Why do ANCAPS and fascists love this guy? Julius Caesar's political actions were characteristically socialistic with a heaping portion of bad ass militancy. They didn't have Marxism back then, but if they did Julius Caesar would have unironically been the first Stalin.
*In Julius Caesar's era the Roman Senate had Optimates (pro-oligarch and pro-aristocrats) and Populares (pro-Pleb and pro-Poor)
Other urls found in this thread:
gen.lib.rus.ec
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
press-pubs.uchicago.edu
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Because fascists, due to being dropped at birth 1,488 times, cannot imagine an "alpha" and military male who is anything other than to the right of Hitler.
yes but Caesar made himself monstrously rich from wars of imperialism, literally genocided a million Gauls, sold their wives and children into slavery and declared himself an actual living God emperor all while plunging the republic into decades of civil war and actually literally going full fash
if you were around back then you'd be the storming the streets of rome as "antifa" while taking sesteri from the optimates for your services, the same way you take money from Soros and the DNC in the modern day as antifa operatives opposing based God emperor fashy Trump(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
#BASED Not SocialisT BTFOS ANTIFA LIBTARD SCUM HARD BY RAPING THEIR DEAD CORPSE WITH FACTS AN KNOWLEDGE #MAGA #LIBERALSBTFO #REPUBLICANARMY #MAGAWITHDACA
...
I came here to post it.
And also this.
youtu.be
Why the poster was banned? It's ironic for fuck sake
As opposed to every other ruler from the ancient world?
The things OP mentioned are exactly what makes him stand out.
Yes and let's not forget the fact that Caesar was willing to forgive every optimate that opposed him after he became dictator so long as they were willing to kiss the ring and acknowledge his divinity.
Right wingers are notorious for stealing leftist terminology and re-imagining historical leftist figures as romantic right wing figures. For instance:
Fasces
Thomas Paine
Libertarianism
National "Socialist"
Adam Smith
Thomas Jefferson
Re-imagining leftist historical figures, stealing leftist terminology and cherry picking leftist philosophy isn't just something right wing movements occasionally do. It's historically a feature of reactionary-ism.
*Thomas Paine was a deist.
The context of his time is what actually matters, not whether he killed a gorrilion Gauls or not
Also, pic related is a book about /ourguy/ Catline who was probably the first revolutionary in the modern sense of the word.
That's historically inaccurate. He wasn't claimed a God until *Octavian Caesar's reign whom did so to claim he was the son of a God. Furthermore, he didn't make anyone kiss his ring. Initially, he went out of his way to avoid looking like a king (which would have been politically unacceptable). He did leverage his military supremacy and popularity among the mob to be declared dictator for 10 years (and later for life shortly after Cleopatra introduced herself and his illegitimate child to Rome). Dictatorships were an emergency provision which would be occasionally used to help restore order. The American Government has a form of it in a provision that the President can take unanimous wartime powers for a limited time during emergencies. Remember, Rome was torn apart by the civil war and it was likely a necessity to give him the dictatorship to prevent further violence.
*Octavian Caesar became more of an Optimate during his rule, but was originally a Populares before the civil wars led him to align with the aristocracy. He was able to bank on the mobs love of Julius Caesar's to come into power, and the striking impression of Julius Caesar's leftist policies gave Augustus the boost he needed to rival Marc Antony in popularity. The Roman Principate quickly became optimate in nature during Augustus' rule.
redistribution and gibs aren't necessarily a bad thing
It's collectivization that we take issue with
t. cryptofash
Just stop.
Also Jefferson is a terrible example since he was a horrendously sheltered idealist. Honestly just stop trying to rehabilitate "classical" liberals. Many would have supported fascism today.
I bet you're the christfag that jerks off to Hobbes every time he is mentioned
Isn't Jefferson the guy who liked to rape his slave?
Paine sympathized with Babeuf.
I shouldn't have claimed them leftist as we know the term today. Thomas Paine was certainly aligned with the Girondists (whom were to the right of the Jacobins), but in his own writing he's proved to be much more Progressive then today's U.S. Democratic Socialists. I would certainly say the point stands that it's a ridiculous notion that Tea Party Republicans often claimed him as an inspiration to their movement (a sort of historical ally to their cause). Especially, considering he did indeed propose methods to eradicate hereditary oligarchies through a progressive tax plan on inherited wealth.
Reference on Thomas Paine.
en.wikipedia.org
I also misspoke by calling Thomas Jefferson a leftist, but again proved to be more to the left than modern American politicians. It's absurd that the ultraconservative faction of American politics frequently utilize his image in their pro-oligarch propaganda.
Thomas Jefferson Reference:
press-pubs.uchicago.edu
I'm really tired of these ahistorical radlib analyses of history. Jefferson and Paine were the left figures of their time, even if their views are not left in modern times.
A statement like "many would have supported fascism today" is utterly meaningless. It's like saying "Alexander the Great would've enjoyed potato chips if he were alive today"; there's no way of removing these figures from history to ascertain their views in some alternative history without resorting to fanciful speculation. All we can comment on honestly is what they were at that time.
trying to whitewash criminals to shove in people's faces and yell "see! jefferson is on our side!!!" is radlib nonsense
You can't extricate yourself from ahistorical moralism even when you're pretending not to be a radlib.
I guess the slaves were ok with it, fuck off retard.
This is why Zig Forums literally puzzles me when they say racism is a 19th century concept.
I mean honestly, look at the view the romans and the greeks have on the germanics and sub-saharan negros.
Said the bourgeois himself.
Of course slavery is "dialectial" to him.
