Why does pol like Roman Republic/Empire and Ancient Greece so much?

A lot of people seem to admire Ancient Rome for some reason, even though it was "degenerate", with homosexuality widely accepted and brothels everywhere. Classical philosophers weren't in their favor as well, Plato in his "Republic" proposed state where only the wisest rule, and people obey authority, putting the country before the people, which is something pol would like, but he also suggested common ownership of property, so he pretty much created some sort of authoritarian communism. Aristotle thought that the country should be ruled by politea, the middle class only, something similar to proletarian dictatorship.
Was it architecture then? Way of life? Expansion of empire? Art?
Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

anus.com/zine/articles/alexis/fascism/
sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii8zulpvWAhUs0oMKHbHoBywQFghIMAE&url=https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2017/05/the-ancient-roman-writers-who-laid-the-foundations-of-anti-semitism/&usg=AFQjCNHy5JYio8SUi0_hLwwpnTl2H5-saw
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi03q2fl5vWAhWPyIMKHSvtAhsQFghNMAU&url=http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Sexuality.html&usg=AFQjCNFvxNRFxIHrr5GGnIxhIZlj9OVttg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16
youtu.be/uu2gN8n15_A?t=35m25s
judaism-and-rome.cnrs.fr/tacitus-annals-xi23-24
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

because they like the nude male statues

...

It was something very important to Holla Forums and their fellow travelers.

Something in the past.

Because they're representations of people, but not people themselves. It's common for autists to feel a stronger bond with inanimate objects than with """fellow""" humans, hence why Holla Forums loves Greek/Roman statues and waifu body pillows so much.

because the romans didn't say sorry, not about outmatching the other races, not in their philosophy, not in their art, not in their religion… they are what it means to have pride in your race, nation and self

even their homosexuality was unapologetic, never did they whine about things like heteronormative-cisgender-patriachal-structures of oppression and the agony of not having a baker bake a cake for your wedding. with homosexuals like that, fascism can do fine.

For a very, very odd interpretation of "fine"

Oh god my sides!

no, they collapsed because fun and diversity: the pillars of the left.

lol

The Roman Empire changed hugely over time, and it eventually collapsed mostly because of increased competition from 'barbarians'.


Read a book.

dumbest post of the day
grats

The Roman empire collapsed because of the spread of the degenerate slave religion of Christianity, and invasions from subhuman white Germanic barbarians. Holla Forums needs to get their fucking history right.

On a side note, why do people like socrates? He was against democracy and altough he said that he wanted an aristocracy of the best, it is clear that what he really wanted was to rule with his friends. He also differentiates aristocracy and oligarchy, but aren't both virtually the same? How do you have a a perfect aristocracy? There would be rampant corruption and nepotism, turning it to an oligarchy.

Their multicultural empire was basically the globalists of the ancient world. And their views on religion where extremly inclusive. Their art was pretty much trying to copy earlier greek stuff.
No shit. Most of those words didn't mean anything before 2010, hardly a surprise that Romans didn't complain about them.

I see, so same as Holla Forums then.

They're dorks.

Their basic social structure didn't change. Even the emperors were fully within Roman law.

A) Modern concepts of race didn't exist yet

B) Romans clearly didn't give a shit about the concepts of race that did exist at the time considering they gave citizenship to anybody who met the criteria regardless of race. Their empire was also extremely multicultural and the Romans often worshipped foreign gods. Rome wasn't fascist.

It’s old i guess.

Because they're repressed faggots

What happened to CarthaginianLivesMatter and the the national association for the advancement of Gauls under the Romans?

If you knew anything of history you would know that there was much social debate at the time over the rights and muh privileges of Gaulish citizens. Should they be given equal status to Roman citizens? Were they to become a major part of the army? Should they have members serve on the senate?
Cicero in one of his most famous speeches called upon Rome to allow Gaulish citizens onto the senate in the same way they let the "barbarian" northern Italian tribes join the empire in totality decades ago. He noted that Roman was to be a state made up of many parts not just one.
How do you think the empire kept Gaul under control? By just being dicks?

Tell me about the Romans apologizing for their conquest of Gaul, colonialism and roman muh privilege.


By physical removal and making clear who is boss with the rest.

wtf you're projecting XIX century idpol on ancient rome

The thing is, the ancient Greeks understood aristocracy a bit different than we do. Aristocracy for Socrates and Aristotle was not only wealth, but knowledge first and foremost. True noble-man was a person of wisdom, and first and fore most, great morality.

Not really, Romans weren't repressive towards Gaul (Gauls were pretty much pacified after Caesar's conquest). Instead, Romans began integrating Gaul very quickly, creating new administration and introducing Latin. By the end of 5th century, gaulish was pretty much extinct, and most of people living there considered themselves Romans.

Your argument was that there was no interest groups or political proponents of minority groups in Rome, which I pointed out as incorrect. And as an aside, I may point out that even this initial argument did little to nothing to refute the point of the user you replied to.
Regardless your first counterpoint should be rephrased as in its current form it is a non sequitur. So I'll move on to your second claim (which again has no evidence). No, actual Roman foreign policy was a branch and stick approach. Kingdoms would have the roman empire inherit their lands in order to secure them for this people after their deaths for example. And yes Rome did this with the backing of a large army and economic power. But you have failed time and time again to connect your argument that "Rome was great because it didn't apologize" to "Rome was powerful". Even if we assume they are linked together, then applying modern concepts of regret and apology as a national act to ancient Rome would be as ridiculous as claiming that Stirner Egoism and Marcus Aurelius' stoicism were one and the same.
It is just ridiculous to compare ancient Rome's actions and their views on their actions to modern conceptions of "not having a baker bake a cake for your wedding." It is just a total disregard of Roman thought, which is ironic coming from a person claiming to be that thought's champion.

