I've just read the book discussed in that link, as it happens. It's excellent (I've just downloaded the podcast, which is highly regarded) but it led me to somewhat different conclusions:
1) The parasite classes win most of the struggles within every large society and ALL of the wars. They come up on top, once again imperiling the society within a generation or at most two, after even modest reforms. Note that this happened in the Soviet Union, too, after a parasite-swap. (See also, China's princelings.) Marxist rhetoric isn't a magic spell, either. For a long time, Rome's opponents were even more parasite-dominated, and this helped Rome to survive more than its own virtues did.
The book "How Asia Works" reinforces this lesson, saying (with much detail) that only the discipline of forced exporting of goods has limited uber-corruption within nations, even in our own time. Not laws, custom, or internal structures. Terrifying book.
Rome wasn't markedly less corrupt or egalitarian, early in its history (when the franchise was restricted to the city itself!) - it's more that its opponents were either less developed societies, then; or even more corrupt and parasite-ridden than Rome was when they happened to cross swords.
2) You can't set out to consciously reform society and get that result, at any sacrifice; both because 1), and because your reforms are probably ahistorical and an equally bad idea (I'm looking at you, Sulla, etc, etc.) You might put 'em in place, but dare to die and those changes will be quickly reversed, because you were an idiot, or because money. Marginal changes (such as once again enforcing laws vs monopoly/extending market power/restraint of trade) are possible and desirable: but also temporary. A strong monarchy can provide an exceptional century, but!; if you roll "five good Emperors" don't be surprised if you roll "five terrible Emperors" right afterward.
3) Technological change does survive - and it's better being poor now even than five decades ago, esp re entertainment and education-wise, because tech. And way better than a couple millennia ago. So, Go science and research, and Go tech. Go art too, that can also survive, now and then. Fund all this, and don't over-institutionalize 'em (as we have)!
4) Paradoxically, 3) - tech advance - while helpful in the long run, also makes more vicious parasitism likely in the short term: because anything that makes society a lot wealthier (such as final victory in the Punic Wars) allows worse parasitism without revolt. Oil nations suffer from this acutely in our own time.
5) Mores (latin for norms): Strong restraining and egalitarian mores can survive for generations only within a parasitical class that can only continue to exist if those mores also persist, keeping others down. The citizens of Rome rich and poor, were for a very long time before citizenship was finally extended to the Latins, just such a class, dominating and exploiting the Peninsula. A citizen might be poor, but they were also in the right place, and their sons and daughters had a good chance to do well off the crumbs from rich tables. But the massive extension of the vote outside Rome that Sulla entrenched also guaranteed the dissolution of previous norms. Restraint toward other Romans no longer served a practical purpose.
Similarly, after WWII the U.S. (while ruling benignly by any historical comparison, including Britain) exploited allied nations (and captured/stolen IP that it didn't share) far more than it is ready to acknowledge. That edge is gone, so without being able to exploit other allied nations, the U.S. elite can only exploit its own citizens, now - therefore goodbye to any norms that used to get in the way of that.
> The parasite classes win most of the struggles within every large society and ALL of the wars.
It's hard to gather any lesson about this from ancient history, because parasitism was literally everywhere before the industrial age. It's only well into the 18th century that an overall elite class (as opposed to individual craftsmen or providers of specialized services) could emerge which would potentially be putting most of its efforts into actual wealth creation, rather than parasitism.
> You can't set out to consciously reform society and get that result, at any sacrifice
Again, probably true, back then (any social reform would amount to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic - there just was little or no ability for actual growth) but not today. The 1980s neoliberal reforms encompassed much of the Western and ultimately of the non-Western world, were highly successful, and are apparently here to stick. And they were very much the result of purposeful social reform!
Even back then, the republican form of government was very much supported by conscious reflection about how it was supposed to work, and it arguably kept the Romans out of self-inflicted trouble for 500 years - which was probably as much as one could ask for, back then! (E.g. since you couldn't create much new wealth, the next best was to at least refrain from destroying what wealth and successful social organization you had!)
Again, I recommend Mike Duncan's book, "The Storm Before the Storm: The Beginning of the End of the Roman Republic." It details many, many cycles of the same phenomenon, and not just in Roman society. The truth is, it's hard NOT to make some rather firm generalizations from reading a lot of history (or anthropology.) There's lots of variation, but the themes that derive from Darwin's Spotlight: namely reproduction/sexual selection and survival, are extremely reliable.
