Discussion of thr Cycle of History. (Or is America doomed to suffer under an American Ceasar?)

Carrot of Truth said:
I think the US is more akin to the Roman Republic.
Click to expand...
StormEagle said:
Right now we’re some bastard love child of Weimar Germany and pre-civil war Spain.
Click to expand...
I think analogy to previous times can have it's place, but that getting overly attached to it does nothing but cloud and limit thinking. The world in which the American state exists is so wildly divergent from what came befrore that even if we pretend that it were a perfect match for some earlier party in terms of demographics, social pressures, domestic and international objectives, etc. (Which it's not.) then it would obviously have little utilitarian value as a predictive model.
King Arts said:
Except we are an oligarchy while they were an actual democracy.
Click to expand...
Or we could describe it as a pseudo-democratic, oligarchical socialist repulic. Or a monotheistic-agnostic pseudo feudal confederacy. Or as a bunch of other different labels. With the ultimate point being that it is what it is, and neither such like nor it's times have been seen exactly before so an excessive adhesion to labels and intellectually lazy analysis based on such is largely meaningless.
 
Carrot of Truth said:
Late Roman Republic is a pretty apt comparison, their political systems were also infested with worthless parasites. It's sort of what led to Caesars rise to power.
Click to expand...
Did they have anything akin to modern mass media or social media? Did they have anything like the racial dynamics of the modern US? How would you rate the comparative opportunities for social mobility? Come to that, do they have a similar situation vis-à-vis immigration and emigration? What about comparing the global political landscape in which they operated? In short... Is it actually a good comparison, or are you simply focusing on a handful of criteria and pretending that similarities there suggest things entirely unrelated or only partially so to those similarities?
 
Megadeath said:
Did they have anything akin to modern mass media or social media?
Click to expand...

They didn't need it; the political system of Rome ensured that all central decisions were made in the city, and it was primarily the urban poor (and the commoners of surrounding regions) whose anger could critically endanger the ruling elite. Since these were always within quick word-of-mouth distance, no modern mass media were needed to stir anything up or spread news to the relevant parties.

(Additionally, within the city itself, Rome did have a fairy advanced news network; particularly in the form of 'broadcasters' of their day: men who held speeches that you had to pay to attend, in which they relayed the daily news. Some even held multiple 'updates' a day, and worked via subscription.)


Megadeath said:
Did they have anything like the racial dynamics of the modern US? How would you rate the comparative opportunities for social mobility?
Click to expand...

Yes. Most especially the conflict surrounding the Socii, who were often in a disadvantaged position. These may be compared to certain minorities in present-day America. Note that the Gracchan populist movement mostly catered to the poor citizens of Rome, even using such arguments that the enfranchisement of the Socii would disadvantage these urban poor.

This situation changed when the reformer Marius enfranchised the Socii and created a broader base for a populist movement that united the poor working citizenry (both the old and the newly-enfranchised) that could endanger the ruling elite.

By my estimation, MAGA is comparable to the Gracchan phase (note that the Gracchi were, not without reason, dismissed as loutish and deplorable upstarts, and were consistently accused of corruption and vice by the "well-mannered" elite.) In the same way, I suspect that if a populist can unite the black and hispanic working class behind his cause, you have the basis for the American "Populares", and thus for eventual Caesarism.


Megadeath said:
Come to that, do they have a similar situation vis-à-vis immigration and emigration?
Click to expand...

Yes. Due to Rome's informal empire-building (they called it a coalition, with "allies" and "friends", but it was clear who was the top dog: cf. NATO) even during its late Republican period, there was a major influx of non-Romans/non-citizens. This greatly worried the citizenry, who feared dilution. Cultural influences were also a source of great concern: see Cato's consistent warnings about the "degenerate" influences of Hellenism, which would turn good Roman men weak and effeminate.

Any of that recognisable to you in today's context?


Megadeath said:
What about comparing the global political landscape in which they operated?
Click to expand...

An ascendant Republic has defeated major regional rivals for hegemony over the world-system it inhabits. In Rome's case, Macedon and Carthage, culminating in the razing of entire cities in unprecedented displays of destructive power. In America's case, Germany and Japan... culminating in the razing of entire cities in unprecedented displays of destructive power.