I understand that. Plato defines aristocracy as the government of the best, that is the most intelligent, wisest and capable. What I don't understand is why Socrates is admired in the west when his ideal is basically a benevolent dictatorship of an intellectual elite (philosopher kings) when arguably the most valued ideal by the west is democracy. I'm also pretty sure that in the republic they say that to have a just city everyone should stick to the job they are most capable of instead of choosing, and that goes against the ideal of freedom, which is also highly valued in the west.

*when his ideal system of government*

The West is not a monolith, even if people nowadays don't agree with part of his worldview, He's still considered as the first philosopher in collective imagination…

Sparta was the first fascist state and the Roman empire was the first fascist empire, european-wise.

I mean come on now, fascists mix with Holla Forums.

Sparta it can be discussed, but Rome was functionnaly and culturaly closer to the USA…

The Roman empire doesn't work like the USA do, no.

It has actual dictatorship with an emperor in charge.

It was culturally liberal and proto civic nationalist, it was Antiquity's economic and militaristic hyperpower responsible for some early draft of globalization.
The exact political regime is secondary to this. Unless your definition of fascism cover anything with vague autocratic tendencies.

And it was the innovator of fascism.

You must remember that fascism actually disregards race, Mussolini disregarded it, while Hitler's Not Socialism puts race into the forefront.

This makes sense because the germanics have always been about blood and soil, ever since the roman era, they have the germania identity.

The definition of classical fascism is a central figure ruling over everyone, using populism and military might to crush any dissidents (the senate, any ambitious general).

The roman empire invented it after all.

If you say the USA is close to the Roman empire, it means it's already fascistic.

And Sparta and the roman empire are the proofs that fascism work, for at least hundreds to thousand years.

stop spitting insubstantial shit

It's pretty darn true though.

Sparta exists for a pretty long fucking time, they even regained their independence briefly when the roman occupied Greece.

It's pretty fucking stupid and uneducated pol shit though

ok

No, it's factual these fascist states exist and hold for a long fucking time, much more than any "socialist" or "anarchist" states.

The roman empire outlived the roman republic, and if you count the eastern roman (which you should), they stand for over 1000 year.

That's longer than present capitalist regime.

Greek statues look cool, so if a Holla Forumsack likes them, then that means he's cool too.
That's it. I just described the entire modus operandi for 95% of right wingers on the internet.

Greek statues do look cool, their venus statues are top fucking notches.

Make me hard.

pic related famous fascist

I mean, monarchy, absolutely monarchy evolved from fascism.

Ancient Athens and the Plebian elements of the struggle of the orders in Rome were were pretty cool though. There's a reason they influenced Bookchin so much.

Jesus christ, read your own theory

...

...

love for the object is indeed a sign of mental disease

this is what we're dealing with

It's true though.

out

The european kings even called themselves Kaiser, Tzar, Czar…

No it' not.

It is though.

Absolute monarchy was the evolution of fascism, when monarchy re-founded its classical root in the Renaissance.

not an argument

not an argument

Jesus Christ, and you think a world existing in a language to mean ruler or chief is a point to qualify a civilization as fascist?
Fucking hell, i thought only liberals have such a broad definition of fascism.

OK, whatever, since you are not interested in history.

Absolute monarchy was actually an evolved form of monarchy/fascism thing, when the french king decided to incorporate classical Greco-roman thoughts into their governmental system.

It's pretty simple: the king decides all.

Kaiser means emperor, not king, ruler.

It means emperor.

They were trying to be the next roman emperors, who were fascistic.

Classical fascism was pretty simple, it's about a dictator dictating things, democracy be damned.

Define fascism for me buddy.

How is that possible when the Japanese were the first to institute monarchism back in 660 BC?

Simple.

A dictator is "elected" by the senate, and he proceeds to control all manner of socio-economic and military policies.

The senate still exists but has no voice.

Lol liberal confirmed.

You mean like in Star Wars?

It's possible because absolute monarchy isn't the same as feudal monarchy (that still respects dukes, counts, knights and the clergy).

we need compulsory educational facilities for polyps

Okay, but feudalism didn't hit Japan until 1100. What about those other 1700 years?

No, it's like when Caesar crossed the rubicon and decided to occupy Rome, and forced the senate to make him 1st Dictator.

That is classical fascism, as a word, it predates "authoritarinism/totalitarianism".

Okay that definition make fascism so overly broad as to be meaningless.
So Cromwell, Palpatine, Frederick II, and Hitler all ruled over a fascist government?
I mean at that point you might as well as just say fascism is monarchism, but that is retarded due to the fact that historically actual fascist states share little with monarchy beyond having a centralized leadership.

I dunno, ancient feudalism? Ancient kingdom?

Slave master society?

Technically, feudalism in Japan is pretty different since the shogun holds the power, not the emperor.

Loving Every Laugh

That's pretty much classical fascism though, it's a pretty damn simple society.

Modern fascism has all those corporations, but classical anarchism also has the emperors controlling all the merchants.

Look, you are completely uneducated, you have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever. Stop it.

Holla Forums IS full of degenerates. Homosexuals, weebs, incels, NEETs. People there who take pride in being white but don't have anything of value to contribute to the world. Weaklings who fantasize about violence. If they hadn't bought into the whole racist narrative I'm sure a lot of them would fit in here.

I don't think so, friend.