Re elite classes, Roman economic history shows that the Gini coefficient back then was remarkably high. In the book I mentioned just reading, a contemporary famously says that only 2,000 people in Roman society - at that moment in time - owned productive land. The elite were agrarian (their wealth was) until mid-nineteenth century Britain. But they funded education and public libraries (say, in the baths.) If you think today's elite are different because they are mostly creating wealth, that's just not what Wall Street does, and it's obvious from research that finance, while capturing immense riches, actually diminishes innovation. Elon gets a lot of press because he is the exception, not the rule.
Neoliberal reforms - although I've been given that label at times (with considerable opprobrium), you'd have to specify what is sticking (or a reform.) If you mean global trade, the aforementioned book "How Asia Works" has convinced me the current reversal isn't a blip - it's impossible to police subsidization (he gives endless examples) so free trade isn't possible, much less sustainable. The tech gains in developing countries should persist, but the current system of trade is dissolving now.
"kept out of trouble", no, the bloody revolutions (mostly attempted) tended to come every ten to twenty years. This was a cycle in which the Republic regularly went from "in name only, pretty much" to "partly or mostly true," and back again.
I do get from your comment that we should probably be making a more conscious attempt to focus attention and acclaim on creators and funders of creation, particularly of technology and science. From the perspective of future generations, they will be "the elite that actually mattered."
It's probably worth noting that Rome was located at a profound "pinch point," a singular easy crossing of the Tiber, in a country with a lot of mountain obstacles. This inevitably made it a trading power right from the start. Something that could have reduced corruption a bit by encouraging exports (if "How Asia Works" is right.) Straddling a great river also made it far more defensible, since besieging Rome was very difficult indeed. You'd have to travel a long way upstream to get an army across.
For me the biggest similarities is how peculiarities of the political system are used more and more as weapons against the political enemy instead of behaving according to some unspoken agreement or the way of the ancients as the romans Called it.
In Roman times it was the use of tribunate powers and circumventing the senate.
In the US today it is gerrymandering, filibusters and not allowing votes on the Supreme Court nominations.
This kind of behavior can be very divisive politically, making the other side into a real enemy instead of merely and opponent one will need to work with again. Interstingly in Roman history it was basically a Democrat using these powers for true social reform that tipped the republic. So if you elect a new Obama that is worth the hype and he actually does too much for the poor and he then gets killed by the Republicans. Then you might be out of luck.
I don't know if I would draw a particularly strong parallel between Julius Caesar and August Caesar in the Roman column and the current administration in the other column.
I don’t think the parallel there is necessarily the one we should care about. The article and the book author both talk about economic inequality and loss of faith in public institutions to solve their problems.
I agree, it isn't a straightforward comparison. Suspect the USA see more and more demagogues/populists as the years go on (cue Idiocracy comparison), but right now we are in early days of decay. As the author of the book says, we can still walk back from the edge.
I really don't see Trump crucifying a slave ever 75 feet over a hundred miles. In fact I can't imagine him walking 100 miles -- and that's a long trip for a golf cart.
Readit News
Compare this article: http://time.com/4986516/ancient-rome-comparison-mike-duncan/
I've just read the book discussed in that link, as it happens. It's excellent (I've just downloaded the podcast, which is highly regarded) but it led me to somewhat different conclusions:
1) The parasite classes win most of the struggles within every large society and ALL of the wars. They come up on top, once again imperiling the society within a generation or at most two, after even modest reforms. Note that this happened in the Soviet Union, too, after a parasite-swap. (See also, China's princelings.) Marxist rhetoric isn't a magic spell, either. For a long time, Rome's opponents were even more parasite-dominated, and this helped Rome to survive more than its own virtues did.
The book "How Asia Works" reinforces this lesson, saying (with much detail) that only the discipline of forced exporting of goods has limited uber-corruption within nations, even in our own time. Not laws, custom, or internal structures. Terrifying book.
Rome wasn't markedly less corrupt or egalitarian, early in its history (when the franchise was restricted to the city itself!) - it's more that its opponents were either less developed societies, then; or even more corrupt and parasite-ridden than Rome was when they happened to cross swords.
2) You can't set out to consciously reform society and get that result, at any sacrifice; both because 1), and because your reforms are probably ahistorical and an equally bad idea (I'm looking at you, Sulla, etc, etc.) You might put 'em in place, but dare to die and those changes will be quickly reversed, because you were an idiot, or because money. Marginal changes (such as once again enforcing laws vs monopoly/extending market power/restraint of trade) are possible and desirable: but also temporary. A strong monarchy can provide an exceptional century, but!; if you roll "five good Emperors" don't be surprised if you roll "five terrible Emperors" right afterward.
