We have a popular and erroneous notion that ancient man was primitive--as it concerns his intellect. In reality, though he had not yet developed the technology that we have today, he was no less intellectual or sophisticated than we are today--it is sort of like what Thoreau said, technological advancement is but an improved means towards and unimproved end...
...our current economic crisis/noncrisis is not unprecedented--in fact the first historically recorded "credit crunch" occurred in 88BC--
That's why the Founding Fathers did such an excellant and outstanding job in drafting The Constitution--they had a lot of "history" to referrance and rely on--in order to establish a document that would secure the liberty of a peoples/nation against the previously demonstrated infractions to said "liberty" that the history of mankind had demonstrated...
Nonetheless, this is the easy part for me--things are transpiring currently that I wrote of over two decades ago--all I have to do is figure out how to transfer things written on that old Brother Word Processor to the modern Internet conveniently--and it ain't all that easy...
So here is a chapter from an unpublished work that I composed between 1986 and 1990--but let's first give credit where credit is due; my (yet) unpublished work, ALTERNATIVE ECONOMICS was/is dedicated thusly:
"Dedicated to Dr. Charles Walters, Jr.
I can sincerely say that his works have influenced my outlook and perspective on Life second only to the Bible...
...for decades now his research and scholarliness as well as his determined fortittude and endurance to present the Truth of things in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds has helped to preserve concepts which would have otherwise been long ago overwhelmed and buried and intentionally banished to obscurity by the forces which oppose them..."
You can still find his wisdom at:
ALTERNATIVE ECONOMICS
Part XX
The Rhyme of History
A renowned German scholar, Theodor Mommsen, was most well known for his historical works on the Roman Empire. The Englishman, Sir Albert Howard, quotes and expounds upon Mommsen's Roman history in Howard's, AN AGRICULTURAL TESTAMENT.
Within Mommsen's historical work and Howard's observations are found a very alarming parallel to what is to be seen happening today!
The similarities are so profound that you can predict the inevitable course of current society by drawing an analogy with the rhyme of ancient Roman history!
First, let us consider Mommsen's and Howard's accounts and thereafter analyze the parallels and similarities to today's modern situation.
Of the many things that might come to mind for the reasons for the "success" of the Roman Empire...and for its subsequent eventual "failure", I'm sure that agriculture and economics would not even occur to most. I know that they would not have occurred to me had I not read Howard's work.
Howard quotes Mommsen concerning the "successful" period of Roman history and its seemingly unlikely source and cause:
"The vanquished community was either compelled to merge entirely into the yeomanry [smallfarmers who cultivate their own land; freeholders below the gentry] of Rome, or, if not reduced to this extremity, it was required, not to pay a war contribution or a fixed tribute, but to cede a portion, usually a third part, of its domain, which was thereupon regularly occupied by Roman farms. Many nations have gained victories and made conquests as the Romans did; but none has equaled the Roman in thus making the ground he had won his own by the sweat of his brow, and in securing by the ploughshare what had been gained by the lance. That which is gained by war may be wrested from the grasp by war again, but it is not so with conquests made by the plough; whilst the Romans lost many battles, they scarcely ever on making peace ceded Roman soil, and for this result they were indebted to the tenacity with which the farmers clung to their fields and homesteads. The strength of man and of the State lies in the dominion over the soil: the strength of Rome was built on the most extensive and immediate mastery of her citizens over the soil, and on the compact unity of the body which thus acquired so firm a hold." (Mommsen)
Sir Albert Howard continues with his commentary after thusly quoting Mommsen:
"These splendid ideals did not persist. During the period which elapsed between the union of Italy and the subjugation of Carthage, a gradual decay of the farmers set in; the small holdings ceased to yield any substantial clear return; the cultivators one by one face ruin; the moral tone and frugal habits of the earlier ages of the Republic were lost; the land of the Italian farmers became merged into larger estates. The landlord capitalist became the center of the subject.
He not only produced at a cheaper rate than the farmer because he had more land, but he began to use slaves. The same space which in the olden time, when small holding prevailed, had supported from a hundred to a hundred and fifty families was now occupied by one family and about fifty, for the most part unmarried, slaves. "If this was the remedy by which the decaying national economy was to be restored to vigor, it bore, unhappily, an aspect of extreme disease" (Mommsen). The main causes of this decline appear to have been fourfold: 1 ) the constant drain on the manhood of the countryside by [drafting into] the legions, which culminated in the two long wars with Carthage; 2) the operations of the Roman capitalist landlords which "contributed quite as much as Hamilcar and Hannibal to the decline in the vigor and the number of the Italian people" (Mommsen); 3) failure to work out a balanced agriculture between crops and livestock to maintain the fertility of the soil; 4) the employment of slaves instead of free laborers.
During this period the wholesale commerce of Latium passed into the hands of the large landed proprietors who at the same time were the [financial] speculators and the capitalists. The natural consequence was the destruction of the middle class, particularly the small holders...and the developmentof a landed and moneyed lords on the one hand and of an agricultural proletariat on the other." (Howard)
Definition: proletariat; 1 ) originally one of the poorest and lowest class in a community or state; 2) one of the wage earning class, especially a laborer for day wages who has no capital.
