Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Sign in to follow this  
guy

When a Marxist Does Roman History

Recommended Posts

Does anyone else find this cringe worthy? :o

 

http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/178020-1/Michael+Parenti.aspx

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited by guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't listened to it yet, but Marxist theoretical view points are gaining popularity in all humanist arts at the moment. We'll see more and more of this the next couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find this cringe worthy? ohmy.gif

 

http://www.booknotes...el+Parenti.aspx

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

Not at all. I think it's a function of your own political beliefs (or anyone's for that matter). There's actually some notable Marxist influenced scholarship of the classical era--GEM de Ste. Croix is one standout who focused on the Greeks (I've got several of his journal articles). Even Mommsen the only Nobel prize-winning classical historian has some left leaning opinions on Caesar and his era.

 

Parenti's book got a couple of rather positive reviews by classicists who thought he stirred up some thought provoking questions [Richard Billows and I can't recall the other's name right now]. There's a lot to criticize with Parenti but he also highlights a point of view that's been overlooked by the 'smoking jacket' school of classical history. Nothing at all is wrong with a class analysis within reason. It's not a perfect history and I wouldn't recommend it as a starting point but it provokes some thought in an otherwise relatively fallow area of recent scholarship (late antiquity seems to be the 'hot' era).

 

Caesar as a proponent of the Plebes and his dictator period passing of laws lenient towards debtors and land reform opens himself up to those interpretations. He can be criticized as an opportunist but that doesn't negate every bit of analysis anymore than pointing out that self-interest for his class and not patriotism was a function of Cato's posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I think it's a function of your own political beliefs (or anyone's for that matter). There's actually some notable Marxist influenced scholarship of the classical era--GEM de Ste. Croix is one standout who focused on the Greeks (I've got several of his journal articles). Even Mommsen the only Nobel prize-winning classical historian has some left leaning opinions on Caesar and his era.

 

Not to mention Sir Moses Finley who even had to flee the USA because of his political views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In archaeology Marxist theory is accepted as part of the post-processual school which developed from the late 50s into the 60's 70's and even 80s. It basically helped develop models that consider methods of production and how societies react to and use such production.

 

Although different archaeologists will accept or reject different aspects of them depending on the societies they are looking at in this context Marxism is just a name which describes some of the ways of looking at the past. So is nothing to be afraid of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't listened to it yet, but Marxist theoretical view points are gaining popularity in all humanist arts at the moment. We'll see more and more of this the next couple of years.

 

To be clear I have not listened to the podcast but I have read Parenti's Assassination of Julius Caesar, a few years ago now.

 

I think Marxist viewpoints aren't as common in U.S. academia as much as left-wing viewpoints are [there is a difference]. There are a few academics here on UNRV who are closer to it and might chime in their opinions.

 

One of the greatest historians of our age--who happened to be Marxist--just passed away a few weeks back. Not a classical scholar but of the (mostly) European industrial era of the 19th century Eric Hobsbawm - OBITS: Telegraph- The Economist- NY Times . I've read his Age of Revolutions, Age of Capital and Age of Empire [Age of Extremes is good but not in their class] which were excellent takes on economic and social histories of Western Europe, even if I didn't buy into everything.

 

I view it [Marxist historical analysis] as just one of many angles to view history from. Like all things some good analysis can be garnered from it as well as some bad [EDIT: as Melvadius' last para states].

Edited by Virgil61

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find this cringe worthy? :o/>

 

http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/178020-1/Michael+Parenti.aspx

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

He has some fascinating ideas even though I don't agree with most of them. They don't really seem to fit into the Roman worldview, but are heavily influenced by modern day views and opinions. It also doesn't make sense to make comparisons between the agrarian pre-capitalist and pre-industrialist Roman plebeians and the post 19th century urban working class. Their conditions are quite different and not really interchangeable. Still, I find Parenti's view interesting and I hope to get his book for my birthday. The only thing I found cringeworthy in the video was how the interviewer quized Parenti for details on Caesar's life and Parenti struggled to remember the names of his wives or certain dates and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×