Fuck off, liberal *burp*
What part of this says, "we should uphold slave owners instead of rebel slaves"?
That's the whole point though. They may have been "radical" then but now they aren't. And yes Jefferson at least would have definitely been some kind of civnat fashie today.
The whole "dey owned slaves" bit is just cheap criticism. What matters is that they were historically progressive for their time, not whether someone will get their fees-fees hurt. You can recognize that people who were slave-holders actually did make historical progress in certain times and circumstances and that in a certain respect, even slavery was progressive. Capitalism was once progressive; you need to understand the dialectic of history to see that the future points to a different mode of production.
This anarchist-type of history where its just reading history from the perspective of rebellions of oppressed class bourgeoisie was once an oppressed class btw is a lot of nonsense. It doesn't even explain how and why these institutions came to exist but simply focuses on "rebellions" of any type no matter how insignificant.
Throwing aside important bourgeois revolutionaries on the bonfires of post-modern academia/media is part of the revisionist onslaught in the field of history against the very concept of revolution with the aim of stopping any revolution in the future by severing the connection of today's generation from the memories of revolutionaries of the past.
I could unironically get behind Roman restorationism and a Caesarian influenced social-democracy.
It is quite the shame that populism in the modern world is seemingly only able to produce is right-wing kooks, rather then the dedicated, great men of the people (Marius, Caesar, Napoleon, Long etc) that have historically been associated with it.
This is because the very concept of Great Men is idealistic horseshit. These historical figures would be dismayed to find themselves venerated as ubermensch and not as examples to follow.
I strongly disagree.
Caesar literally presented himself as a god after his victories in Gaul.
At his Triumph he famously painted his face red to resemble the god Mars.
Caesar did want himself to be very literally venerated and he was after his murder as 'Divus Julius'.
KYS fascist
No, not really. The American "revolutionaries" mostly just copied Rome. I guess reviving ancient Rome is progressive? The Hatian revolution was in 1791, that was the form of real progress of the era:
en.wikipedia.org
Slavery just hurts slaves' "fee fees", guess it's not so bad after all.
Shut the fuck up and kill yourself.
I suppose you are right about ancient figures, but I doubt the same could be said for more modern ones, especially when the concept of deity is incongruent between old Greco-Roman and Abrahamic mythology. Napoleon was a ruthless fucker as a politician, for example, but hardly considered himself more than a man
People are no more than the sum of their circumstances, regardless of intellectual ability. This is why we revere them–that they were not destined from birth to do great things is what gives their accomplishments meaning.
Perhaps not more then a man.
But I do doubt that he would have declared himself emperor had he not desired some form of veneration.
Besides, I would argue that the predilection that such figures have for benevolent dictatorships itself, certainly speaks towards some shared desire for some form of veneration.
Agreed.
But those that could so easily use the positions of power they have found themselves in to further their own self interest, but instead champion the cause of the common man (often resulting in their own deaths ala Caesar and Long) are worthy of lasting veneration of some form or another; At-least I think so.
Great figures that arose from the lower classes and maintain their love for the lower classes after gaining power are very, very rare after-all.
I agree that the right wing view of them as ubermensch is stupid; However I also think that to dismiss them as anything less then 'Great Men' does a disservice to these powerful figures who have fought for and even died for the interests of the common man.
I would personally struggle to think of a modern politician that has even a fraction of the love for the commoner that Caesar possessed.
I mean he was from the gens Julia, whose members contended to be descended from Aeneas and his mother Venus. It was a family tradition, and not taboo.
Caesar made use of these connections in his rise to power, but not more than his rivals would have, or more than his other advantages like his military victories or willingness to take up the Pleb's cause.
It was used against him in optimate propaganda, and then later used by the Machiavellian-like Augustus Caesar for personal advantage. The main sources of historical reference concerning Caesar come from historians beholden to various factions with their own personal agenda.
Marius, Pompey and Sulla all claimed special relationships to the Gods. Julius Caesar is just renowned for it as Augustus elevated him to the position of a God to add gravity to his Princep.
Slavery is definitely wrong, but to write off reformers due to their historical culture's acceptance of slavery writes off most every reformer who lived before the French Revolution with very few exceptions. Caesar's reforms threatened and insulted the oligarchs and aristocrats so immensely they thought assassinating him on the Senate floor would be regarded with praise. Before the reigns of later emperors, and during Caesar's reign, the thought of assassinating a senator was extremely taboo. Just imagine how radical he must have been in his reforms for them to believe assassinating Caesar would lead them to be heroes, and how popular for him to have been with the Plebs for his death to create uncontrollable rioting which forced the optimates to flee.
The perennial mark of the "left"-simpleton, right there. No real substance, just name calling and righteous indignation on behalf of people who died centuries ago nonetheless
Strawmen everywhere
Ya fuck Thomas Munzter and the peasants revolution. Fuck Gerrard Winstanley, and the true diggers too! They weren't fighting for abolition so their class warfare, arguments and sacrifices were trash.
Reminder that the "American founders were acktually socialist" bullshit is parroted by the king of anarcho-liberalism himself Noam Chomsky on a constant basis (or at least it was when he was highly active.)
I never claimed that the founders were actually socialist, dumbass and I would disagree with someone making that claim. Thom Paine could only be considered a utopian socialist at best for instance…
Yeah, being radlib or even just a lib in the 1700s took a hundred times more courage and intellectual integrity than it does today. I just don't see what is about the whole "context" thing that you just don't get because you seem to have major brain-damage and autism.
The evil men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones…
*gets stabbed
*fucked his nephew
Cool guy