[Marxism] Bonapartism [Re: Chavez was right [was: RE: Chávez and Holocaust indifference]]

Nestor Gorojovsky nmgoro at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 08:52:48 MDT 2009

Yes, S.ARtesian, twisting it all.

I thought it more than twice before that avowedly miswritten paragraph 
in my original posting. It is quite obvious to me that we don´t have the 
same vision, not even the same level of knowledge, on the events which 
led from the Republic to the Empire in Ancient Rome.

I am not hailing Cesarism. I am just saying that the Cincinnati 
(probalby a half legendarian character, BTW) were the kind of General 
the Senatus wanted, a General who would defend the interest of the 
Senatus (in this case, coincidental with that of the Roman community as 
a whole) and later on turned back to his usual labor. The Roman Populus 
(who were the dialectic opposite of the Senatus during the whole early 
Republic) generated a series of anti-senatorial (that is, atioligarchic) 
leaders who coallesced into the figure of the Tribunus Plebis.  The 
Tribuni Plebis, by the way, were obtained after a long class struggle, 
that forced the Senatus to accept an untouchable magistrate to represet 
the majority of the original Roman community against the rich Senatorial 
class of landowners and usuriers. When the Republic crumbled down, this 
destruction was the result of the victorious struggles of the Popular 
party. Of course, this was not a democratic or socialist solution. Nor 
was the result particualrly beautiful (in the end, the slaveowning 
siystem was reinforced, and to awesome extent). But it was better , as a 
historic necessity, than the dictatorship of the usuriers.

That is all I said. And I want to stress that this refers to Rome only.

S. Artesian escribió:
> Twisting nothing.
> Here's what you wrote:
> "Please realize that the example of Cincinnatus can be counterposed by
> the example of the Tribunus Plebis (e. g. the Gracchi), which figure to
> become definitely effective had to turn itself into - Imperator!!! It is
> seldom forgotten that the power of the Imperator, initially, came from
> the remains of the Popular party, which was the characteristic party of
> the Tribuni Plebis"
> Peoples' tribune to Imperator-- the populist backing for authoritarianism is 
> not a new, nor is it "progressive,"  and it is no analysis of the economic, 
> material conditions that spawn the populism and the Bonaparte, and convert 
> the former into camp followers of the latter.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nestor Gorojovsky" <nmgoro at gmail.com>
> To: "David Schanoes" <sartesian at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] Bonapartism [Re: Chavez was right [was: RE: Chávez 
> and Holocaust indifference]]
> No, S. Artesian. You are twisting my argument.
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com

More information about the Marxism mailing list