In fact, you have to maintain your position, since all I ever said are facts so far.

Ah yes, all you've said are "facts" like pre-medieval Japan was a slave master ancient kingdom.

Yeah you have been listing 'fact' in the sense that you have listed off historical empires. But you have done little if anything to link these 'facts' to any of your arguments or your special snowflake definition of fascism.

You claiming something do be a fact doesn't make it so you fucking post modernist scum.

gay nazis always horrify me how brainwashed and spooked can one become, how internally conflicted against the most substantial self interest

It was though, I mean.

The chinks traded with a kingdom back then.

This was pre-Jinmu. I think it was called Yamatai.

you are underage or shitposting aren't you

No, you are talking to a person who knows his shit on jap history.

Before the yellow emperor, Jinmu, creates the dynasty of emperor bloodline, Japan was already a kingdom, ruled by a certain queen.

Modern jap historians only consider post-Jinmu era, but chinese history recorded trading with Yamatai.

this barely has anything to do with the topic you fucking autist

You are speaking about feudalism, well, apparently, feudalism (or ancient feudalism) was a thing in Japan before the emperor bloodline was established.

ok

Dude chill out, it has been thirty minutes and you still haven't defined fascism, you haven't explained the link form Rome to Nazi Germany, and you haven't pointed out how this definition would even be meaningful. You have been making unsubstantiated claims that you seem to believe are true because you compare them vaguely to a historical event.
I could go around claiming that ancient Gallic tribes were proto-communist because they had elections and worked within a community sharing economy. And then explain Vercingetorix's defense of his lands and the politics at the time while using that explanation as evidence and justification for the former belief. But that is such a logical gap as to be laughable.

Classical fascism was that though, the fasce means rule by power.

I mean, the whole point of it was that it's simple.

Mussolini made it almost too complex with all the stupid fascist council.

form - from'

This. 100% homoeroticism

It's meaningful because the OP is asking why Holla Forums likes greco-roman shit, I point out well, the greeks and the romans invented fascism, Holla Forums loves fascism.

And no, the ancient gallic and germanic tribes practiced democracy, but it wasn't communsim, since their king and chief still control all the means of productions, and they were slaves, plenty of slaves.

there is no such thing as classical fascism, fascism is an ideology invented in the XX century

Uh, yeah, fascism was coined by the roman.

Fasce means the goddamn axe.

You could make the fasce argument about the USA or French republic, how thick do you have to be to think that adopting a symbol means replicating a total political and economic system.

Ironically here no, he didn't make it 'too complex' he laid out fascist ideology as best as he could. Which is a unique modern invention and has unique qualities that never existed before in the past.

we're not talking about fucking fasces, we're talking about the ideology of fascism you bloody idiot

Did the USA or French republic adopt the fasce symbol?

Nope, they still practiced election.

Classical fascism outlawed election, the emperor at first chose his own successor, and then later used the bloodline system.

Actually it means bundle.

And the roman emperors practiced the ideology of fascism.

Come the fuck on.

Yeah, it's a bundle with an axe on top.

...

there is no such thing as classical fascism
no classical author ever uttered the word fascism

fascism is an ideology created in the xx century

stop making things up autrighter

You are a retard dude

It's a slave master kingdom though, accurate per Marx's description.

The means of productions were peasants and slaves.

They even traded slaves with the romans.

stop it

The word just means bundle though.

Also, how could they practice an ideology that didn't exist?

But it existed as classical fascism?

It did though, that's what Caesar practiced when he seized power from the senate.

Mussolini wanted to be the next Caesar.

I don't think reading a book is going to prove that classical fascism didn't exist.

I mean, the modern fascists didn't just sprung from nowhere.

...

When did Marx talk about slave/master kingdoms? I'd like to read that book.
Don't you fucking dare act like the master-slave dialectic is the same thing

No, Caesar could not practice an ideology that did not exist. There is no such thing as classical fascism.


Of course they didn't, fascism, invented in the XX century, has its roots in social conservatism and nationalism, imperialist ambitions in italy were based on ancient roman imperialism

No it didn't. If anything the Roman Empire was an imperialist hegemon. The term fascism didn't exist before the 20th century.
Imagine telling a Roman that you're a fascist. They'd probably just be confused, because you're claiming to be a bundle of sticks. Assuming they would even understand the word.

you nazis really are fucking dumb

Caesar was a fascist though, he was a dictator.

Marx talked about slave master society, and the gallic/germanic kingdoms fit into those definition.

Caesar practiced classical fascism, which is seizing power from a democracy, the exact same thing Mussolini wants to do.

I think they would understand pretty well, since the fasce symbol means unity through strength, and rule through power.

How do you feel about the great fascist past of Cambodia?

What are your thoughts on how fascism is failing in Venezuela right now?

actually kek'd


fascism does not equal authoritarianism or, if we're talking about the political paradigm during the Roman times, tyranny

Just fuck off already, dipshit.

I don't know, I thought they called themselves socialist?

...

And the Romans didn’t call themselves fascist either you fucking smoothbrain

Classical fascism means the rule through power.

If you tell Caesar he's a fascist, he would understand more than telling him being an "authoritarianism", which is a shitty modern description of any centralized regime ever.

No, such term does not exist

The romans do know the meaning of fasce symbol.

which is not fascism
well, not until the xx century at least
that's when fascism as an ideology and as a term was invented

I think you need a linquistics 101 course buddy.


Love that helmet man. Here's another good one.

Yeah, it pretty fucking does.

