You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Osweo 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

a more and more socialist government

lolwat? Amusing that nobody's even hinted at one of the most important factors for the Roman crisis, and indeed for our own times: halting of social mobility and increased wealth divides. And you talk of socialism! :D I suppose this is to be expected in an American-dominated corner of the web, though.

Too few wanted to shed blood for a system that had never given them a chance to have a stake in society, and which had on the contrary ground them down for every penny they could get out of them. And who could blame them? A romanised Gaul or Hispanic might as well pledge allegiance to a Frankish or Gothic king who will actually live in their country and thus be a little more accountable than a distant Emperor in Aquileia or Milan.

0
0

[–] syntaxaxe ago  (edited ago)

"What? The Roman Empire couldn't have been initiating more socialist policies, because over-regulation and welfare states always lead to utopias of equality! Rome had a huge gap in standard of living, with rich oligarchs and an extremely poor dependance class - unlike every socialist utopia ever, of course."

Welcome to the realities of history, my friend.

0
0

[–] Osweo ago 

You can't just go applying the word "socialist" to everything. The term must be applied to systems and regimes where social class and social welfare are the main ideological concepts around which everything is built. Bread and circuses in the capital don't count. Various state monopolies don't make a socialist economy, either. Oligarchies and nomenklatura exist in all manner of regimes, and are no distinct feature of socialism! Words have meanings, and can't be chucked around as you please. Well, ones like "racist" can, if you're an enemy of Western civilisation, but as we saw in November, that sort of behaviour doesn't help you in the long run.