The moderns don’t map to the ancients. Radically different peoples.
Also the Romans didn’t have private property, not as we understand it at all.
Then there’s the concept of sacred Oaths. We dispensed with that… and letcha in on a secret, we seldom believed in sacred or oaths. MONEY. And freedom is don’t touch my money.
Socialism is a Grift before your very eyes. No guesswork. The richest people in America are socialist. Since Rockefeller.
The Romans were no nation of grifters. The Romans had FIDES.
The notion of socialism would have confused then disgusted them, but they had slaves to handle menial labor.
Tell ya what though. We implement Rome’s universal conscription and the people agree to be conscripted for some years at a time then return home, and this actually happens 😂 maybe you’ve got something.
This is simply so out of time as to be absurd, sorry. The Romans weren’t capable of socialism, but no private property rights either.
Everything and nothing was socialized. Simple anachronism.
Many people will have an urge to fight tooth and nail against this interpretation (and some already had), but the author makes good points.
Moreover, it can be argued that the very reason we call empire an empire lies in Rome's protosocialist policies. In the old Republic, 'imperium' was a temporary commission to carry out a specific task, with necessary powers and resources attached; the task was often a military campaign but could as well be something as little as organizing a barbecue party, er, I mean a minor religious feast.
This changed around 687 ab urbe condita (67 BC). Most of the grain distributed in Rome was being delivered by sea by that time; but the sea was full of pirates who (to use modern parlance) threatened the supply chains. An interruption of grain shipments could mean serious unrest, so Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was given a wide-ranging and somewhat vague imperium to fight the pirates anywhere on the seas and 50 miles inland. Pompey's campaign was surprisingly successful, not only driving back the pirates but bringing Rome a new province of Cilicia. So imperium became a sort of The One Ring, and – look! – about a century later imperium maius was already a permanent attribute of the Roman rulers.
(Side note: Pompey's imperium was not the first of such kind – seven years earlier a similar one had been awarded to Marcus Antonius Creticus, but that guy failed as spectacularly as Pompey succeeded.)
The essay is a bit repetitive but I accept a certain amount of repetition for the sake of emphasis. The themes are well developed and the ideas are clearly explained. I think your conclusions are correct.
Rome wasn't worth having. It created very few new things and stole a great many ideas, sculptures, and designs from conquered provinces. It extended power through road building and had problems perceiving travel routes in the absence of roads. So the Roman republic faced war elephants coming out of the Alps in considerable disarray, for example.
Taxes, fees, and caprice made Rome unpleasant for its poor, middle class, artisans, and tradespeople. So in the Fourth and Fifth centuries AD the Goth tribes offered to take ten percent tribute, execute the Roman bureau rats, and cure the virgins, which increasingly was a better deal than 30% Roman taxes and abuse and idiocy. So many towns opened their gates to the "barbarians".
All states are abusive and many of them are socialistic. The divide and conquer policies were perfected by the Roman patrician families that posed as plebian. The evil corrupt, ugly families of the Roman empire fled into the swamps near what is today Venice to keep going after Rome became a frequently sacked city. The aristocracy of Europe is infested with these same scummy control freaks.
Roman coins were so badly reduced in precious metal under Augustus and his successors that when the Pharisees challenged Jesus about taxes he asked for a coin. The coin had the image and name of Caesar and was silver painted onto copper. In saying that people should render unto Caesar "what belongs to Caesar" Jesus is saying that the coin is debased and good only for Roman authorities. Saying that people should render unto God that which belongs to God, Jesus is pointing out that everything belongs to God, the creator of the heavens and the earth.
That's a well-structured and helpful comment. Regarding your last point about Jesus pointing out that everything belongs to God, I had never thought of it that way. Sure makes sense.
Rome created very few new things and stole many ideas??
Laughable. There are few civilizations that can even compare to the achievements of Rome.
“Taxes, fees, and caprice made Rome unpleasant for its poor, middle class, artisans, and tradespeople. So in the Fourth and Fifth centuries AD the Goth tribes offered to take ten percent tribute, execute the Roman bureau rats, and cure the virgins, which increasingly was a better deal than 30% Roman taxes and abuse and idiocy. So many towns opened their gates to the barbarians”
This was not always the case in Rome. Your example is during the collapse of the western empire.