In the wake of this, the victorious Republic faces a great enemy to the East, which will consistently threaten that side of its world-system and remain its rival thereafter. The threat intially has a centre of gravity somewhat closer to the Eastern border, in the shape of the Seleukids for Rome and the USSR for the West. However, in both cases, this power is already in decline. (Indeed, in both cases, that power partially inhabits the fringes of the world-system that belongs to the Classical/Western world, respctively. As it crumbles, Rome and the West, respectively, bring these fringe regions within their own sphere. In fact, the Ukraine War is the culmination of this process for us.)

The fall of these decaying powers is no reprieve: merely the replacement by more dangerous rivals. For Rome, the ascendant Parthians. For America, this is China. In both cases, these are the "rival civilisation" that will be the eternal counterpart.

In the me near-by regions between "us" and "them", you see fierce regional powers ambitiously exploit the implosion of the Seleukids, and likewise we may expect this with the collapse of Russia. Historically, this was the Mithridatic kingdom of Pontos. In our near future, I strongly suspect that our supposed "ally" Turkey will become an enemy of opportunity.



Megadeath said:
In short... Is it actually a good comparison, or are you simply focusing on a handful of criteria and pretending that similarities there suggest things entirely unrelated or only partially so to those similarities?
Click to expand...

Well, in short: the comparison is not only good, but from a "broad view" of history, extremely obvious. There are also far more points of comparison than I have mentioned here, since I'm just replying to the points chosen by you. (For instance, the matter of slavery in America and the conflict of the orders in Rome had many of the same underlying motivations, being essentially a conflict between the interests of the old landed elite and those of the new urban money-elite. Even the time-frame in which these developments -- and all I have mentioned above -- occurred match up remarkably closely.)

History does not repeat exactly, but it sure as hell does rhyme. And the rhyme scheme is remarkably consistent, and pretty predictable. You can't say for sure what word comes next, but you can sure tell what sort of sound it'll make.
 
Skallagrim said:
They didn't need it; the political system of Rome ensured that all central decisions were made in the city, and it was primarily the urban poor (and the commoners of surrounding regions) whose anger could critically endanger the ruling elite. Since these were always within quick word-of-mouth distance, no modern mass media were needed to stir anything up or spread news to the relevant parties.

(Additionally, within the city itself, Rome did have a fairy advanced news network; particularly in the form of 'broadcasters' of their day: men who held speeches that you had to pay to attend, in which they relayed the daily news. Some even held multiple 'updates' a day, and worked via subscription.)




Yes. Most especially the conflict surrounding the Socii, who were often in a disadvantaged position. These may be compared to certain minorities in present-day America. Note that the Gracchan populist movement mostly catered to the poor citizens of Rome, even using such arguments that the enfranchisement of the Socii would disadvantage these urban poor.

This situation changed when the reformer Marius enfranchised the Socii and created a broader base for a populist movement that united the poor working citizenry (both the old and the newly-enfranchised) that could endanger the ruling elite.

By my estimation, MAGA is comparable to the Gracchan phase (note that the Gracchi were, not without reason, dismissed as loutish and deplorable upstarts, and were consistently accused of corruption and vice by the "well-mannered" elite.) In the same way, I suspect that if a populist can unite the black and hispanic working class behind his cause, you have the basis for the American "Populares", and thus for eventual Caesarism.




Cato's consistent warnings about the "degenerate" influences of Hellenism, which would turn good Roman men weak and effeminate.
Click to expand...
'
I honestly think Cato had a point Hellinism did have some negative impacts on roman culture.
 
King Arts said:
Like?
Click to expand...

No offense to the greeks but when you live in your head too muchand divorce yourself from the real you end up making bad decisions.

While Stocism was a workable philosphy and ended up being the philosphy of rome you had a bunch of others that didn't work out so great in practice. Take for example Cyncism, which pretty much denigrated the material world while you shouldn't get hypermaterialist going to far in the other direction is a disaster for a civilization, or you get hedonism by Epirus which was about avoiding pain.