"The power of capital was greatly enhanced by the growth of the class of tax-farmers and contractors to whom the State farmed out its indirect revenues for a fixed sum. Subsequent political and social conflicts did not give real relief to the agricultural community. Colonies founded to secure Roman sovereignty over Italy provided farms for the agricultural proletariat, but the root causes of the decline in agriculture were not removed in spite of the efforts of Cato and other reformers. A [speculative] capitalist system of which the apparent interests were fundamentally opposed to a sound agriculture remained supreme. The last half of the second century saw degradation and more and more decadence Then came Tiberius Gracchus and the Agrarian Law with the appointment of an official commission to counteract the diminution of the farmerclass by comprehensive establishment of new small-holdings from the whole of Italian landed property at the disposal of the State: 80,000 new Italian farmers were provided with Land. These efforts to restore agriculture to its rightful place in the State were accompanied by many improvements in Roman agriculture which, unfortunately, were most suitable for large estates. Land no longer able to produce grain became pasture; cattle now roamed over large ranches, the vine and the olive were cultivated with commercial success. These systems of agriculture, however, had to be carried on with slave labor, the supply of which had to be maintained by constant importation.
Such extensive methods of farming naturally failed to supply sufficient food for the population of Italy. Other countries were called upon to furnish essential food stuffs; province after province was conquered to feed the growing proletariat with grain. These areas in turn slowly yielded to the same decline [brought on by exploitation] which had taken place in Italy.
Finally the wealthy classes abandoned the depopulated remnants of the mother country and built themselves a new capital at Constantinople. The situation had to be saved by migration to fresh lands. In their new capital at Constantinople the Romans relied on the unexhausted fertility of Egypt as well as on that of Asia Minor and the Balkan and Danubian provinces.
Judged by the ordinary standards of achievement the agricultural history of the Roman Empire ended in failure due to the inability to realize the fundamental principle that the maintenance of soil fertility coupled with the legitimate claims of the agricultural population should never have been allowed to come in conflict with [and superseded by] the operations of the [speculative] capitalists.
The most important possession of a country is its population. If this is maintained in health and vigor everything else will follow; if this is allowed to decline nothing, not even great riches [nor great military might], can save the country from eventual ruin. It follows, therefore, that the strongest support of capital must always be a prosperous and contented countryside. A working compromise between agriculture and finance should therefore have been evolved. Failure to achieve this naturally ended in the ruin of both."
AN AGRICULTURAL TESTAMENT, Sir Albert Howard
There are a number of points in Mommsen's and Howard's texts which are so very similar to what has been seen in recent history and to what is to be seen currently that it should be that we read what they have written with great concern and alarm!
The might of the Roman Empire is not attributed to the strength of its military legions, nor to the brilliance of its military strategists, nor to the wisdom, ability or cunning of its politicians, nor to its accumulated wealth...but to its system of establishing small, freeholder farmers in its conquered territories! And this by one of the most renowned of Roman historical scholars!
I can think of another nation in more recent history whose foundation for might was also laid by pioneers who spread across a continent, subduing it with the plough...
Let's review some excerpts from Mommsen's and Howard's texts and consider the parallels that are to be seen in recent times:
"...the land of the Italian farmers became merged into larger estates. The landlord capitalist became the center of the subject..."
Many can probably still remember the advice which came from the governmental agencies beginning before the middle of this century, "Get big or get out," of agriculture. And it was and is that the capital that is available to agriculture is almost totally available only to "got big" operations. There is no economic and financial support for small, diversified sustainable operations.
Even more alarming than the large scale farm operations which are owned by individuals is the trend towards corporate farms run by farm management branches of large nonagricultural institutions. Take a wild guess at who the biggest "farmer"is in Nebraska...no, it isn't an individual, but rather an insurance company which owns and manages millions of acres in the state. The fact that insurance companies are the largest property owners and farm operations holds true in many other agricultural states as well.
"...He [the landlord capitalist] not only produced at a cheaper rate than the farmer because he had more land, but he began to use slaves..."
It might seem difficult to draw a correlation between the large scale farming of today and the use of slaves...but think of the analogy between slave labor and the high degree of mechanization in agriculture today. The machine is the modernday slave. Whereas the ancient Roman Empire had to constantly import slaves from conquered territories, today we are faced with the continual importation of oil for fuel for our mechanized work force.
Also, in endeavors where machines are not practical and human labor must still be used, we see situations similar to the one in the Central Valley of California which was discussed in Part XIII...which is not many notches above slavery,indeed, perhaps the slave of the past stood a better chance to be well-fed!
Whereas the consolidation of lands into large estates and the use of slaves reduced the number of people on and working the land, so today has the mechanization of agriculture reduced rural populations.
"...the constant drain on the manhood of
the countryside by [drafting into] the
legions, which culminated in the two long
wars with Carthage..."