“All states are abusive and many of them are socialistic. The divide and conquer policies were perfected by the Roman patrician families that posed as plebian. The evil corrupt, ugly families of the Roman empire fled into the swamps near what is today Venice to keep going after Rome became a frequently sacked city. The aristocracy of Europe is infested with these same scummy control freaks.”
A lot of resentment here for the state and patricians. Not much to say, it’s disgusting nonsense.
“Roman coins were so badly reduced in precious metal under Augustus and his successors that when the Pharisees challenged Jesus about taxes he asked for a coin. The coin had the image and name of Caesar and was silver painted onto copper. In saying that people should render unto Caesar "what belongs to Caesar" Jesus is saying that the coin is debased and good only for Roman authorities. Saying that people should render unto God that which belongs to God, Jesus is pointing out that everything belongs to God, the creator of the heavens and the earth.”
The eastern side of the empire was very autonomous. Minting was not solely handled by Rome but also by local authorities. In the time of Jesus there are no records of the Roman currency being so debased. By the crisis of the 3rd century the denarii was still ~50% silver in Rome.
What’s most ironic about all of your resentment towards Rome is that your religion would have wasted away in the Levant had Rome not adopted it.
You have chosen to serve evil. Your retorts are devoid of evidence and your claims are nonsensical. You hate freedom, decency, and humanity and you lust after the slavery, torture, and mass murder of the Romans. You would gleefully nail Jesus to the cross. Repent or be cast out.
Firstly I didn’t think I’d have to list off the achievements of the Roman Empire, if that’s what you mean. There are literally only a handful of civilizations that compare to the innovation and development which occurred in Rome. That’s not an argument I will entertain.
My second claim is just a matter of fact. He used an example from the 4-5th centuries in the western empire which was collapsing at the time, acting as if that was the case for the entire duration of the empire. It’s just not true.
I give my brief thoughts on his feelings about states, patricians and Rome in general. I’m not going to argue whether or not states are abusive or if the patricians were “evil, ugly and corrupt”. It’s resentful nonsense.
You can see pretty much everywhere online that the denarii was still about 75% silver after Nero began the debasement of the currency, in 64 ad.
This guys entire argument is that because Rome decayed and fell it was bad, and therefore states are bad and oppressive. It’s dumb.
And here you come, from left field claiming that I hate freedom, decency, and humanity. You claim I serve evil, and lust after slavery, torture and mass murder of the Romans, but that I would also “gleefully” nail Jesus to a cross.
What are you even talking about? This is horrible, unsubstantiated nonsense.
live in Tanzania now, which is very socialist, but its better off than those nearby countries which are not. As you conclude, every State is socialist, we have to give up a lot to live anywhere, so it just depends on what you are willing to live with. I cannot live with the socialism in the West any longer, and where its headed, that's for sure.
Well said. Socialism is statism; it's just a mater of degree, and also type, for example, there are varying degrees of taxation, currency debasement, regulation, etc. Unfortunately, we can't escape it. People love their oppressors.
Here, we have a saying when dealing with the State which is, ‘there is always another way’ and that is a way to get things done with a bribe outside the State haha. Zimbabwe is even worse and now they are going to a gold currency! If anyone can screw that up though it’s Zim.
Much of what Rome did was capitalist with flecks of what modernity now defines as socialist elements, very similar to the US. Monetary systems themselves are not possible without a centralized authority to make the money, put restrictions on it, guard it, etc. Capitalism is impossible with out some of what is defined now as socialism baked in.
I tend to see words like socialism, communism, and capitalism as terms to divide us, as they all are very similar in their goals, just slightly different methods for empires to rule based on their their position of power and influence over others. The US and UK have engaged at times in heavy amounts of socialism, communism, and capitalism, but they are opportunists first and foremost that don't care what ism they are utilizing as along as it consolidates more power.
Overall I see it more as a problem with social hierarchies and the many implications that come out of that structure. Greco-Roman empires set the stage for a system of dominance that this society directly copied right down to the architecture.
I’d say it’s the opposite: mostly socialism with some freedom. You can’t have a powerful state without a vibrant economy, and you can’t have a vibrant economy without freedom. Your claim about “needing a centralized authority to name money” is not true at all. I can prove you otherwise, but since you made this claim, I wonder what evidence you have to support it other than a first impression.
