-
...rely very fundamentally on shifting between these definitions in deceptive ways. The degree to which Rome had a market economy is heavily debated (I trend towards the 'yes' answer, but with important caveats). The degree to which it was meaningfully 'capitalist'...
...though? I think it is hard to argue that the political elite who actually controlled the Roman Empire considered themselves capitalists, or their power to derive from the possession of capital. They quite clearly knew that power derived from control over state violence.
-
-
In practice, the argument becomes so circular and so dominated by how exactly one defines 'capitalist' rather than anything about the 'facts on the ground' as to make it quite useless. Better to have clear discussions of Roman society without the baggage of 'capitalist.'
-
This makes perfect sense, especially with reference to the original post that raised all this, which is trying to look at Roman policy in Judea through a capitalist lens when it's really got more to do with aftershocks from the Mithridatic Wars.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.