Civil War in Ukraine: Western Empire vs Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just so ya'll can understand the yardstick better, here is Mommsen's insightful discussion of the character of Julius Caesar. Ya'll need to stop with the "is he a saint or is he not" or does he have lots of bux or does he not? Caesar was eminently practical and used his Gallic wars to accumulate tons of booty - not for the sake of money, but for what it could do, how it could further his plans.

From Mommsen’s famous “History of Rome”, chapter XI, excerpts.

On Caesar

The new monarch of Rome, the first ruler over the whole domain of Romano-Hellenic civilization, Gaius Julius Caesar, was in his fifty-sixth year (born 12 July 652?) when the battle at Thapsus, the last link in a long chain of momentous victories, placed the decision as to the future of the world in his hands. Few men have had their resilience so thoroughly put to the test as Caesar-- the sole creative genius produced by Rome, and the last produced by the ancient world, which accordingly moved on in the path that he marked out for it until its sun went down. …

If in a nature so harmoniously organized any one aspect of it may be singled out as characteristic, it is this--that he stood aloof from all ideology and everything fanciful. As a matter of course, Caesar was a man of passion, for without passion there is no genius; but his passion was never stronger than he could control. He had had his season of youth, and song, love, and wine had taken lively possession of his spirit; but with him they did not penetrate to the inmost core of his nature. …

Caesar was thoroughly a realist and a man of sense; and whatever he undertook and achieved was pervaded and guided by the cool sobriety which constitutes the most marked peculiarity of his genius. To this he owed the power of living energetically in the present, undisturbed either by recollection or by expectation; to this he owed the capacity of acting at any moment with collected vigour, and of applying his whole genius even to the smallest and most incidental enterprise; to this he owed the many-sided power with which he grasped and mastered whatever understanding can comprehend and will can compel; to this he owed the self-possessed ease with which he arranged his periods as well as projected his campaigns; to this he owed the "marvelous serenity" which remained steadily with him through good and evil days; to this he owed the complete independence, which admitted of no control by favourite or by mistress, or even by friend. It resulted, moreover, from this clearness of judgment that Caesar never formed to himself illusions regarding the power of fate and the ability of man; in his case the friendly veil was lifted up, which conceals from man the inadequacy of his working. Prudently as he laid his plans and considered all possibilities, the feeling was never absent from his breast that in all things fortune, that is to say accident, must bestow success; and with this may be connected the circumstance that he so often played a desperate game with destiny, and in particular again and again hazarded his person with daring indifference. As indeed occasionally men of predominant sagacity betake themselves to a pure game of hazard, so there was in Caesar's rationalism a point at which it came in some measure into contact with mysticism. …

Gifts such as these could not fail to produce a statesman. From early youth, accordingly, Caesar was a statesman in the deepest sense of the term, and his aim was the highest which man is allowed to propose to himself--the political, military, intellectual, and moral regeneration of his own deeply decayed nation, and of the still more deeply decayed Hellenic nation intimately akin to his own.

The hard school of thirty years' experience changed his views as to the means by which this aim was to be reached; his aim itself remained the same in the times of his hopeless humiliation and of his unlimited plenitude of power, in the times when as demagogue and conspirator he stole towards it by paths of darkness, and in those when, as joint possessor of the supreme power and then as monarch, he worked at his task in the full light of day before the eyes of the world. All the measures of a permanent kind that proceeded from him at the most various times assume their appropriate places in the great building-plan. We cannot therefore properly speak of isolated achievements of Caesar; he did nothing isolated.

With justice men commend Caesar the orator for his masculine eloquence, which, scorning all the arts of the advocate, like a clear flame at once enlightened and warmed. With justice men admire in Caesar the author the inimitable simplicity of the composition, the unique purity and beauty of the language. With justice the greatest masters of war of all times have praised Caesar the general, who, in a singular degree disregarding routine and tradition, knew always how to find out the mode of warfare by which in the given case the enemy was conquered, and which was thus in the given case the right one; who with the certainty of divination found the proper means for every end; who after defeat stood ready for battle … and ended the campaign invariably with victory; who managed that element of warfare, the treatment of which serves to distinguish military genius from the mere ordinary ability of an officer--the rapid movement of masses--with unsurpassed perfection, and found the guarantee of victory not in the massiveness of his forces but in the celerity of their movements, not in long preparation but in rapid and daring action even with inadequate means. But all these were with Caesar mere secondary matters; he was no doubt a great orator, author, and general, but he became each of these merely because he was a consummate statesman.