Look here
A symbol can have a diffrent meaning in diffrent context. The fasces doesn't mean 'le fascism' it stands for diffrent things and has done so over time. When a roman citizen looks at a fasces it means something diffrent from what a Nazi in 1940 would think and what you in your mom's basement thinks.

can you fucking read you spastic ignorant
i think you "pretty fucking" doesn't

It is classical fascism, which is what the roman emperor practiced.

I'm pretty confident the romans would understand the word "fascism" since it literally symbolizes the power to execute anyone you want.

Show me the term "classical fascism" in any vocabulary

I don't know what you guys are trying at here, but that clearly does describe classical fascism, or even modern fascism, the authority that can judge and kill at any time.

Yes that is what the word fasces means in that context, but in another context it could just mean a bundle of firewood, grain or whatever else you would put in a bundle.

duckduckgo.com/?q="classical fascism"&t=opera&ia=web

It's used pretty regularly, but they refer it to the modern fascism that Mussolini practiced.

And I would be kind to point to draw the actual fasce symbol so the average plebian can know what I'm talking about.

I'm pretty confident they understand.

Then it's a completely fucking different thing

They'd probably think you were threatening them tbqh.

What's more likely that they think I'm a bootlicker.

Here you go:
anus.com/zine/articles/alexis/fascism/

Are you daft?
The argument isn't that some people will not know the 'objective' truth of the fasces. It is that there is not objective definition of the fasces, it means what ever is the established norm at the time within a community. Your point doesn't broach the subject in anyway.

There is an objective meaning behind the fasce symbol in the roman empire.

It's embedded in the crown of the Emperor, and it's a symbol of the magistrate, I'm sure the average roman plebian knows, even if they are uneducated.

There is no such concept of “classical fascism” meaning “literally any time people projected their will onto others before the advent of fascism”

Even if we follow your ridiculously broad definition of fascism as basically any authoritarian rule, it does not follow that the Romans would readily associate that with the fasces

And even if they were able to glean something of the nature of an authoritarian government from the associated symbol, it is impossible for a Roman to understand actually existing self‐identifying fascist movements by name alone, because the movement did not exist until the twentieth century and despite your mythology do not actually draw all of their meaning from the fasces

Yeah within its subjective period in time.

The roman government system identify with the fasce, it's a goddamn symbol of authority for god's sake.

And no, the average plebian would understand that:
1. I respect authority.
Or
2. I work for the government.

:^)

That is possible too, or maybe they'd think that you were claiming to be a magistrate.

Also
Truly an edgelords favourite website.

Which is what I'm talking about.

It clearly isn't, considering the fact that you are claiming that the definition of the fasces has remained the same as fascism throughout time.

You are trying to tell us that there exists a term, an ideology that does not exist at all, is not present in vocabularies, not used like you use it by any authorities

You made a term up and you're trying to force it on us through tortuous argumentation to somehow link the Roman Empire with fascism - well, this link is authoritarianism. Here is your """classical fascism"""

The modern fascists sure do use the same meaning as the ancient romans did.

I'm not sure what the americans or french used it for, probably for the other meaning, UNITY THROUGH STRENGTH.

Why does this board cry about Holla Forums so often?
It feels like that's 40% of threads on this board; they only laugh at this place when something retarded happens

It does exist, and if you tell the ancient romans, they would understand your meaning.

On the other hand, I'm not sure they understand the concept of authoritarianism, since that is a modern term.

You must truly be daft or trolling. In either case I hope you realize that you are holding two ideas in your head at once. That being "the fasces has held diffrent meanings for diffrent people in time and location" and "the fasces has always and objectively can be defined as fascism."
If you can't even see this simple paradox in your logic then I'm sorry you are too far gone.

Fasces have two symbolic meanings, though all these symbolic meanings are readily used by the modern fascism.

- UNITY THROUGH STRENGTH: class collaborationist
- RULE THROUGH POWER: anti-liberal democracy

You're still completely ignoring context. It was also often associated with female divinities.

In the context we use, i.e. political setting, it has those two meanings.

It also tells you the story of the old man and his bundle, and that's basically a tale of UNITY THROUGH STRENGTH.

The context we were talking about was the scenario of you telling a citizen of Rome that you are a fascist. And you claimed that they would just think "Yeah, he thinks the Emperor is pretty cool".

FASCISM IS A SPECIFIC 20TH CENTURY REACTION TO SOCIALISM WITHIN LATE CAPITALISM. MUSSOLINI BORROWING MOTIFS FROM THE ROMAN EMPIRE DOES NOT RECTROACTIVELY MAKE THE ROMAN EMPIRE FASCIST (WHAT THE FUCK)
WORDS HAVE MEANINGS READ BOOKS

Yeah, I think that's pretty much what would happen, those fasce symbols really aren't rare, and the plebian aren't politicially illiterate.

The roman empire was fascist, even in its modern meaning, it was the merge of the government and the corporation (guilds and merchant firms exist) ruled by a centralized figure.

No, communism by definition cannot be authoritarian, which means there is no state. What Plato is proposing is similar to fascism with nationalized industries.
Aristotle wanted philosopher-kings, he didn't want the plebs rule.

You are missing the goddamn point. That isn't fucking fascism. Fascism is distinctly modern, an ancient autocratic empire does not meet the criteria.

The modern definition of fascism perfectly applies to the roman, they even have expansionist agenda and offensive war.

After all, the modern fascists wanted fascism to emulate the roman empire.

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
Do yourself a favor and read your own ideology before you shitpost.

For God's sake, Victorian Britain was fascist by your useless definition. Comparisons can be drawn but this doesn't make them the same thing.

