When looking for parallels between the Roman Republic and the US Republic, I think the Roman pair that most resembles Biden-Trump is Cicero-Clodius. Cicero was a “novus homo” (non-patrician) defending the cause of the “optimates” (patricians) while Clodius was a patrician representing the plebeians. In the same way, Trump, born into an upper bourgeoisie family and himself a wealthy bussinesman, presents himself as a representative of the hard working people, while Biden, born into a lower-middle class family, is today the embodiment of stablisment.
In reality, neither Trump nor Biden question the American plutocracy, just as neither Cicero nor Clodius questioned the Roman oligarchy.
Finally, it should be noted that the examples Professor Bardi presents, like the ones I present, correspond to the Roman Republic, not the Empire. If the trajectory of the United States were similar to the Roman one, we would expect a civil war in which the winner would become emperor. But history, although it rhymes, doesn't repeat itself. Among other things, the Roman state had no worthy competitors at the time, while the United States certainly does have enemies who can replace it in world leadership.
Yes, the late republic was a complicated story of internal struggle. We are in that phase, more or less. But we already have an "emperor" in the form of the POTUS who acts as military commander just like Roman emperors did.
In his book “...and forgive them their debts”, Michael Hudson explains how Mesopotamian kings used to periodically cancel all their subjects' agrarian debts. The aim was primarily to avoid the steady concentration of lands in the hands of a small group of plutocrats who could threaten the king power. (He even formulate the theory that Jesus was called "king of the Jews" because he somehow advocated for such an ancestral royal right and was killed because it evidently went against the interests of the pro-Roman local elites of the time).
And indeed, further West, it seems the Greeks tried a couple of times but the Romans never adopted the custom. Still, the political history of the Republic was all about the establishment of a plutocratic slave-powered latifundista system at the expense of the small landowner citizenry, and its social and military consequences.
And it's not so different from what's happening today in our so-called democracies.
To the point that Julius Cesar always pretended he was fighting to preserve the Republic. Until his political opponents killed him pretending that was the only option to save it. We know how it ended.
I think the neurotransmittors and hormones, which influence our behaviour on a basic level, are sometimes an advantage in the struggle for survival and expansion of power, but when there are limits of resources, they have several bad side effects.
I agree with Tolstoy, we look at history through a collection of big names and imagine that they shaped the destiny of million of peoples..... probably is the idea that shape history but no one can track they back to source!
We will never know how Cesar got his ideas about what to conquer and how, how many of his brilliant strategies were his own and how was induced bi attendant, friends or someone passing by, ideas happen to blossom with an alarming synchronicity too: if we look at patents distant unrelated inventors try to get them almost at the same time, scientist publish groundbreaking papers almost at the same time even if not directly communicating, tech too is quite synchronic and is evident if we look at the pyramids and the megalith around the globe.
Something I suspect but is impossible to prove is that "big guys" of history are something like the least evil we can get to manage big events in history, all seems almost comically incompetents that blunt the worst... Hitler and his side got a lot of ineffective allies and subordinates, but if they were excellent at their work WW2 probably could be far worse: a fit Axis surely will lose because could not overproduce but could be quite devastating with the proper use of their tech (Hitler had quite crazy opinions) and if used his forces more rationally, same for Japan that did a lot to make enemies of their conquered territories adding an internal front that was quite a burden to his war effort for no other reason than to show some vague "superiority" for gratify his collective ego.
I feel a subtle hand or something like a "holographic consciousness" acting choosing his figureheads balancing some path with the last destructive option to get to destination, sometime pushing really exceptional lives but usually choosing the least destructive individuals, the inept, for smooth the biggest bumps. I figure that if humanity as whole can be an individual and a colony single human beings are like cells to it, we daily kill or shred our cells, we put them under enormous stresses and generally don't mind losing a couple of millions of them still no one actively try to harm even a single one, but we usually care, feed and shelter them so automatically do something similar to what I had described without conscience of doing it !
Trump is more of an incompetent version of Caesar, posing as a man of the people while destroying what's left of the Republic than any version of the wise Hadrian. Every action of his has been to promote and accelerate the rule of the ultra rich, white oligarchy and to enrich himself.
That might be true. But Trump offers answers (or at least pretend to) to 3 of the majors issues facing the American working class :
- reduce immigration, which drives down their wages (and incidentally threatens their cultural identity),
- reduce imports, which destroy their jobs,
- limit standards and regulations that favor large companies at the expense of local and smaller businesses
And that why he is popular the way populist politicians from upper class like Clodius Pulcher were during the Rome Republic (btw, he was killed in a street fight by his political ennemies then his followers burned down the senate !)
The key word on your relatively well thought out comment is "pretend". All of his actions and stated intent is toward expansion of control by a rich, white, Christian oligarchy. I'm familiar with Pulcher.
