Julius Caesar

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Not sure if this should be in learning or not so here it goes: I have read that Caesar was very popular among the poor people of ancient Rome and he enacted much legislation to their benefit. So how do revoltuionaries here respond and react to someone like Caesar? Do we still call for nothing less than socialism or anarchism, even if we were talking about a time period 2000 years ago in ancient times? Or should we have been fighting for the next stage in history, which would be I guess monarchy or bourgeois democracy??

Are there any good people in ancient times? I mean they all believed in slavery and discrimination and stuff we today would not believe in.

[chimx]

well if you agree with marx, than you were probably as giddy about bourgeois revolutions and their toppling of feudal systems as he was--if you agree with marx.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I have read much about Julius Caesar: A great account by him from a Marxist Perspective is "The Assasination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome" by Michael Parenti.

Julius Caesar was a full-out populist, using populism as a means for gaining personal power, but nonetheless he gave the people rights, bread, and freedom.

He mantained strict control over the ogliarchical senate, who were composed of Patriarchs and the rich, who made all the decisions on how to exploit and enslave the people more.

He tried to lower Rome's racist policy towards conquered peoples, and gave food to the hungry by abolishing the Grain Tax and other such acts.

He was lucky to even get so far into the system before assasination - most other men who tried to reform using populism were quickly outrightly murdered.


Feudalist, but the best of his times.

[Sadena Meti]

Two major assumptions in this thread:

1. That Julius Caesar existed.
2. That the history we have of him is accurate.


But I'm too lazy to debate either.

[( R )evolution]

So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Machiavelli X@November 04, 2006 06:17 pm
So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.

One could say the same thing about god or jesus.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PeacefulA:

If you read 'The Assassination of Julius Caesar' by Michael Parenti (who writes from a Marxist angle), you will see that Caesar was the last in a long line of ruling class reformers who tried to ameliorate the worst excesses of the decaying Republic.

Many before him had been assassinated by the Senate, directly or indirectly, for attempting to make the mildest of reforms.

Caesar, while no friend of the poor (he came from one of the oldest aristocratic families in Rome), realised that a healthy Roman imperium needed loyal soldiers who had to come from the mass of the people. If they were not bought off with a few concessions, some land, and some say in how they were ruled, they would be of little use to the Army, and the Empire would suffer.

The greed of other rich Romans prevented them from agreeing with him, so they got rid of him. In revenge, one of his relatives, Ocatavian, seized power, ended the Republic, and proclaimed himself Caesar Augustus.

More details in Parenti's book, which I can highly recommend.

Good people?

Try Spartacus....

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by chimx@November 04, 2006 10:58 pm
well if you agree with marx, than you were probably as giddy about bourgeois revolutions and their toppling of feudal systems as he was--if you agree with marx.

He doesn't agree with Marx, remember? He's the guy who supports anarchism through ballot box and/or magical fairy spells.

[chimx]

but he confuses me, because he seems to agree with marxist historical periodization

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+November 05, 2006 12:37 pm--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ November 05, 2006 12:37 pm)

Machiavelli X

@November 04, 2006 06:17 pm
So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.

One could say the same thing about god or jesus. [/b]

What a stupid comment. No one could say that, any who would is a fool.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+November 05, 2006 01:37 am--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ November 05, 2006 01:37 am)

Machiavelli X

@November 04, 2006 06:17 pm
So there was just hundreds of statues with a inscrption of the name julius caesar made just for fun. I can undersatnd that the history might be distorted but I am sure you can say he existed.

One could say the same thing about god or jesus. [/b]

Hmm, not aware of too many statues of god but anyway a "god" is mythical entity, not a real person. As for Caesar, there are numerous historical and contemporary accounts of a Julius Caesar having existed, including books written by him; there are no contemporary accounts of a Jesus Christ having existed and the only "historical" evidence for him is found in the Bible.

[loveme4whoiam]

Indeed - whoever questions that fact that Julius Caesar didn't exist is ignoring a great deal of historical evidence and is, frankly, a fool.

