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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.