Yeah, that sounds like what Caesar did to become 1st Dictator of Rome, and his policies regarding the growth of the Roman empire.

I do not understand Victorian Britian, but Oliver Cromwell was indeed fascistic.

And for the sake of discussion, what is Holla Forums's definition of fascism?

I thought it's a centralized state where government merges with corporation, no?

You fucking tool bag, just because one section of an ideology alines with another doesn't mean they are the same.
That is like someone saying the USSR and USA had the same economic system because they both had populations that voted.

Authoritarianism and expansion are indeed traits of fascism. Describing any form of government that has these traits as "fascistic" is completely fucking useless and stupid. Again, fascism has a specific meaning in a specific (modern) context. If you can't grasp this simple point I'd be surprised if you managed to pass high school.

They are the same though.

Government with nationalized industries, that demonize foreigners (barbarians) with expansionist agenda.

I mean, those aren't fucking coincidence, Mussolini wanted to emulate the roman empire.

Uh, voting has nothing to do with the economic system, but the economic system of the Roman and fascist Italy were government controlling everything, the romans even did price fixing.

Do describe your special snowflake definition of fascism, because I think I hold it pretty well to the definition thoughts by Mussolini himself.

But of course, it's only fascist if you guys say it's fascist.

Because Romans are the progenitors of fascism and because they were white.

No, that is one trait of fascism but even that definition doesn't suit your argument seeing as corporations are an invention within capitalism, fucking merchant guilds are not the same thing.

Fascism is a modern ideology that reacts to both capitalism and socialism. Salient features are an emphasis on a glorious past and a focus on reclaiming that, anti-intellectualism, a sense of nationalism based mostly on romantic notions, expansionism, fixation on culutural "degeneracy" and the scapegoating of ethnic minorities, and some level of cooperation between state entities and private capital, yes. This isn't a perfect definition just a quick one. Most of this doesn't actually apply to the Roman empire besides their expansionism which is not at all unique to fascism.

No, fascist ideology takes this idea much further. For example the idea of the "jew" (not the actual jewish faith but the role it plays in the ideology) is critical for fascism to function. There needs to be not just an external threat, but a threat that is within the nationstate itself which must be weeded out violently or else the nation will be corrupted beyond repair.

And to your economic point, you completely missed my point and also don't understand economics clearly. It would be preposterous to compare pre-industrial craftsman/slave reliant rome to a western imperialist power like 1920s Italy. My point was that you have done little to point out how the Roman empire and modern fascist states are the 'same' beyond saying over and over again that they have a strong centralized state. But as everyone here again and again has said to you with you not taking notice (whether on purpose or not I do not know, but hope the former for your sake) is that this is overly broad and doesn't take note of the unique traits of modern fascism.

Merchant guilds and firms are the corporations of roman times, they have workers, managers and the big boss that has connection with the government.

Evident in Roman culture.
Only against foreign culture, the romans burned books too.
The romans invented civic nationalism, they invented the very "romantic" notions as well.
Racism, religious persecution and anti-semitism, all these elements exist in Roman culture.
Which is the roman back then.

So actually, all these elements do fit the roman empire.

Like holy shit, you guys are complaining about liberal saying widely about fascism, but it seems you too don't know shit about fascism.

...

I should note that a lot of vocabulary I'm using, nationalism, ethnicity, capital, wouldn't mean anything to a Roman because once again, fascism is modern. It'd be like saying the Athenians were white nationalists. They didn't have concept of white nor national.

The romans were vicious anti-semites too.

In fact, the roman emperors persecuted, raided and genocide jews, heck, they feared the jews would supplant their gods.

The roman empire was a slave-holding but industrial imperalistic empire.

It was even more imperalistic and exploiting than Italy since it trades in slaves.

And…everything else, even the damn architecture.

No, not all had white skin pigmentation.
Though white doesn't really mean anything in pol rhetoric, it's more like a sentiment, maybe some wrong category

Romans were white, or at least tan.

After all, Augustus was a little blondie.

Yeah, not all

The greeks had concept of white, it was themselves against the barbarians or the darker skins race like the persians.

They had their state and even their national spirit, the spartans themselves identified as a unique people/culture as well inside of Greece.

I think the Holla Forumsacks are in denial here.

If Italians are white then Romans were white. Pretty useless argument though, whiteness is modern idpol that the Romans sidnt conceive of.

The core romans identify themselves with whiteness, though it is a different whiteness compared to the nordic barbarians, or the tanned egyptians or the semitic arabs/jews.

Romans weren't dumb, they have their identity.

Except they fucking did, that was their reason of racism against the nordic barbarians and the semitic jews.

You're a fucking liberal.

That's not whiteness, that's tribalism. And the ancient Greek city state was not the same thing as the modern nation.
I think your problem is that you find similarities in modern and ancient systems and conclude that they are basically the same which would give any working historian an immense headache.

And I have to mention.

Jews and racism weren't a core part of Mussolini's fascism.

You are mixing it with Hitler's Not Socialism.

Do you know what the concept of whiteness is? Holy fucking shit, you just used an example of their prejudice towards germanics to assert that Romans had a concept of white identity.

No, they disliked uppity border states that revolted three fucking times. They disliked Jews in the sense that they disliked the Jewish state. Anti-semitism doesn't have anything to do with it and even if it did it is not comparable to the kind of anti-semitism within a nation like Nazi Germany. Where the context of the hatred was one of scheming from within not some external annoyance.
>feared the jews would supplant their gods.
Never heard of that kek. But okay.
kek dude, do you even know the words that you are using?
pic related.
Read a fuckin' book m8.

