
What America can learn from the fall of the Roman republic - mooreds
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/1/18139787/rome-decline-america-edward-watts-mortal-republic
======
Nomentatus
Not false, but... but this underestimates the extent to which all these issues
were in play throughout Rome's history.

Compare this article: [http://time.com/4986516/ancient-rome-comparison-mike-
duncan/](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.

~~~
zozbot123
> 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!)

~~~
Nomentatus
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."

------
nasmorn
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.

------
jacques_chester
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.

~~~
mooreds
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.

~~~
anothergoogler
What's it like being able to see into the future?

~~~
throwaway98121
I’m not sure what your sarcasm contributes to the discussion.

I think op has a fair point. If we remove our political views, we can still
see that our government and politics are extremely divided. Furthermore,
wealth is accumulating into the hands of a very few. What should be democratic
outcomes are substantially influenced by capital and the ones who possess
capital.

You could argue that our politics were always divided. I haven’t forgotten how
toxic it was during the Clinton administration (again, I’m not blaming either
party or taking sides).

What’s making it worse today is with access to the internet and social media,
everything is amplified times 100. Spreading misinformation is a lot easier
and we’re dealing with adversarial nation states exploiting that to our
detriment.

Personally, I don’t think this is sustainable in the long term.

Now- let me mix in my more biased opinions. In the country my parents
immigrated from, doing things such as jailing or threatening to jail your
political opponents, labeling all your political opponents as corrupt,
criminals, etc was a common thing.

Over time, it only got worse over there. We are seeing those authoritarian
tendencies here, and that’s the real terrifying part.

~~~
mythrwy
I see your point, but perhaps on occasion the labels of corrupt and criminal
are accurate.

The corrupt and criminal should be called out. (never mind that those calling
them out are often the same thing).