When looking for parallels between the Roman Republic and the US Republic, I think the Roman pair that most resembles Biden-Trump is Cicero-Clodius. Cicero was a “novus homo” (non-patrician) defending the cause of the “optimates” (patricians) while Clodius was a patrician representing the plebeians. In the same way, Trump, born into an upper bourgeoisie family and himself a wealthy bussinesman, presents himself as a representative of the hard working people, while Biden, born into a lower-middle class family, is today the embodiment of stablisment.
In reality, neither Trump nor Biden question the American plutocracy, just as neither Cicero nor Clodius questioned the Roman oligarchy.
Finally, it should be noted that the examples Professor Bardi presents, like the ones I present, correspond to the Roman Republic, not the Empire. If the trajectory of the United States were similar to the Roman one, we would expect a civil war in which the winner would become emperor. But history, although it rhymes, doesn't repeat itself. Among other things, the Roman state had no worthy competitors at the time, while the United States certainly does have enemies who can replace it in world leadership.
Yes, the late republic was a complicated story of internal struggle. We are in that phase, more or less. But we already have an "emperor" in the form of the POTUS who acts as military commander just like Roman emperors did.
In his book “...and forgive them their debts”, Michael Hudson explains how Mesopotamian kings used to periodically cancel all their subjects' agrarian debts. The aim was primarily to avoid the steady concentration of lands in the hands of a small group of plutocrats who could threaten the king power. (He even formulate the theory that Jesus was called "king of the Jews" because he somehow advocated for such an ancestral royal right and was killed because it evidently went against the interests of the pro-Roman local elites of the time).
And indeed, further West, it seems the Greeks tried a couple of times but the Romans never adopted the custom. Still, the political history of the Republic was all about the establishment of a plutocratic slave-powered latifundista system at the expense of the small landowner citizenry, and its social and military consequences.
And it's not so different from what's happening today in our so-called democracies.
To the point that Julius Cesar always pretended he was fighting to preserve the Republic. Until his political opponents killed him pretending that was the only option to save it. We know how it ended.
I think the neurotransmittors and hormones, which influence our behaviour on a basic level, are sometimes an advantage in the struggle for survival and expansion of power, but when there are limits of resources, they have several bad side effects.
I agree with Tolstoy, we look at history through a collection of big names and imagine that they shaped the destiny of million of peoples..... probably is the idea that shape history but no one can track they back to source!
We will never know how Cesar got his ideas about what to conquer and how, how many of his brilliant strategies were his own and how was induced bi attendant, friends or someone passing by, ideas happen to blossom with an alarming synchronicity too: if we look at patents distant unrelated inventors try to get them almost at the same time, scientist publish groundbreaking papers almost at the same time even if not directly communicating, tech too is quite synchronic and is evident if we look at the pyramids and the megalith around the globe.
Something I suspect but is impossible to prove is that "big guys" of history are something like the least evil we can get to manage big events in history, all seems almost comically incompetents that blunt the worst... Hitler and his side got a lot of ineffective allies and subordinates, but if they were excellent at their work WW2 probably could be far worse: a fit Axis surely will lose because could not overproduce but could be quite devastating with the proper use of their tech (Hitler had quite crazy opinions) and if used his forces more rationally, same for Japan that did a lot to make enemies of their conquered territories adding an internal front that was quite a burden to his war effort for no other reason than to show some vague "superiority" for gratify his collective ego.
I feel a subtle hand or something like a "holographic consciousness" acting choosing his figureheads balancing some path with the last destructive option to get to destination, sometime pushing really exceptional lives but usually choosing the least destructive individuals, the inept, for smooth the biggest bumps. I figure that if humanity as whole can be an individual and a colony single human beings are like cells to it, we daily kill or shred our cells, we put them under enormous stresses and generally don't mind losing a couple of millions of them still no one actively try to harm even a single one, but we usually care, feed and shelter them so automatically do something similar to what I had described without conscience of doing it !
Trump is more of an incompetent version of Caesar, posing as a man of the people while destroying what's left of the Republic than any version of the wise Hadrian. Every action of his has been to promote and accelerate the rule of the ultra rich, white oligarchy and to enrich himself.
That might be true. But Trump offers answers (or at least pretend to) to 3 of the majors issues facing the American working class :
- reduce immigration, which drives down their wages (and incidentally threatens their cultural identity),
- reduce imports, which destroy their jobs,
- limit standards and regulations that favor large companies at the expense of local and smaller businesses
And that why he is popular the way populist politicians from upper class like Clodius Pulcher were during the Rome Republic (btw, he was killed in a street fight by his political ennemies then his followers burned down the senate !)
The key word on your relatively well thought out comment is "pretend". All of his actions and stated intent is toward expansion of control by a rich, white, Christian oligarchy. I'm familiar with Pulcher.
Start learning Navajo. It may be useful in the future
...castellano o spanglish también seran útiles