Whiteness is tribalism is idpol, the greeks have an identity, and they use this identity to separate themselves against the nords and the persians & arabs/jews.

The greek city state was either a kingdom or a republic, and they are close and more homogenous than the modern nation state, in other word, it's closer to the definition of nation (a people) than the modern nation-state.

I would find these historians to be headcases considering these similarities are not coincidences, the fascists WANTED to be like the ancient greeks and romans.

Ok I spotted the problem, you don't actually know very much about Rome or to the extent fascist governments took those concepts. Rome was not anti-intellectual book burnings were rare and not feature, high class men and women were well educated, the Roman government opened up citizenship to its conquered peoples there was no "too weak and too strong" scapegoat and absolutely no narrative of fun beyond culutural conceptions of properness that every society possesses.

Again, you spot loose similarity and conclude they are close enough. They aren't, you ignore nuance.

I gotta say it. That building looks fucking autistic.

They like the idealized version of ancient times, the one that reads more like a golden age in a fantasy novel not the messy "degenerate" reality it actually was.

No, the romans specifically hated the jews as a people, not just the state, they, like Nazi Germany, expelled jews from their own core province. That is pretty fucking comparable to the way Hitler treated jews.
Here you go:
The roman empire was the most industrial power in its era with an actual industry, and they exploited people for free, because people were fucking slaves.
Pic related.

I do suggest you to read more history.

Classical antiquity is the common ancestor of European cultures. They're pretending to be intellectuals (keep in mind that if you're here you probably are not an intellectual, so don't get smug).

On the contrary, you should learn more about Rome.
Roman pretty much burn and destroy every barbarian cultures that do not fit their view.
Same for every fascist society, the outlying province plebs are still dumb.
As a way to gain soldier, but then again, so does fascist society. Nazi Germany even recruited slavs to fight.
There was plenty of racism in Roman culture, in particular to how the barbarians and the jews, and the roman had propaganda on how the barbarians are numerous but weak.
They make fun of barbarian religions and even wiped them out, such as the case of celtic druidism.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjii8zulpvWAhUs0oMKHbHoBywQFghIMAE&url=https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2017/05/the-ancient-roman-writers-who-laid-the-foundations-of-anti-semitism/&usg=AFQjCNHy5JYio8SUi0_hLwwpnTl2H5-saw

Romans were anti semites, and boy fucking was illegal in Sparta.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi03q2fl5vWAhWPyIMKHSvtAhsQFghNMAU&url=http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Sexuality.html&usg=AFQjCNFvxNRFxIHrr5GGnIxhIZlj9OVttg

I can't wait until some lefty retard pseudo historian digs up a loli doujin 1000 years from now and concludes that pedophilia was common, and widely accepted in 21st century Japan.

Whiteness is the concept of people being white.

Contrary to Holla Forums's belief, the greeks do seem themselves as the civilized white people, they don't even see barbarians as white.

But that isn't WHITE identity you thick idiot that's basic tribalism. Whiteness is a modern pan-european concept. For fucks sake the Athenians didn't care about any shared European identity. A Persian was as bad as a Roman whose as bad as an Egyptian it made no difference.

I don't have time to go into detail of the polloi but there are large differences in how citizenship was attained and how government was structured. It was a state, a very early one, but there are sufficient differences from the modern nation-state that white nationalism refers to. The idea of a white nationalist Athens just doesn't apply.

Jesus what a waste of time. You are aggressively simple.

The athenians cared about greeks in over all, they shared the greek identity with all the greek republic/kingdoms, they recognized that they were europeans even though they are from different countries.

A persian was regard different than a roman, and different than a negro or a nord. The greeks consider romans their cousins.

White nationalism does not refer to the modern nation-state, they refer to the nation ala the people.
The athenians have a shared culture and language and skin color, that's pretty much a nation for the white nationalist.

And you should learn more about history.

The roman empire was even more racist than the modern nation state.

The sub-saharan negro was not viewed as equal as a core roman, the same as the nord barbarian.

proofs?
Since you are a fan of quoting wikipedia articles: Tiberius tried to suppress all foreign religions.
Your definition of industry is so far removed from how it is used in even far right and fascist texts as to be laughable.

And on your pic related.
"oh look see, if I make an absolute claim then I just need to point to one example, any counter examples that prove me wrong are irrelevant"
learn to logic my dude.

You are so fucking stupid, their idea of a Greek people still didn't include whiteness at all and their governments were not formed around protecting that identity.

So the did have nationalist tenancies.
Why do you guys claim to be well read when it's painfully obvious that you're not? And the select few books you do read are just left wing sophistry devoid of facts and reason.

See:

So they did fear the jews in supplanting their own gods? They also thought the jews had priviledges compared to the romans by being able to keep their religion.
These are the definitions of industry:
a : systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value
b : a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture; especially : one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing
c : a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises the banking industry
d : manufacturing activity as a whole the nation's industry

The romans were an industrial power in their era and they had industry.

Yeah, I'm using it, want to see more?

Like holy shit, these aren't coincidences.

The greeks identify themselves as greeks and as europeans as well.

They consider romans foreigners but belong to Europe, unlike the persians/arabs or jews.

So their view is white nationalist.
Fascism, in Mussolini's term, does not include racism.

Fascism means a centralized state that merges government and corporation with expansionist agenda, this is how Mussolini defined it, and this is how the roman empire operated.

I mean, that's not a bad thing here, but I'm sticking to Mussolini's word.

I don't need a communist to define fascism.

