Roman Empire

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Email
SubjectyE2#3)⛉wcBS*r$=IXW]-{l☣.8zU&d⚚f★FOm?vK;♅4A !7'qPa16\,HTn0Z^i>Y(\|5M☬_DG%⛄J	Spoiler Image
Comment	4T♘GvedFP?UO0 @HgJD⛔6B!cR*'}^Xa\hl)C%☄&>=⛡79`~i♋☷{18]
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1622563868932.png (307.81 KB, 1200x951, D09677CA-04B9-41B3-8278-CE….png)

Roman Empire Anonymous 2021-06-01 (Tue) 16:11:08 No.5935

Is there a book I can read on the economy of the Roman Empire and the social classes of the time? Anything that goes into deep analysis or extensive stuff.

Anonymous 2021-06-01 (Tue) 16:13:11 No.5936

Parenti wrote a book on it I thinkstalinStalin

Anonymous 2021-06-01 (Tue) 16:25:26 No.5937

>>5936
I have it but unfortunately it does weird shit like claiming there were capitalists and proletarians in that time.

Anonymous 2021-06-01 (Tue) 17:31:56 No.5938

>>5937
>tell me the facts
<no not those facts
I haven't read that work but the word proletarian is literally Latin. Cockshott (HTWW) also mentions small scale wage labor in ancient polities.

Anonymous 2021-06-01 (Tue) 22:36:23 No.5940

>>5937
>weird shit like claiming there were capitalists and proletarians in that time.
of course there were proletarians and capitalists in ancient rome.
the word proletariat is literally the latin term for the social class of landless and propertyless wage-dependent but not enslaved citizens in the city-state, who were not subject to taxation and military service.
and capital is also nothing new read on the subject of Handelskapital (trade capital) das kapital volume 2 and 3.
trading capital is an ancient thing how is it possible that a marxist does not know this?

Anonymous 2021-06-01 (Tue) 22:44:33 No.5942

>>5935
idk pick a roman historian

Anonymous 2021-06-02 (Wed) 02:47:44 No.5943

>>5940
How come marx says there were no capitalists or proletarians as we know them today?

Anonymous 2021-06-02 (Wed) 16:37:01 No.5946

>The proletarii constituted a social class of Roman citizens who owned little or no property. The name presumably originated with the census, which Roman authorities conducted every five years to produce a register of citizens and their property, which determined their military duties and voting privileges. Those who owned 11,000 assēs or less fell below the lowest category for military service, and their children—prōlēs (offspring)—were listed instead of property; hence the name proletarius (producer of offspring). Roman citizen-soldiers paid for their own horses and arms, and fought without payment for the commonwealth, but the only military contribution of a proletarius was his children, the future Roman citizens who could colonize conquered territories. Officially, propertyless citizens were called capite censi because they were "persons registered not as to their property…but simply as to their existence as living individuals, primarily as heads (caput) of a family."
>t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

Anonymous 2021-08-10 (Tue) 02:03:55 No.6807

Any 18th or 19th century Marxists whose given an analysis of Rome and/or it's collapse?

Anonymous 2021-08-12 (Thu) 02:36:26 No.6822

<Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
>No. There have always been poor and working classes; and the working class have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians, any more than there has always been free unbridled competitions.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Anonymous 2021-08-12 (Thu) 13:06:21 No.6824

Also interested in a Marxist history on this topic from someone who isn't a pseud (Parenti).

Anonymous 2021-08-12 (Thu) 15:45:20 No.6825

Rosa Luxemburg wrotes a bit about this, but I dunno if it was translated in english.iwwIWW

Anonymous 2021-08-12 (Thu) 15:50:45 No.6826

File: 1628783443869.pdf (22.13 MB, 212x300, Geoffrey E. Maurice Ste. C….pdf)

This work is a marxist classic mostly on Ancient Greece but it also talks about Rome.

Unique IPs: 1