Rome was definitely imperialist, but i don’t think it’s fascist necessarily. Fascism requires a lot of stuff that Rome just didn’t have. A big one would be like racialized nationalism. Rome was a slaving imperial state yes, but they enslaved anybody regardless of ethnicity. Anyone could be a roman citizen not just italians. Africans, Greeks, Gauls, Arabs, etc.
Its probably not a term that can be used on older nations since a lot of the concepts fascism is built on just hadn’t been invented back then. Imperialism is old. Akkadia did it like 4000 years ago. Fascism is pretty new though. It was more of a post-colonial era thing as far as i know.
Adding to this, fascism is a type of capitalism, with capitalism being defined as its main motivator for economic, social, and technogical development is profit and the means of production are privately owned. Fascism occurs when capital runs out of colonies to exploit, so it turns inwards to try and create an autarky.
Rome was a slave economy where the means of production was literal slaves or worked by members of the plebian class: free citizens who didn’t own land. The patrician class was composed of both wealthy business owners and aristocratic nobility who inherited their titles. The motivation of their economy was the acquisition of land to be used for a variety of purposes and the acquisition of slaves. They weren’t seeking profit so much as they were seeking leisure and security from barbarians.
Eventually, this system gave out in favor of feudalism, where there was no longer a large slave class and military protection was the primary motivator for progress. The plebians and slaves became consolidated into peasantry, where they were tied to the land under a lord which they used for sustenance farming with a fraction of that used to pay a tithe. Nobility was then expected to maintain military training and equipment, while also paying a tithe to someone higher up.
Its important to note how these things build on eachother too. Originally the world was largely empty. There was more than enough resources for the few people in it, and little reason to try to take something someone else had already laid claim to. Why risk conflict when you could walk 10 miles over and find empty land ripe for the taking? Then eventually the world began to fill up, and you had the rise of imperialism. The Akkadians. They took from other cities to enrich their own.
Over time there were many methods for doing this. Rome sort of perfected the process. Growing to dominate the entire region. This happened all over. In India, China, Africa, The Americas, etc.
The issue with these systems for those in power though was they arent easy to maintain. Lording over entire populations that you have to live among is hard. And dangerous. They had their methods for preventing revolt, but they didnt always work.
Fuedalism perfected the safety aspect. The Kings and Lord live in great fortresses, and give their peasants a meagre amount of freedom while taxing them heavily. They get the benefits of the wealth extraction but can minimize the risks.
Once technology had developed enough though the next step was Colonialism. Once they could do so it was much safer to extract the wealth from far flung colonies rather than from domestic people. Especially now that castles were not as safe as they used to be. Cannons existing and all.
But to maintain this colonial empire rulers needed more and more sub-rulers. Private interests began to develop. This is how capitalism was birthed. A new class figured out that they do not need monarchs to benefit from colonialism. So they largely got rid of them.
This colonial system was not sustainable though, and as more colonies broke free from their control capitalists realized they must start extracting wealth once again from the domestic population. This was the rise of fascism. Colonial extraction once again turned inward. With all the new types of violence learned through their colonial conquests now used against their own citizens.
There is an order to it. You can’t simply arrive at capitalism without all that came before. So when we see the similarities to fascism in older systems its because it has built upon those systems.
Communism is no different. We build upon what came before. Communism could not exist had capitalism not created a united class of worker. Who had a shared interest. When we speak of the dictatorship of the proletariet it is in opposition to the dictatorship of the bourgeoise we live in now. This is also why communism must be emphatically anti-imperialist. Since we are undermining the millenia old system of exploitation started in Akkadia.
We are forging a new path for the species. One where instead of taking from eachother we willingly share, and collaborate. A system where the very limited resources afforded to us are not allocated based on who has the power to claim them, but based on who needs them most.
They weren’t seeking profit so much as they were seeking leisure and security from barbarians.
the limits to the exploitation of the feudal serf were determined by the walls of the stomach of the feudal lord - Marx
This isn’t a defense of pre-capitalist ruling classes, just that material needs drove their surplus accumulation. More food, more weapons, more men, more horses, bigger house, bigger fortifications etc
Not the relentless pursuit of profit itself.
of course it isn’t. i just also want leisure and security from barbarians (transphobes, landlords, etc)
Sorry I wasn’t meaning your comment, the Marx on, I’ve had people misunderstanding it as pro feudalism.
More food, more weapons, more men, more horses, bigger house, bigger fortifications etc
There is at least the idea that one could eventually have enough material needs met to relax - the profit motive has no limit
deleted by creator
if you think fascism existed in ancient rome you’re defining the word fascism so broadly that it basically doesn’t mean anything anymore
So, legit question, is the fasces completely separate from fascism? I understood from Plutarch that historically lictors would utilize the rods from the fasces for corporals punishment, and the axe of the fasces for capital punishment of those who defied the republic (ie ruling class). I’m not a historian by any means, so I’m sure there’s a ton of nuance I’m missing, but I thought the etymology was indicative of the roots
The fasces existed as a symbol of magisterial power for nearly 3000 years before Mussolini came along and named his ideology after it.
That makes sense - I just assumed there was a consistent usage of it during the in-between, and had never heard otherwise. Thanks!
Fun fact: fasces is also the etymological origin of the slur for a gay man that also means a type of odds-and-ends meatball and a bundle of sticks.
In that case, as long as we separate it from the “fascist” connotation, I think anyone who doesn’t identify as cishet should be encouraged to carry/use sticks and axes during pride month. Only seems fair
good question. i’m no historian either but my understanding is that italian fascists in the 20th century used the fasces (among other roman symbols) to harken back to an imagined glorious past for the italian people and associate themselves with a golden age. i.e., fascism is inspired by rome and by the fasces in particular, but the roman empire itself was not fascist because fascism didn’t exist and could not exist in the ancient world
A good day to be questioning my education of “everything with sticks and axe is fascism” lol. Thanks
I don’t know if you can call it independently. It’s a bit like how clothes from the 70s keep coming back in style. They’re not being invented again; it’s an homage.
I cooka the fascismo