The ancient greeks didn't even see people from different greek city-states as the same group of people. Jesus fuck how illiterate are you?

Your brain is made of cement. At least you don't deny that what you're doing is revisionism.

No one here is arguing that the Romans didn't have something like nationalism
Anyways you're a cuck dude. Go back to sucking porky's fat cock.


">He dismissed all other Jews from the city, under threat of life slavery for non-compliance"
That does nothing to refute my point that the Nazi were on a global battle against Jewish forces while the Romans were just expelling something they viewed as foreign.

Rome didn't have factories, didn't have advances machinery that could automate production, didn't have a working class that preformed specialized roles in production, and didn't have a merchant class that overpowered or usurped power from the landed aristocracy.
I mean you actually have to be a brainlet to think that ancient Rome and fascist Italy had remotely similar economic systems.

Except that they are until you actually form a logic chain that links your premises to your conclusions. Formal logic doesn't go like "Oh look see look at all these coincidences?! There must be a reason for it, sure I can't actually articulate it but look at all these specific instances that aren't conformation bias at all!"
And this is all the more proven that you didn't reply to my point out that some fascist architecture was made up of weird post-modern garbage.

What's funny is that even the architecture he posted is clearly a futurist interepretation of old Roman style. It doesn't mimic rome, it apes it, which no one in this thread has denied was a feature of fascist italy.

Yeah I posted it for a reason, because it is a post-modern interpretation of Neoclassicism. I think its funny because it misses the entire essence that makes Classical art beautiful which is the small symmetric details and focus on the open space. While this is just a bunch of arches inline with each other ad infinitum, which is a great symbolic showing of fascist ideology and its believers. That being seeing the old beauty in the past and making endless replications of it until it losses all meaning.

they were white people (some of them) who didn't give a shit about being politically correct and weren't revulsed at all by genocide, rape, and torture, and they lived in a time when bad ideas like stoicism weren't being laughed at mercilessly.

Even the one posted here fucks it up because it strips classical architecture of its faithful attention to detail and instead replaces it with monolithic block structure. Just compare the pillars and it's obvious just how far off it is. It's not even neoclassical, it's postmodern reinterpretation of classic

Isn't stoicism exactly the sort of life fascists want the masses to lead, though?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

You guys are total fucking illiterate morons who do nothing but sit in your echo chambers convincing yourselves off of fragments of information that fit your worldview. I'm glad I left that hellhole.

I like classical history very much. It's full of interesting characters, like him - crossdressing plebian gangster of ancient Rome:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher

Or him - another popular leader.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16

Diss rap lyrics were popular also in Ist century. There's also lot of interesting poetry about fucking in latin.

...

They don't even truly care about the craftsmanship or the history behind the statues themselves (they can't tell actual antique Greek statues from Renaissance-era homages) but merely about the self-image featuring them as an avatar projects. I don't rally like using that buzzword, but it really is nothing but virtue signalling — though I suppose it's still one step above smug anime girls wearing a MAGA hat.

Firstly, you're attributing what Plato thought to Socrates. We will never know exactly what Socrates thought because he never bothered to write anything down. Most of our information about him comes second hand from Plato

You can't judge a man who lived thousands of years ago on how his politics match up to yours. The historical context is completely different as to be science fiction. The "democracy" of the Greeks was so far from democratic that it makes our modern parliamentary system appear unbiased. It was far closer to an aristocratic republic propped up by slaves. Plato advocated for what he understood to be a meritocratic model. Probably based on the Egyptian Empire that existed at the time.

In any event, you don't read Plato for politics, you read him for Logical theory, and perhaps metaphysics.

In any event, you do

Because Plato was the first to hypothesise a utopia and to propose an organic view of society.

Also you are confusing some things. Plato was never explicitly pro-oligarchy, he merely thought the Spartan constitution and way of life was better than the imperialistic/mercantilist Athenian form of governance that was basically mob rule and directed by rich and sly demagogues.

In the Republic Plato doesn't say that oligarchy is the preferred system, just that its better when you are ruled by the wisest (an aristocracy of the spirit ). Plato's argumentation somewhat awkward for our contemporary times, but it still makes sense. Since. consider the doctor or the artificer who are experts in their own fields, it is absurd to think that a doctor would be an expert craftsman and vice versa. I suggest anyone interested in Plato's relevance for the left look up Hegel's writings on him in the philosophy of history.

LIT

Because the Romans were into degenerate shit just like Holla Forums is addicted to BLACKED.com and cuckoldry


One spectacle is said to have included "a hundred tiny blonde girls being raped simultaneously by a horde of baboons."

This is the beautiful and glorious traditional european culture nazis want to return to.

Fascism relies heavily on the mass mobilization of the "whole of the people" through mass propaganda and unitary ceremonies. This concept would have been completely alien to a society as neatly divided into different castes as ancient Greece: an Athenian nobleman didn't see himself as part of the same "nation" as an Athenian laborer, just like the aristocracy didn't see themselves as part of the same "nation" as the third estate in the Kingdom of France. Nationalism is a recent development, a product of the late 19th century — be it only because it requires administrative centralization and mass communication to exist.

Saying ancient Greece was Fascist makes as much sense as saying Elizabethan England was Marxist-Leninist.

This is fucking hilarious actually in context of polyp idealization of rome

Man, I love that kinda stuff. People tend to assume pre-modern culture was so stuck-up and boring when it really wasn't. 16th-century French profane chanson basically consisted for the most part of greentext stories about overeating, binge-drinking and getting cucked. All set to refined proto-baroque counterpoints.

