilitate the spread of revolutionary knowledge.
Yes, that's what I was thinking, However, I thought it may have been worthy of some discussion.
How are we to unite the proletariat if we cannot even unite ourselves?
Workers parties of the world, UNITE!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=946
-"I don't know what "progressive" sex ed is. Unless there's a revolutionary way to make a woman pregnant, that is." - Ismail
I'm not a scholar on ancient Rome, but I got to thinking about the Roman Colosseum the other day, and it occurred to me that that engineering marvel may have been the apex of civilization for that time being -- meaning that everything was downhill after that, for several centuries.
A rulership is only as good as how it benefits the populace, so, during the time of Roman expansion, much consolidation of foreign lands into the Roman Empire would *have* to be considered 'progressive' and *not* imperialistic, exactly.
But once the momentum of humane progress has ground to a halt then there is no excuse possible for any class division since it would then be a tyranny, by definition.
This is a very good question and requires some thought. But for now. The driving force within those economies were slaves. Slaves were used as we use modern machinery. The nobility would have a slave for everything. As well as slaves who worked the land to feed the rest of society. As the free population grew more slaves were needed to satisfy the growing demand for food. Those without a state were considered closer to animals than people so it was seen as the natural right of those living within statist societies to go and claim them. The first colonies were used as trading posts. Of the Greeks, Marseille (Massilla) was one of the most important for the transfer of goods from Gaul to the Mediterranean.
You could make an argument that "imperialism" goes back as far as, well 2300 BCE, when the Akkadians had the first empire (That we know of). Afterall, "imperialism" simply means "subordination by empire". So, logically, imperialism should have existed as long as empires have.
But, if you check out the etymology of the word, you can see that it only came into the lexicon in the nineteenth century in describing Napoleonic foreign policy. Lenin must have picked it up from that context.
In the sense of Marxism-Leninism, imperialism is expressly bound up with the concepts of state and capitalism. If capitalism and state succeed feudalism, then imperialism started in the fourteenth century.
No.
Imperialism relates directly with capitalism and the actual monopolizing of corporations, resources and industries within both client states, colonial regions and so on.
However - one could only use 'Imperialism' in a slight tone of how the Roman Empire operated when incorporating new provinces into the Imperium. Other than that the actual-accurate meaning of Imperialism does not come up until Portugal's and Spain's adventures into the New World and around Africa. (However there were no literal monopolies to speak of - only Sentatorial power, Imperial Power and the Emperor's power. One could also add the destruction of the sovereignty via taxes and forcing down Roman customs, religion and cultural idenity down the newly colonized peoples throats, however it is not 'particularly' Imperialist in the classical-Marxist-Leninist perspective.)
Only then does Imperialism really kick off.
The only accurate terminology could be a Slavocratic system basing itself on the expansion and profiting of it's sole major market - this being slaves. This would, in turn, help the other markets rise and produce an ample profit.
