You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah, because everybody knows the obvious answer. It's untethered capitalism. And no it hasn't always been that way. Politicians weren't always whores for the rich. That's a rather recent development that can absolutely be stopped by the will of the people.
As much as I respect your argument; the Romans. Or any civilisation really. It literally has always been that way.
I don't know enough about Roman politics to contradict but "any civilisation really" is definitely too broad of a stroke.
Greed and corruption has been around for as long as land and money have.
Sure. But it only really becomes a problem in very large communities. A chieftain overseeing 50-100 villagers isn't as easily corrupted.
At that point, the scale is just different. That's when the brother of the chief gets to build his new hut on the nice hill.
Lol, that's the mildest form of corruption I can imagine.
But do you really think a village has zoning laws in the first place?
At that scale, it's also much easier to just remove the chief's son from his hut on the "nice hill". And the chief along with him. Scale being the key factor is the essence of my argument.
Are you implying that the US, and the Roman's, never had a period of growth and expansion that wasn't late stage capitalist rot?
The comment isn't saying this never happens really, it's saying it doesn't have to. This is capitalism with no guardrails.
The US and Rom were always run by and for the Ruling Classes never for the people.
Before Caesar, Rome actually had checks and balances to keep one person from amassing too much influence. For example, they had two consuls, which was the highest political position at the time and acted like as the heads of state.
Until Caesar fucked up those systems by literally declaring himself "dictator for life". So really, it's not always been this way, it's usually just a few individuals that keep fucking it up for everyone else. Until they end up with a knife in their back.
There were substantial conflicts between rich and poor Romans well before the end of the Republic. It was not uncommon for a lower class Roman to go off and fight with the army only to come home and find some rich fuck effectively squatting on his land.
This was turning into something of a large scale crisis 60+ years before Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. At the same time, politics was dominated by the wealthy and/or those who were successful military leaders.
The Republic didn't really have "checks and balsnces" in some cases so much as "social conventions". More a common understanding that something is just not done. They were actually rather Ill equipped to deal with individuals who had a thirst for power. Tiberius Gracchus, who served as Tribune, gave away lots of state owned land to some of the poorer Romans. He did so without consulting the Senate which raised a lot of eyebrows. When he attempted to stand for a second term as Tribune in 133 B.C. -- which was just "not done" -- the Senate responded by murdering him.
Tiberius' brother, was elected as Tribune. He went further than Tiberius and sponsored a whole bunch of legislation which would have benefited poorer Romans. The Senate responded by murdering him as well. Over the next few decades, there were a handful of successful military leaders who clamored for more and more power. At the same time, the public was growing increasingly dissatisfied with the Republican government.
Julius Caesar was smart enough to recognize that the Republic was becoming frail and ballsy enough to give it a good shove down the stairs. In 82 B.C. he marched his legion into Rome -- a clear act of treason -- and effectively declared himself dictator. He was met with little resistance. He was viewed as a champion of the poor in some ways and, based on the way the Republic treated poor Romans, they were probably looking for a champion.
There were others who wanted to wrest Caesar's newly acquired power from him. Pompey, another successful Roman general, went to war with Caesar. Pompey had the support of the wealthy Aristocrats. Pompey lost.
The Senate murdered Caesar in 44 B.C. Caesar's supporters responded by killing his assassins. Then they turned on each other. That marked the beginning of another civil war from which Octavian, Julius' nephew and adopted son, ultimately emerged victorious. By then, the Republic was effectively dead.
To make a long story short, Julius Caesar didn't break the system. It was already broken. He managed to exploit it further than than anyone else had up until then but there were glaring cracks in the foundation of the Republic that directly contributed to it's demise. The imbalance of power between the elite and the poor was definitely a big "crack".
Thank you, that was a fascinating read! Sounds in some ways eerily similar with the direction we are going down today…
The Roman and the Greek "Democracies" where only for the slave Owners. It was always like this. But they can be overthrown.
As much as I respect your argument; the Romans. Or any civilisation really. It literally has always been that way.
[Citation needed]