But life is pain and sometimes you need pain to grow to suffer in order to survive and of course many of his future followers took it as a point of just enjoying pleasure which led to roman orgies. So yeah Hellenism did have some bad effects on the roman world.


Like wise europes influence brought in the frankford school which lead to the current Woke movement which is making our lives fucking hell right now. Really the comparison to Greece and Rome with Europe and America is a good one both europe and greece basically committed cultural sucide and ended up under the agiess of the other and dealt with it by cultural posturing.

Both Romans and Americans are very annoyed at said cultural posturing by the way, if that was your goal euros to annoy us? Mission complete.
 
Skallagrim said:
They didn't need it; the political system of Rome ensured that all central decisions were made in the city, and it was primarily the urban poor (and the commoners of surrounding regions) whose anger could critically endanger the ruling elite. Since these were always within quick word-of-mouth distance, no modern mass media were needed to stir anything up or spread news to the relevant parties.

(Additionally, within the city itself, Rome did have a fairy advanced news network; particularly in the form of 'broadcasters' of their day: men who held speeches that you had to pay to attend, in which they relayed the daily news. Some even held multiple 'updates' a day, and worked via subscription.)




Yes. Most especially the conflict surrounding the Socii, who were often in a disadvantaged position. These may be compared to certain minorities in present-day America. Note that the Gracchan populist movement mostly catered to the poor citizens of Rome, even using such arguments that the enfranchisement of the Socii would disadvantage these urban poor.

This situation changed when the reformer Marius enfranchised the Socii and created a broader base for a populist movement that united the poor working citizenry (both the old and the newly-enfranchised) that could endanger the ruling elite.

By my estimation, MAGA is comparable to the Gracchan phase (note that the Gracchi were, not without reason, dismissed as loutish and deplorable upstarts, and were consistently accused of corruption and vice by the "well-mannered" elite.) In the same way, I suspect that if a populist can unite the black and hispanic working class behind his cause, you have the basis for the American "Populares", and thus for eventual Caesarism.




Yes. Due to Rome's informal empire-building (they called it a coalition, with "allies" and "friends", but it was clear who was the top dog: cf. NATO) even during its late Republican period, there was a major influx of non-Romans/non-citizens. This greatly worried the citizenry, who feared dilution. Cultural influences were also a source of great concern: see Cato's consistent warnings about the "degenerate" influences of Hellenism, which would turn good Roman men weak and effeminate.

Any of that recognisable to you in today's context?




An ascendant Republic has defeated major regional rivals for hegemony over the world-system it inhabits. In Rome's case, Macedon and Carthage, culminating in the razing of entire cities in unprecedented displays of destructive power. In America's case, Germany and Japan... culminating in the razing of entire cities in unprecedented displays of destructive power.

In the wake of this, the victorious Republic faces a great enemy to the East, which will consistently threaten that side of its world-system and remain its rival thereafter. The threat intially has a centre of gravity somewhat closer to the Eastern border, in the shape of the Seleukids for Rome and the USSR for the West. However, in both cases, this power is already in decline. (Indeed, in both cases, that power partially inhabits the fringes of the world-system that belongs to the Classical/Western world, respctively. As it crumbles, Rome and the West, respectively, bring these fringe regions within their own sphere. In fact, the Ukraine War is the culmination of this process for us.)

The fall of these decaying powers is no reprieve: merely the replacement by more dangerous rivals. For Rome, the ascendant Parthians. For America, this is China. In both cases, these are the "rival civilisation" that will be the eternal counterpart.

In the me near-by regions between "us" and "them", you see fierce regional powers ambitiously exploit the implosion of the Seleukids, and likewise we may expect this with the collapse of Russia. Historically, this was the Mithridatic kingdom of Pontos. In our near future, I strongly suspect that our supposed "ally" Turkey will become an enemy of opportunity.





Well, in short: the comparison is not only good, but from a "broad view" of history, extremely obvious. There are also far more points of comparison than I have mentioned here, since I'm just replying to the points chosen by you. (For instance, the matter of slavery in America and the conflict of the orders in Rome had many of the same underlying motivations, being essentially a conflict between the interests of the old landed elite and those of the new urban money-elite. Even the time-frame in which these developments -- and all I have mentioned above -- occurred match up remarkably closely.)