3) Technological change does survive - and it's better being poor now even than five decades ago, esp re entertainment and education-wise, because tech. And way better than a couple millennia ago. So, Go science and research, and Go tech. Go art too, that can also survive, now and then. Fund all this, and don't over-institutionalize 'em (as we have)!
4) Paradoxically, 3) - tech advance - while helpful in the long run, also makes more vicious parasitism likely in the short term: because anything that makes society a lot wealthier (such as final victory in the Punic Wars) allows worse parasitism without revolt. Oil nations suffer from this acutely in our own time.
5) Mores (latin for norms): Strong restraining and egalitarian mores can survive for generations only within a parasitical class that can only continue to exist if those mores also persist, keeping others down. The citizens of Rome rich and poor, were for a very long time before citizenship was finally extended to the Latins, just such a class, dominating and exploiting the Peninsula. A citizen might be poor, but they were also in the right place, and their sons and daughters had a good chance to do well off the crumbs from rich tables. But the massive extension of the vote outside Rome that Sulla entrenched also guaranteed the dissolution of previous norms. Restraint toward other Romans no longer served a practical purpose.
Similarly, after WWII the U.S. (while ruling benignly by any historical comparison, including Britain) exploited allied nations (and captured/stolen IP that it didn't share) far more than it is ready to acknowledge. That edge is gone, so without being able to exploit other allied nations, the U.S. elite can only exploit its own citizens, now - therefore goodbye to any norms that used to get in the way of that.
It's hard to gather any lesson about this from ancient history, because parasitism was literally everywhere before the industrial age. It's only well into the 18th century that an overall elite class (as opposed to individual craftsmen or providers of specialized services) could emerge which would potentially be putting most of its efforts into actual wealth creation, rather than parasitism.
> You can't set out to consciously reform society and get that result, at any sacrifice
Again, probably true, back then (any social reform would amount to rearranging the chairs on the Titanic - there just was little or no ability for actual growth) but not today. The 1980s neoliberal reforms encompassed much of the Western and ultimately of the non-Western world, were highly successful, and are apparently here to stick. And they were very much the result of purposeful social reform!
Even back then, the republican form of government was very much supported by conscious reflection about how it was supposed to work, and it arguably kept the Romans out of self-inflicted trouble for 500 years - which was probably as much as one could ask for, back then! (E.g. since you couldn't create much new wealth, the next best was to at least refrain from destroying what wealth and successful social organization you had!)
Re elite classes, Roman economic history shows that the Gini coefficient back then was remarkably high. In the book I mentioned just reading, a contemporary famously says that only 2,000 people in Roman society - at that moment in time - owned productive land. The elite were agrarian (their wealth was) until mid-nineteenth century Britain. But they funded education and public libraries (say, in the baths.) If you think today's elite are different because they are mostly creating wealth, that's just not what Wall Street does, and it's obvious from research that finance, while capturing immense riches, actually diminishes innovation. Elon gets a lot of press because he is the exception, not the rule.
Neoliberal reforms - although I've been given that label at times (with considerable opprobrium), you'd have to specify what is sticking (or a reform.) If you mean global trade, the aforementioned book "How Asia Works" has convinced me the current reversal isn't a blip - it's impossible to police subsidization (he gives endless examples) so free trade isn't possible, much less sustainable. The tech gains in developing countries should persist, but the current system of trade is dissolving now.
"kept out of trouble", no, the bloody revolutions (mostly attempted) tended to come every ten to twenty years. This was a cycle in which the Republic regularly went from "in name only, pretty much" to "partly or mostly true," and back again.
I do get from your comment that we should probably be making a more conscious attempt to focus attention and acclaim on creators and funders of creation, particularly of technology and science. From the perspective of future generations, they will be "the elite that actually mattered."
In Roman times it was the use of tribunate powers and circumventing the senate. In the US today it is gerrymandering, filibusters and not allowing votes on the Supreme Court nominations.
This kind of behavior can be very divisive politically, making the other side into a real enemy instead of merely and opponent one will need to work with again. Interstingly in Roman history it was basically a Democrat using these powers for true social reform that tipped the republic. So if you elect a new Obama that is worth the hype and he actually does too much for the poor and he then gets killed by the Republicans. Then you might be out of luck.