Imagine being pizzashill.

Well, that is my point. Roman fascism is not the same system of government as 20c national socialism. Mussolini was a fraud, and communists desperately point to his failures in an attempt to divert attention from their own horrific history.

The Roman perspective on the relationship between the people and the state is fascism, in my view, and that perspective is incorporated into the political structures and legal systems of every great Western nation.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

The Roman perspective on the relationship between the people and the state is fascism

Whose works have you read to get this idea? Who are the people and who is/are the state?

From what I'm reading you don't describe a single period and describing roman political philosophy as a monolith. If that is the case, why do you exclude hellenistic political philosophy from this monolith and how do you justify it? Why is it roman fascism and not greek/hellenistic fascism?

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

a) because I am not as interested in Hellenistic political philosophy
b) because Hellenistic philosophy contributed mainly to democratic ideas, which are already well-covered. We are discussing fascism.
c) Greek political structure and law does not form the basis of Western law; Roman does.
d) Roman history is uniquely similar to that of the United States in its necessity for dealing with the integration of barbarians, slaves and various nations and ethnicities.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

a) because I am not as interested in Hellenistic political philosophy

Yet it and older greek political philosophy are the very core of roman political philosophy. I'm interested is the seperation lies for you, specifically which author or thinker.

b) because Hellenistic philosophy contributed mainly to democratic ideas, which are already well-covered. We are discussing fascism.

It does not, neither does greek philosophy before the hellenistic period.

c) Greek political structure and law does not form the basis of Western law; Roman does.

What forms the base of the roman version though? There's a reason an assload of roman philosophy/theory is written in ancient greek and not in latin.

d) Roman history is uniquely similar to that of the United States in its necessity for dealing with the integration of barbarians, slaves and various nations and ethnicities.

Broadly maybe, you could say the same for ancient greece. Think of a certain man proclaiming equality for all, while leaving groups out of those 'equals'.

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

Ne.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

Okay, let me try again.

Because you said roman and didn't mention which periods I assumed you took it in it's entirity. This made me wonder why you separated the Greeks from the Romans, because you could either go from philosophy, or law/statesmanship etc. The first obviously has Greek roots, and if you were to go by bodies of law, the Duodecim Tabulae has Greek roots too, and modt of Roman law is basically applying Greek philosophy to law as a 'science' in a sense. If you we're to take the Corpus Iuris Civilis, I guess it wouldn't have Greek roots, but then I wonder why you'd call it Roman fascism due to the timeframe.

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

I could have called it Etruscan fascism, as well, or Trojan fascism if you take Virgil literally. But that would be quibbling to no point.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

I could have called it Etruscan fascism

That roman law has etruscan roots pretty much has no basis

or Trojan fascism if you take Virgil literally.

Trojan fascism

if you take Virgil literally

Virgil

Lmao jesus christ, you got your whole theory from reading wikipedia pages or what?

If you'd ever actually read Virgil you'd realize just how retarded this is

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

that's the joke, you mong.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

I liked the roman fascism joke better

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

It is I!

I'm not joking, though. Roman history and civic fascism are cool and good.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

It is fascinating, but do yourself a favour and at least learn Latin. Ancient Greek would be better tbh but I'd really kill myself if I had done that prior to Latin. Lingua Latina, Per Se Illustrata is basically the king but you can use whatever as long as you put the work in.

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

I have a little Latin, but ancient Greek seems more interesting as a language. The Greek reminds me of German, where the physical metaphors expressing concepts are clear and obvious. In contrast, Latin seems to have digested the metaphors into idioms, the way English has.

I could, lacking much knowledge in either, be completely wrong.

Anyway, my father retired and, like a complete lunatic, immediately returned to school for advanced physics. I will probably do the same for Latin and Greek, like an even bigger lunatic. Maybe even Egyptian. Phoenician. Hittite.

1 JohnBlind 2017-08-21

It really depends which author you read for both languages tbh, both have authors who write pretty straightforward and both have writers who go completely crazy with all kinds of schemes and tropes. Some pieces are truly beautifully crafted, from the meter all the way to the figures of speech.

in mari meri miri mori muri necesse est

For example is a proper working sentence

When you're able to recognize all of them you'll start seeing them in famous modern speeches too.

A chiasma like this one in Virgil's aenid:

fundantem arces ac tecta novantem

Where the first and last are participium praesentis activi and arces and tecta are plural accusative, forming the ABBA. You'll notice Kennedy's famous "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you" for example.

Latin is easier to start with, greek is easier once you go past the beginner stage. The hardest latin texts are a thousand times tougher than the hardest greek ones imo, primarily because of the grammar (tenses is a big one) and word order. But being decent at latin makes starting greek easier, at least it did for me.

They say languages get harder with age, don't start too late.

1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21

That is good stuff. I thank you, unironically.

1 rewind45 2017-08-21

No hes not. Claiming Rome had fascist ideology is like claiming Anabaptist were communist in ideology. Just because someone does something similar in history it doesn't mean they were advocating all the context of an ideology they didn't even know existed or will exist for hundreds of years later.

1 nmx179 2017-08-21