Well, I'd say you can't have freedom at all with an economy. What is an economy? This is a fabrication in itself of western society. Economies by definition are organized and must have influence to keep it relevant.
As far needing a centralized authority to implement a monetary system - I mean if I create money no one is going to respect it. It takes some enforcement of policy that's backed by violence and threat to give it worth.
If I give a “know it all” vibe then I apologize. It won’t my intention. I do know a lot about economics, though. I have a masters in the subject. Doesn’t mean I know it all, but I do have solid arguments, which means I’m ready to defend my position strongly, maybe that’s why I come across as that. Again apologies.
Every state of the era was basically the same, but none could create order the way the Romans did.
The degeneracy from republic to empire seems pretty par for the course once empires can no longer expand. Plunder was the driving force, and without external plunder one must plunder internally. That's how Malthusian economics works.
In comparison to today's ideals. Did you actually read the essay to the end? The whole point of it is to point out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves "right-wing" or "freedom lovers" who also suffer the cognitive dissonance of idealising the Roman state, while being unable to criticise any of its traits, even the most obviously horrendous ones. They make excuses for them, like you do now. You understand how dangerous this is, and how it plays into the state's totalitarian aspirations, right?
This is anachronistic.
The moderns don’t map to the ancients. Radically different peoples.
Also the Romans didn’t have private property, not as we understand it at all.
Then there’s the concept of sacred Oaths. We dispensed with that… and letcha in on a secret, we seldom believed in sacred or oaths. MONEY. And freedom is don’t touch my money.
Socialism is a Grift before your very eyes. No guesswork. The richest people in America are socialist. Since Rockefeller.
The Romans were no nation of grifters. The Romans had FIDES.
The notion of socialism would have confused then disgusted them, but they had slaves to handle menial labor.
Tell ya what though. We implement Rome’s universal conscription and the people agree to be conscripted for some years at a time then return home, and this actually happens 😂 maybe you’ve got something.
This is simply so out of time as to be absurd, sorry. The Romans weren’t capable of socialism, but no private property rights either.
Everything and nothing was socialized. Simple anachronism.
Thank you for your constructive criticism
Socialism/Communism/Marxism/... has been working great for millennia. "But this time will be different!"
I like how you put those terms together. Despite their different branding, they are indeed the same ideology: totalitarian authoritarianism.
I really see little difference there. These ideologies might be different in theory but they all converge into very similar totalitarian realities.
yes, that's their essence
Many people will have an urge to fight tooth and nail against this interpretation (and some already had), but the author makes good points.
Moreover, it can be argued that the very reason we call empire an empire lies in Rome's protosocialist policies. In the old Republic, 'imperium' was a temporary commission to carry out a specific task, with necessary powers and resources attached; the task was often a military campaign but could as well be something as little as organizing a barbecue party, er, I mean a minor religious feast.
This changed around 687 ab urbe condita (67 BC). Most of the grain distributed in Rome was being delivered by sea by that time; but the sea was full of pirates who (to use modern parlance) threatened the supply chains. An interruption of grain shipments could mean serious unrest, so Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus was given a wide-ranging and somewhat vague imperium to fight the pirates anywhere on the seas and 50 miles inland. Pompey's campaign was surprisingly successful, not only driving back the pirates but bringing Rome a new province of Cilicia. So imperium became a sort of The One Ring, and – look! – about a century later imperium maius was already a permanent attribute of the Roman rulers.
(Side note: Pompey's imperium was not the first of such kind – seven years earlier a similar one had been awarded to Marcus Antonius Creticus, but that guy failed as spectacularly as Pompey succeeded.)
Another side note: we should perhaps also speak of price controls. Diocletian's 301 AD edict, for example.
Good point. I hadn’t included price controls, even through they do fall under central planning.
Yes. The general idea is centralised economic power and social engineering. This is the essence of socialism
The essay is a bit repetitive but I accept a certain amount of repetition for the sake of emphasis. The themes are well developed and the ideas are clearly explained. I think your conclusions are correct.
Rome wasn't worth having. It created very few new things and stole a great many ideas, sculptures, and designs from conquered provinces. It extended power through road building and had problems perceiving travel routes in the absence of roads. So the Roman republic faced war elephants coming out of the Alps in considerable disarray, for example.