History does not repeat exactly, but it sure as hell does rhyme. And the rhyme scheme is remarkably consistent, and pretty predictable. You can't say for sure what word comes next, but you can sure tell what sort of sound it'll make.
Click to expand...
Rome didn't have nukes, didn't have a space program, didn't have an entire continent effectively to themselves, didn't have global instantaneous comms, global persistent recon assets, didn't have Hollywood/mass media marketing across the whole damn world (Roman orators inside Rome itself getting paid for speaking is not the same as New York Times or Washington Post having global reach and impact), and didn't have maps without 'here be dragons' on them at the edges.

The idea the US is some copy of Rome or of some past empire/nation, and that as such it's history and future fate can be easily predicted by mapping past events onto the current time (events thousands of years remove, I might add) is...it's foolishness born of a misunderstanding of how very, very different the world and society is now.

Trying to equate the US to Rome is a shortcut that makes people feel 'historically educated and insightful' among certain groups, and let's Euro's try to pretend the US is nothing new and they know what it's fate will be.

Even comparing the US to Spain before it's civil war is less than useful, except in comparing relative tech advancements in the decades since.

Trying to just map ancient European history on the current US society, and analyze it that way, is judging the quality and future of a potato plant based on how an apple tree is doing and has done in the past.

Edit: Illusions about what the US is, like the illusions about us being a new Rome, and what the US can be compared to do to that, are part of why the elite hate Trump so much and are doing this; he caused them to drop the mask, and now they cannot go back to boiling the frogs.
 
Bacle said:
Rome didn't have nukes, didn't have a space program, didn't have an entire continent effectively to themselves, didn't have global instantaneous comms, global persistent recon assets, didn't have Hollywood/mass media marketing across the whole damn world (Roman orators inside Rome itself getting paid for speaking is not the same as New York Times or Washington Post having global reach and impact), and didn't have maps without 'here be dragons' on them at the edges.

The idea the US is some copy of Rome or of some past empire/nation, and that as such it's history and future fate can be easily predicted by mapping past events onto the current time (events thousands of years remove, I might add) is...it's foolishness born of a misunderstanding of how very, very different the world and society is now.

Trying to equate the US to Rome is a shortcut that makes people feel 'historically educated and insightful' among certain groups, and let's Euro's try to pretend the US is nothing new and they know what it's fate will be.

Even comparing the US to Spain before it's civil war is less than useful, except in comparing relative tech advancements in the decades since.

Trying to just map ancient European history on the current US society, and analyze it that way, is judging the quality and future of a potato plant based on how an apple tree is doing and has done in the past.

Edit: Illusions about what the US is, like the illusions about us being a new Rome, and what the US can be compared to do to that, are part of why the elite hate Trump so much and are doing this; he caused them to drop the mask, and now they cannot go back to boiling the frogs.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised how little a change of instruments changes a tune.
 
Cherico said:
You would be surprised how little a change of instruments changes a tune.
Click to expand...
...the US and our history/future are not a 'tune' the Romans or any other society ever sung; we are something new, a great experiment that had never been tried before.

To limit our world view to the 'cycles of history' bullshit is ignoring that we live in a very, very different world now than any society that had ever come before us has known.

We are at the bleeding edge of civilizational and social advancement, we are unique in what the US is trying to be, and Old World and Ancient World do not even have anything like us, no matter how much they like the illusion that we are just another 'cycle of empire' in process.

Looking to examples and ideas about society and the future from modern pop culture, which understand and deals with the modern world and likely future, is more useful than waiting for a Caesar or Cinninatus.

People would be better served watching/reading/playing The Expanse, Ghost in the Shell, Fallout, and 1984 to get a idea how to deal with the issues of today and the future, instead of picking up a Roman history book and thinking we are in the same 'cycle'.

Edit: The whole 'cycles of history' meme is also part of why so many people tried to get Trump to do stuff that was utlimately counter-productive; trying accelerationist shit to bring home a new 'Caesar' in Trump completely backfired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top