We too in this century have seen a drain on the
population of the countryside, and it has been twofold. Firstly,
there have been the wars: WW I, WW II, the Korean war and the
Vietnam war. Secondly, during the same period and through until
the present the rural, agricultural population has been siphoned
off by the beckon call of the city, the factory job and the
city life, which has been more of a subtle economic and socialmanipulation rather than a natural, progressive cultural and
social development.
Quite naturally if the agricultural population is oppressed and exploited economically the majority is going to
go looking for what would be presented to it as greener
pastures... the factory job and the Metropolitan lifestyle.
"...During this period the wholesale commerce
of Latium passed into the hands of the large
landed proprietors who at the same time
were the [financial] speculators and
capitalists. The natural consequence was
the destruction of the middle class,
particularly the small holders...and the
development of a landed and moneyed lords
on the one hand and of an agricultural
proletariat on the other..."
Now the destruction of the middle class did not happen
overnight in the Roman Empire. Neither has it been or is it
continuing to happen overnight in this country currently. But
it was a gradual process which began with the transition in
agriculture from small, family farm type agriculture to large, corporate scale agriculture--in the process of the transition places had to be found for the multitudes of people who were more or less economic and financial refugees when agriculturewas oppressed and exploited...as in the Roman Empire then, where have the majority of people ended up in these alarmingly similar conditions seen today? PROLETARIAT...wage earners who really have no financial or physical capital or property. Factory workers, laborers, construction workers, fast-food workers, store clerks, etc., etc...
And with the modern trend towards franchises and large discount chains, many local proprietors of businesses have soldout only to become mid-management personnel for larger, corporateentities as we see so much with locally owned grocers or hardwarestores who have been forced to hook up with a chain or franchisein order to survive so that even they, as what is left of thereceding middles class in America, are now merely vassals andserfs to the feudal lords of the corporate interests.
"...The power of capital was greatly enhanced by the growth of the class of tax-farmers and contractors to whom the State farmed out its indirect revenues for a fixed sum.."
Even the individually owned farm of today could not exist without government subsidies and programs. Beyond this are many other similar programs many of which pay farmers not to plant in a world in which children die of hunger daily for no reason other than an economic one! Herein we see the "tax-farmers and contractors" which also existed in the days of the Roman Empire
"....Subsequent political and social conflictsdid not give real relief to the agriculturalcommunity...A [speculative] capitalist system of which the apparent interests were fundamentally opposed to a sound agriculture remained supreme...Then came...the appointment of an official commission to counteract the diminution of the farmerclass...efforts to restore agriculture to its rightful place in the State were accompanied by many improvements in Roman agriculture which, unfortunately, were most suitable for large estates..."
Even though politicians have addressed the problems in agriculture for decades and have drafted new legislation every year, year after year..."real relief for the agricultural community..." has not yet been achieved. And all of the grants and moneys allocated to the Land Grant Colleges is spent in the continued development of "improved(?)" methods of large scale agriculture.
"...Land no longer able to produce grain became pasture; cattle now roamed over large ranches, the vine and the olive were cultivated with commercial success..."
The same is the case in modern America and is indeed already history. Almost the entire Southeastern region was once devoted to real agricultural enterprises; cotton, tobacco, grains...but now the depleted soils are mostly occupied by deserted woodlands interspersed with pastures and occasional orchards.
"...the Roman Empire ended in failure due to the inability to realize the fundamental principle that the maintenance of soil coupled with the legitimate claims of the agricultural population should never have been allowed to come in conflict with [and superseded by] the operations of the[speculative] capitalists...the strongest possible support of capital must always be a prosperous and contented countryside. A working compromise between agriculture and finance should therefore have been evolved. Failure to achieve this naturally ended in the ruin of both..."
Yes, it naturally ended in the ruin of both. The agricultural lands of Italy were exploited and depleted by a greedy and unscrupulous financial sector, not realizing that it was squandering its only source of True Wealth, it continued until it had run itself bankrupt when the lands and peoples it had exploited were so depleted that they could no longer supply what the financial sector demanded...and thus, the inevitable ruin of both.
"...Finally the wealthy classes abandoned the depopulated remnants of the mother country...The situation had to be saved by migration to fresh lands..."
But we have no "fresh lands" to migrate to!!! Not only does the "[speculative] capitalist system of which the apparent interests are fundamentally opposed to a sound agriculture remain supreme," but it continues headlong towards the eventual ruin of both...and still nothing of the scale which the dire nature of the situation demands is being done to restore already depleted and marginal lands to production. Exploitation continues, depleting what good lands that are left, while programs of rectification are only token at best.
It seems that the Greek is continually proven to have been correct in having said that the only lesson that man has learned from history is that man does not learn from the lessons of history...and this was said more than a few thousand years ago...even before the days of the ancient Roman Empire!
But if men will not learn from the rhyme of history on a national scale, perhaps a few will learn on an individual scale and begin to go against the constraints of social inertias and begin to establish within their own individual lives a more natural order of things.
At least we can still hope so...
©2008 Michael, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Monday, December 8, 2008
Last modified: Monday, December 8, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Michael only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Michael of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Michael |
Reader Comments: