eh, caesar was competent and i think he also had a grasp of why there’s so much god damned tension in roman society and how to alleviate at least some of it.
but yes, late roman republic was under tremendous internal strain and its ruling class kept doubling down on never addressing any of it, at all, ever, until it blew up in their faces.
Modern America is more parallel to the Roman Empire after Constantine than the late republic.
There’s no parallel in America to the split between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, nor any new, ascendant hegemonic religious order. There’s a similarity in the empire over exerting itself, but that’s every empire in its decline phase.
The Empire didn’t immediately splinter when Constantine died.
I wasn’t arguing that the division into the Western and Eastern empires was a splintering; it was an administrative and bureaucratic response to the crises of the third century, and a reflection of the shifting political economy in late antiquity. I just don’t see a good analogy to that in modern America.
Right wingism is not very different from rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire.
The rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire was a consolidation of cultural and political power in an institution that had been vital but decentralized. The pantheon was a constant in Roman life, but there was no Pope of Roman mythology. Each region or town had its own particular version of the mythology and practice, each had a particular god it focused veneration on. Christianity supplanted that with an explicitly hierarchical religion tied to the state.
Conservatism in America isn’t going through that because it’s already a hierarchical movement tied to the state. The centralizing has already been done and has been in place for centuries. If anything, the MAGA movement is less centralized and top down than the preceding neoconservative era. Trump opened up a conservative politics that succeeds on thumbing its nose at the establishment.
There is no real parallel between the late Roman Republic and contemporary America because the methods and means of production are completely different. The American empire is a technocratic empire whose power is based primarily on it’s (now declining) ability to technologically and financially overwhelm it’s opponents using multi-pronged attacks, where a military intervention may fail, bribing internal officials may work, where both those fail, years of propaganda may do the trick, etc.
The Roman Republic was, at it’s rise, successful due to it’s ability to marshall manpower from the massive surplus driven by it’s small holding citizen farmers, who had fought for and won their rights in previous civil conflicts. This more equitable than previously seen before distribution of wealth led to success on the battlefield, as the Romans were able to continue to muster capable armies even after catastrophic defeats. However, their practice of slavery would do them in, as the very free holding farmers that the Republic relied on for it’s tenacity and surplus, would slowly be replaced by slaves brought back from conquests and expansion of the frontiers, thus changing the mode of production from one of primarily farmers to a slave economy, which was much more inefficient from a calorie per acre standpoint, but much more profitable for the noble class of slavers.
This very contradiction is what propelled the political rise of Caesar, as he was able to learn from Cincinnatus and Sulla, both elected dictators who were unable or unwilling to consolidate power, to recognize and play both sides of this political-economic divide. To the slavers, he would promise slaves from his conquests, and to the now dispossessed farmers he would promise land reform and bread. These two are things are, of course, at political-economic odds with each other. One way to temporarily resolve this contradiction then, was to assume a permanent dictatorship and use the military to dictate terms to both classes. This, of course, then eventually lends to its own set of contradictions, and the history of Rome after the Republic is primarily one of inequality, technological stagnation, hardship, and perpetual civil war between different military factions. Imperial Rome spends much more time fighting Romans than it does anyone else.
The U.S. has toyed back and forth between being openly imperialistic or not. However, it has much different material forces at play, with significant bureaucratic and technological investment. Imo, we have already been at a point where Congress essentially defers to the Presidential agenda since about 2000.
However, until we actually fight a war with a near-peer power, the affects of these contradictions will be suffered primarily by the poor. The primary contradiction clearly is between our manufacturing power and financial power, and if we are no longer able to maintain the technological edge that contradiction will have to be resolved one way or another, and that is where America will, at the moment, likely break towards an imperial system.
No problem. I am personally not a huge fan of cross-societal historical comparisons when they aren’t of the same time period, as political forces that seem similar are ultimately different based on their methods of production.
There are certainly lessons to be learned from understanding the end of the Roman Republic, but part of the reason that it went the way it did was to solve the political-economic contradictions that existed within Roman society particularly. Alot of the same historical forces are certainly at play in the U.S. but how they manifest themselves and play out will be particular to our own political-economic contradictions, which differ significantly from that of the Roman Republic, as we are (to a 4th or 5th degree) historical downstream inheritors to their solutions.
An interesting pair of videos to watch regarding the economics of the late Roman Empire, particularly the nucleus of industrialization and mass production:
Semi-related, the weird network of servile techbro apostles around people like Peter Thiel gives heavy Roman patronage vibes. “I help you establish yourself and then you’re my guy for life”.
I’m forever amazed at the parallels between the late Roman Republic and contemporary American politics.
My fear is that this pattern continues, with Trump currently filling the Julius Cesar role
eh, caesar was competent and i think he also had a grasp of why there’s so much god damned tension in roman society and how to alleviate at least some of it.
but yes, late roman republic was under tremendous internal strain and its ruling class kept doubling down on never addressing any of it, at all, ever, until it blew up in their faces.
Can’t wait for the ayatollah make trump to drink molten gold
The late republic also had incredibly competent people who could take up the reins once Caesar got stabbed.
Modern America is more parallel to the Roman Empire after Constantine than the late republic.
There’s no parallel in America to the split between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, nor any new, ascendant hegemonic religious order. There’s a similarity in the empire over exerting itself, but that’s every empire in its decline phase.
The Empire didn’t immediately splinter when Constantine died.
Right wingism is not very different from rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire.
I wasn’t arguing that the division into the Western and Eastern empires was a splintering; it was an administrative and bureaucratic response to the crises of the third century, and a reflection of the shifting political economy in late antiquity. I just don’t see a good analogy to that in modern America.
The rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire was a consolidation of cultural and political power in an institution that had been vital but decentralized. The pantheon was a constant in Roman life, but there was no Pope of Roman mythology. Each region or town had its own particular version of the mythology and practice, each had a particular god it focused veneration on. Christianity supplanted that with an explicitly hierarchical religion tied to the state.
Conservatism in America isn’t going through that because it’s already a hierarchical movement tied to the state. The centralizing has already been done and has been in place for centuries. If anything, the MAGA movement is less centralized and top down than the preceding neoconservative era. Trump opened up a conservative politics that succeeds on thumbing its nose at the establishment.
He seems more like a Sulla, or maybe even Crassus.
Either way, if the Roman Republic analogy holds we’re in for a few more rounds of intensifying civil war over a few decades.
At least we have a goth invasion to look forward to.
There is no real parallel between the late Roman Republic and contemporary America because the methods and means of production are completely different. The American empire is a technocratic empire whose power is based primarily on it’s (now declining) ability to technologically and financially overwhelm it’s opponents using multi-pronged attacks, where a military intervention may fail, bribing internal officials may work, where both those fail, years of propaganda may do the trick, etc.
The Roman Republic was, at it’s rise, successful due to it’s ability to marshall manpower from the massive surplus driven by it’s small holding citizen farmers, who had fought for and won their rights in previous civil conflicts. This more equitable than previously seen before distribution of wealth led to success on the battlefield, as the Romans were able to continue to muster capable armies even after catastrophic defeats. However, their practice of slavery would do them in, as the very free holding farmers that the Republic relied on for it’s tenacity and surplus, would slowly be replaced by slaves brought back from conquests and expansion of the frontiers, thus changing the mode of production from one of primarily farmers to a slave economy, which was much more inefficient from a calorie per acre standpoint, but much more profitable for the noble class of slavers.
This very contradiction is what propelled the political rise of Caesar, as he was able to learn from Cincinnatus and Sulla, both elected dictators who were unable or unwilling to consolidate power, to recognize and play both sides of this political-economic divide. To the slavers, he would promise slaves from his conquests, and to the now dispossessed farmers he would promise land reform and bread. These two are things are, of course, at political-economic odds with each other. One way to temporarily resolve this contradiction then, was to assume a permanent dictatorship and use the military to dictate terms to both classes. This, of course, then eventually lends to its own set of contradictions, and the history of Rome after the Republic is primarily one of inequality, technological stagnation, hardship, and perpetual civil war between different military factions. Imperial Rome spends much more time fighting Romans than it does anyone else.
The U.S. has toyed back and forth between being openly imperialistic or not. However, it has much different material forces at play, with significant bureaucratic and technological investment. Imo, we have already been at a point where Congress essentially defers to the Presidential agenda since about 2000.
However, until we actually fight a war with a near-peer power, the affects of these contradictions will be suffered primarily by the poor. The primary contradiction clearly is between our manufacturing power and financial power, and if we are no longer able to maintain the technological edge that contradiction will have to be resolved one way or another, and that is where America will, at the moment, likely break towards an imperial system.
Thanks for the write up. Lots to take in
No problem. I am personally not a huge fan of cross-societal historical comparisons when they aren’t of the same time period, as political forces that seem similar are ultimately different based on their methods of production.
There are certainly lessons to be learned from understanding the end of the Roman Republic, but part of the reason that it went the way it did was to solve the political-economic contradictions that existed within Roman society particularly. Alot of the same historical forces are certainly at play in the U.S. but how they manifest themselves and play out will be particular to our own political-economic contradictions, which differ significantly from that of the Roman Republic, as we are (to a 4th or 5th degree) historical downstream inheritors to their solutions.
An interesting pair of videos to watch regarding the economics of the late Roman Empire, particularly the nucleus of industrialization and mass production:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uqPlOAH85o
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E5HDQUuI6_E
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2:
Semi-related, the weird network of servile techbro apostles around people like Peter Thiel gives heavy Roman patronage vibes. “I help you establish yourself and then you’re my guy for life”.