Source pls. I find this very hard to believe.

Romans training animals specifically to rape people is widely reported, specially of Christian martyrs raped to death by horses. They've also got man-eating seals (Acts of Paul and Thecla), people being ripped apart by dogs, being used as torches for nocturnal lighting in the arena (Nero did this frequently), and being roasted on grills (St. Lawrence, who coolly remarked as he was being killed that he was done on one side, if his executioners would please turn him over). The Romans were master degenerates.

This is all well and good but what we should really take away from this is how fucking badass a setting Marxist Leninist Elizabethan England is and there should be an xcom or deus ex/thief like game with this setting.

why live?

...

Socrates was a democrat and Plato an Aristocrat.
Socrates is Plato and Plato is not Socrates

...

...

In Greek democracy only the men were allowed to vote.

Why are you posting a video from some "muh freedumbs" liberal? I can't stand people who say that the West is great because of democracy and freedom.

An impious eristic sycophant orator and sophist was teaching a class in a Gymnasium on Socrates, a known advocator of the despotic rule of the 30 tyrants.

”Before my lecture begins, you must sacrifice and pour libations in prayer to Lycurgus, and accept he was the wisest and most virtuous lawgiver and statesman in all of Hellas–even better than Pericles!”

At this moment, a pious patriotic Athenian who was the champion of the people and had served the State on countless expeditions to liberate fellow Hellene cities from the despotic Persian and Lacedaemonian yoke and understood the necessity of upholding the laws and fully supported all military decision made by the Demos of the State, held up a parchment.

”How old are these laws, Sophist?”

The arrogant philosopher smirked quite sardonically and smugly replied, “Merely over hundred years, when that rabble-rouser Cleisthenes exploited the emotions of the hoi polloi when Hippias was benevolently removed by Cleomenes and the Spartans, you decadent slave."

”Wrong. For us Athenians, fathers of all Ionians–the true autochthonous people of Greece–have always been championed by Athena to be born natural freedmen and not as servile to some tyrant.”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his parchment and copy of the Republic. He stormed out of the Gymnasium crying those sophist crocodile tears. The same tears oligarchs cry for the so-called “aristoi“
(who today live in such luxury that most own at least 500 slaves) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving ordinary city state citizens.
There is no doubt that at this point our debauching teacher, Xenocrates, wished he had took up an education in some noble craft as his forefathers and become more than a sophist oligarch orator.
He wished so much that he acquired hemlock to poison himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against such!


The Athenian citizens applauded and all registered for the new elections of the new magistrates that day and accepted Athenian democracy as their lord and savior.
An owl named “Solon” flew into the room and perched atop the pillar were the laws were written and shed a tear on the wax. The laws were read several times, and Athena herself showed up and enacted the planning for the construction 50 triremes.
The sophist lost his citizenship and was ostracized the next day. He died of the plague sent to him by Apollo and was tossed into the river Styx for all eternity.

The hero’s name? Thrasybulus.

Ps. Expand the Delian League

t. Bookchin

...

Wait, is that 4th one on the right a trap?

...

It's Hermaphodite, the mythical character from which the term hermaphrodism comes from.
Aka the original futa.

Their Germanic cousins weren't above plenty of debauched shit either

youtu.be/uu2gN8n15_A?t=35m25s

Interspersed throughout the lecture:
It goes on and on.

...

Why live?

There wouldn't be a Rome without "fun [degeneracy] and diversity."

So what you're saying is that Rome, and the basis for all European culture, is fundamentally Leftist.

judaism-and-rome.cnrs.fr/tacitus-annals-xi23-24

To make your dream a reality

The only mistake Rome ever made was letting Christianity thrive. Should've just glassed Judea and nip Judaism (and hence also Christianity and Islam) in the bud. Also because Greco-Roman artistic canons were amazing.

But instead of comfy Greco-Roman mythology and cults we get boring uptight Abrahamic religions.

Hey Holla Forums, Holla Forums here wondering, why do you hate us?
I was banned from here last week for trying to ask some questions, so I'll do it again here, it would seem relevant for this thread. All I want to do is have a discussion, maybe open a debate.
feel free to as me any questions as well

1. Capitalism with clerical characteristics and an outdated mode of production that led up to this point in time respectively.
2. Socialism isn't when the state does things. Singapore is no less capitalist than the US. As long as the mode of production predicated on wage labor and production for exchange is maintained, we are speaking of capitalism. The movement that abolishes these things is communism.
3. Yes. Marxist-Leninists are dumb and their states were failures except if you like capitalist dictatorships with nice welfare.
4. The less Holla Forumsacks posting shitty bait the better.

1. Do you mean distributism? The ultimate petty bourge wet dream.

2.Capitalism is the generalization of commodity production and wage labour. Fascists do not oppose either of those and so are pro-capitalist.

3. "But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as
well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with."

t.Engels - Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

In short: we already know. ML;s just refuse to read theory.

4. Most Holla Forumsposters are illiterate retards who don't come here to do anything besides shitting up the board, so if the Mods get trigger happy sometimes I don't blame them.

No, Capitalism came about shortly after King Henry VIII of England seized church lands, due to his own incompetence he allowed the gentry to take more and more of that land for themselves under his reign and that of his successor and so on, the essentially doubled their land holdings, this is how capitalism began
I would sacrifice efficency and GDP for well distributed property and better quality of life.
how so? can you go a bit more in depth?
I understand that, but what I was asking was why it seems as though everyone who is against communism is automatically written up as pro capitalist
that isn't what I was asking

ok, I can see the logic in that

well… this is stretching things a bit.