In response to the question, I agree with what Rosa said. He was a smart politician and an aristocrat, not some pre-Marxian saviour of the people :P

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by loveme4whoiam@November 05, 2006 05:37 pm
In response to the question, I agree with what Rosa said. He was a smart politician and an aristocrat, not some pre-Marxian saviour of the people :P

So therefore we should had we been around at this time, not have supported Caesar?? If so who/what should we have supported if we had lived in ancient times??

Sorry if this question sounds bad but I've been watching the HBO series Rome and though to myself: who would I as a rev-leftist have supported if I lived at this time? The Republic? Caesar? Trade unions? No one?? :wacko:

PS If you really don't think JC (Julius Caesar) existed..you might be loonier than me!!

[which doctor]

Originally posted by rev-stoic@November 04, 2006 07:20 pm
Two major assumptions in this thread:

1. That Julius Caesar existed.
2. That the history we have of him is accurate.


But I'm too lazy to debate either.

Yeah, and the dark ages didn't exist either.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by chimx@November 05, 2006 05:12 am
but he confuses me, because he seems to agree with marxist historical periodization

I wasn't agreeing with it, I was only questioning it. I am still learning and as such I want to hear from all points of view, including ones I don't particularly agree with. I wasn't saying that I believe in stages of history, cause I don't but was just questioning if that's what members here feel.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by PeacefulAnarchist+November 05, 2006 05:53 pm--> (PeacefulAnarchist @ November 05, 2006 05:53 pm)

chimx

@November 05, 2006 05:12 am
but he confuses me, because he seems to agree with marxist historical periodization

I wasn't agreeing with it, I was only questioning it. I am still learning and as such I want to hear from all points of view, including ones I don't particularly agree with. I wasn't saying that I believe in stages of history, cause I don't but was just questioning if that's what members here feel. [/b]

You don't believe in stages of history?

[loveme4whoiam]

So therefore we should had we been around at this time, not have supported Caesar?? If so who/what should we have supported if we had lived in ancient times??

Interesting question. But lets be serious, the average prole back then (or pleb to use the "correct" term) didn't have a political view - they just supported the person who gave out money and other tangible substances. Of course, that is a simplification, but an accurate one. People didn't have the time or energy to care about things like that unless they were from the aristocratic classes, in which case that was all they cared about.

So really, you wouldn't support anyone in the way we support Communism now. However, if you are asking that if we were put into a position where we could care about Caesar's politics, where would we stand? I honestly don't know, or care - what happened happened and I don't see any need to play "what if" games about trivial events (by trivial, I mean the opinion of a single pleb in Ancient Rome, not Caesar's politics.)

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by loveme4whoiam@November 05, 2006 06:05 pm
I honestly don't know, or care - what happened happened and I don't see any need to play "what if" games about trivial events (by trivial, I mean the opinion of a single pleb in Ancient Rome, not Caesar's politics.)

Sooo we should only study the history of ancient Rome by caring about what aristocrats like Caesar thought? The opinion of plebs are trivial?? That doesn&#39;t sound very revolutionary to me... <_<

[loveme4whoiam]

I am saying that we should study history by the events and thoughts that shaped it - the opinion of a single pleb did not alter anything within the political framework of the time (and I would argue the same is true now - although I&#39;m sure you would disagree with me <_<) Was it not important? Well thats a subjective question - for instance I&#39;m sure it was important to the pleb himself; to the political processes of the time, I sincerely doubt it.

Read the whole of my post and I said as much there.

As someone said above who you should really be supporting is Spartacus. Now there was a guy who was ahead of his time - the fact that you look to Caesar, who was as has been pointed out was nothing but a pragmatist and a reformist (due to the pragmatism) says a lot about your current political beliefs.

And don&#39;t be coming at me with "that doesn&#39;t sound revolutionary"... coming from you I should take that as a damn compliment.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Dude, I was not looking to Caesar I was asking questions whether we should or should not support him - I think the consensus is that we should not support him.

Then I asked what/who should we support? It was a serious question.

Sparacus? Well, OK, he was around for awhile then he died. So now what? And doesn&#39;t this put too much emphasis on the individual I mean dude no one great person can do shit it&#39;s up to the people to rise up and rebel , no leaders no parties no masters nothing. Well that&#39;s what I think anyway, but please I want to hear from all sides here.