Taxes, fees, and caprice made Rome unpleasant for its poor, middle class, artisans, and tradespeople. So in the Fourth and Fifth centuries AD the Goth tribes offered to take ten percent tribute, execute the Roman bureau rats, and cure the virgins, which increasingly was a better deal than 30% Roman taxes and abuse and idiocy. So many towns opened their gates to the "barbarians".
All states are abusive and many of them are socialistic. The divide and conquer policies were perfected by the Roman patrician families that posed as plebian. The evil corrupt, ugly families of the Roman empire fled into the swamps near what is today Venice to keep going after Rome became a frequently sacked city. The aristocracy of Europe is infested with these same scummy control freaks.
Roman coins were so badly reduced in precious metal under Augustus and his successors that when the Pharisees challenged Jesus about taxes he asked for a coin. The coin had the image and name of Caesar and was silver painted onto copper. In saying that people should render unto Caesar "what belongs to Caesar" Jesus is saying that the coin is debased and good only for Roman authorities. Saying that people should render unto God that which belongs to God, Jesus is pointing out that everything belongs to God, the creator of the heavens and the earth.
That's a well-structured and helpful comment. Regarding your last point about Jesus pointing out that everything belongs to God, I had never thought of it that way. Sure makes sense.
Rome created very few new things and stole many ideas??
Laughable. There are few civilizations that can even compare to the achievements of Rome.
“Taxes, fees, and caprice made Rome unpleasant for its poor, middle class, artisans, and tradespeople. So in the Fourth and Fifth centuries AD the Goth tribes offered to take ten percent tribute, execute the Roman bureau rats, and cure the virgins, which increasingly was a better deal than 30% Roman taxes and abuse and idiocy. So many towns opened their gates to the barbarians”
This was not always the case in Rome. Your example is during the collapse of the western empire.
“All states are abusive and many of them are socialistic. The divide and conquer policies were perfected by the Roman patrician families that posed as plebian. The evil corrupt, ugly families of the Roman empire fled into the swamps near what is today Venice to keep going after Rome became a frequently sacked city. The aristocracy of Europe is infested with these same scummy control freaks.”
A lot of resentment here for the state and patricians. Not much to say, it’s disgusting nonsense.
“Roman coins were so badly reduced in precious metal under Augustus and his successors that when the Pharisees challenged Jesus about taxes he asked for a coin. The coin had the image and name of Caesar and was silver painted onto copper. In saying that people should render unto Caesar "what belongs to Caesar" Jesus is saying that the coin is debased and good only for Roman authorities. Saying that people should render unto God that which belongs to God, Jesus is pointing out that everything belongs to God, the creator of the heavens and the earth.”
The eastern side of the empire was very autonomous. Minting was not solely handled by Rome but also by local authorities. In the time of Jesus there are no records of the Roman currency being so debased. By the crisis of the 3rd century the denarii was still ~50% silver in Rome.
What’s most ironic about all of your resentment towards Rome is that your religion would have wasted away in the Levant had Rome not adopted it.
Thank you for proving my point.
lol whatever man. I rest easy knowing deceitful midwits like you will get what is coming to them.
You are exactly the type of closet-gay empire fanboy I wanted to trigger. Thank you.
Meaningless insults and aversion to addressing my response to your argument. You sure showed me! Fuckin moron lol
Yup
You have chosen to serve evil. Your retorts are devoid of evidence and your claims are nonsensical. You hate freedom, decency, and humanity and you lust after the slavery, torture, and mass murder of the Romans. You would gleefully nail Jesus to the cross. Repent or be cast out.
Whoops I got things mixed up and referred to you as “he” thinking the author of the post was the one I was replying to
Without evidence? Nonsensical?
Firstly I didn’t think I’d have to list off the achievements of the Roman Empire, if that’s what you mean. There are literally only a handful of civilizations that compare to the innovation and development which occurred in Rome. That’s not an argument I will entertain.
My second claim is just a matter of fact. He used an example from the 4-5th centuries in the western empire which was collapsing at the time, acting as if that was the case for the entire duration of the empire. It’s just not true.
I give my brief thoughts on his feelings about states, patricians and Rome in general. I’m not going to argue whether or not states are abusive or if the patricians were “evil, ugly and corrupt”. It’s resentful nonsense.
My response about the coins is true.
https://numismatics.org/rome-a-thousand-years-of-monetary-history/
You can see pretty much everywhere online that the denarii was still about 75% silver after Nero began the debasement of the currency, in 64 ad.
This guys entire argument is that because Rome decayed and fell it was bad, and therefore states are bad and oppressive. It’s dumb.
And here you come, from left field claiming that I hate freedom, decency, and humanity. You claim I serve evil, and lust after slavery, torture and mass murder of the Romans, but that I would also “gleefully” nail Jesus to a cross.
What are you even talking about? This is horrible, unsubstantiated nonsense.
The dude who can't stop insulting us unprovoked is going to lecture us about "resentful nonsense." Let your followers see what you are.
Still waiting for your evidence on how the Roman Empire brought more order than its alternative. I'll wait but won't hold my breath.
The Soviet-Roman Empire does look pretty aesthetic, ngl. Can't wait for the Carthaginian Missile Crisis or endless wars in Gaulghanistan.
live in Tanzania now, which is very socialist, but its better off than those nearby countries which are not. As you conclude, every State is socialist, we have to give up a lot to live anywhere, so it just depends on what you are willing to live with. I cannot live with the socialism in the West any longer, and where its headed, that's for sure.
Well said. Socialism is statism; it's just a mater of degree, and also type, for example, there are varying degrees of taxation, currency debasement, regulation, etc. Unfortunately, we can't escape it. People love their oppressors.
Here, we have a saying when dealing with the State which is, ‘there is always another way’ and that is a way to get things done with a bribe outside the State haha. Zimbabwe is even worse and now they are going to a gold currency! If anyone can screw that up though it’s Zim.
I wish the best for African countries. Maybe they can make a breakthrough
Yeah, many good points.
Much of what Rome did was capitalist with flecks of what modernity now defines as socialist elements, very similar to the US. Monetary systems themselves are not possible without a centralized authority to make the money, put restrictions on it, guard it, etc. Capitalism is impossible with out some of what is defined now as socialism baked in.
I tend to see words like socialism, communism, and capitalism as terms to divide us, as they all are very similar in their goals, just slightly different methods for empires to rule based on their their position of power and influence over others. The US and UK have engaged at times in heavy amounts of socialism, communism, and capitalism, but they are opportunists first and foremost that don't care what ism they are utilizing as along as it consolidates more power.
Overall I see it more as a problem with social hierarchies and the many implications that come out of that structure. Greco-Roman empires set the stage for a system of dominance that this society directly copied right down to the architecture.
I’d say it’s the opposite: mostly socialism with some freedom. You can’t have a powerful state without a vibrant economy, and you can’t have a vibrant economy without freedom. Your claim about “needing a centralized authority to name money” is not true at all. I can prove you otherwise, but since you made this claim, I wonder what evidence you have to support it other than a first impression.
Well, I'd say you can't have freedom at all with an economy. What is an economy? This is a fabrication in itself of western society. Economies by definition are organized and must have influence to keep it relevant.
As far needing a centralized authority to implement a monetary system - I mean if I create money no one is going to respect it. It takes some enforcement of policy that's backed by violence and threat to give it worth.
No. An economy is voluntary transactions. Your description of an economy comes from university non sequitur propaganda.
I don't know what's up with your know it all argument style buy I don't care for it much.
If I give a “know it all” vibe then I apologize. It won’t my intention. I do know a lot about economics, though. I have a masters in the subject. Doesn’t mean I know it all, but I do have solid arguments, which means I’m ready to defend my position strongly, maybe that’s why I come across as that. Again apologies.
In comparison to what?
Every state of the era was basically the same, but none could create order the way the Romans did.
The degeneracy from republic to empire seems pretty par for the course once empires can no longer expand. Plunder was the driving force, and without external plunder one must plunder internally. That's how Malthusian economics works.
I'm glad you asked:
In comparison to today's ideals. Did you actually read the essay to the end? The whole point of it is to point out the hypocrisy of those who call themselves "right-wing" or "freedom lovers" who also suffer the cognitive dissonance of idealising the Roman state, while being unable to criticise any of its traits, even the most obviously horrendous ones. They make excuses for them, like you do now. You understand how dangerous this is, and how it plays into the state's totalitarian aspirations, right?