The soldier more especially played in him altogether an accessory part, and it is one of the principal peculiarities by which he is distinguished from Alexander, Hannibal, and Napoleon, that he began his political activity not as an officer, but as a demagogue. According to his original plan he had purposed to reach his object, like Pericles and Gaius Gracchus, without force of arms, and throughout eighteen years he had as leader of the popular party moved exclusively amid political plans and intrigues--until, reluctantly convinced of the necessity for a military support, he, when already forty years of age, put himself at the head of an army. It was natural that he should even afterwards remain still more statesman than general…

The task of the statesman is universal in its nature like Caesar's genius; if he undertook things the most varied and most remote one from another, they had all without exception a bearing on the one great object to which with infinite fidelity and consistency he devoted himself; and of the manifold aspects and directions of his great activity he never preferred one to another.

Although a master of the art of war, he yet from statesmanly considerations did his utmost to avert civil strife and, when it nevertheless began, to earn laurels stained as little as possible by blood. Although the founder of a military monarchy, he yet, with an energy unexampled in history, allowed no hierarchy of marshals or government of praetorians to come into existence. If he had a preference for any one form of services rendered to the state, it was for the sciences and arts of peace rather than for those of war….

The most remarkable peculiarity of his action as a statesman was its perfect harmony. In reality all the conditions for this most difficult of all human functions were united in Caesar. A thorough realist, he never allowed the images of the past or venerable tradition to disturb him; for him nothing was of value in politics but the living present and the law of reason, just as in his character of grammarian he set aside historical and antiquarian research and recognized nothing but on the one hand the living -usus loquendi- and on the other hand the rule of symmetry.

A born ruler, he governed the minds of men as the wind drives the clouds, and compelled the most heterogeneous natures to place themselves at his service--the plain citizen and the rough subaltern, the genteel matrons of Rome and the fair princesses of Egypt and Mauretania, the brilliant cavalry-officer and the calculating banker. His talent for organization was marvelous; no statesman has ever compelled alliances, no general has ever collected an army out of unyielding and refractory elements with such decision, and kept them together with such firmness, as Caesar displayed in constraining and upholding his coalitions and his legions; never did regent judge his instruments and assign each to the place appropriate for him with so acute an eye.

He was monarch; but he never played the king. Even when absolute lord of Rome, he retained the deportment of the party-leader; perfectly pliant and smooth, easy and charming in conversation, complaisant towards every one, it seemed as if he wished to be nothing but the first among his peers. Caesar entirely avoided the blunder into which so many men otherwise on an equality with him have fallen, of carrying into politics the military tone of command; however much occasion his disagreeable relations with the senate gave for it, he never resorted to outrages...

Caesar was monarch; but he was never seized with the giddiness of the tyrant. He is perhaps the only one among the mighty ones of the earth, who in great matters and little never acted according to inclination or caprice, but always without exception according to his duty as ruler, and who, when he looked back on his life, found doubtless erroneous calculations to deplore, but no false step of passion to regret.

He is, in fine, perhaps the only one of those mighty ones, who has preserved to the end of his career the statesman's tact of discriminating between the possible and the impossible, and has not broken down in the task which for greatly gifted natures is the most difficult of all-- the task of recognizing, when on the pinnacle of success, its natural limits. What was possible he performed, and never left the possible good undone for the sake of the impossible better, never disdained at least to mitigate by palliatives evils that were incurable.

But where he recognized that fate had spoken, he always obeyed. Alexander on the Hypanis, Napoleon at Moscow, turned back because they were compelled to do so, and were indignant at destiny for bestowing even on its favourites merely limited successes; Caesar turned back voluntarily on the Thames and on the Rhine; and thought of carrying into effect even at the Danube and the Euphrates not unbounded plans of world-conquest, but merely well-considered frontier-regulations.

Such was this unique man, whom it seems so easy and yet is so infinitely difficult to describe. His whole nature is transparent clearness; and tradition preserves more copious and more vivid information about him than about any of his peers in the ancient world. Of such a personage our conceptions may well vary in point of shallowness or depth, but they cannot be, strictly speaking, different; to every not utterly perverted inquirer the grand figure has exhibited the same essential features, and yet no one has succeeded in reproducing it to the life. The secret lies in its perfection. In his character as a man as well as in his place in history, Caesar occupies a position where the great contrasts of existence meet and balance each other. Of mighty creative power and yet at the same time of the most penetrating judgment; no longer a youth and not yet an old man; of the highest energy of will and the highest capacity of execution; filled with republican ideals and at the same time born to be a king; a Roman in the deepest essence of his nature, and yet called to reconcile and combine in himself as well as in the outer world the Roman and the Hellenic types of culture--Caesar was the entire and perfect man.

Caesar was a perfect man just because he more than any other placed himself amidst the currents of his time, and because he more than any other possessed the essential peculiarity of the Roman nation--practical aptitude as a citizen--in perfection: for his Hellenism in fact was only the Hellenism which had been long intimately blended with the Italian nationality. But in this very circumstance lies the difficulty, we may perhaps say the impossibility, of depicting Caesar to the life. As the artist can paint everything save only consummate beauty, so the historian, when once in a thousand years he encounters the perfect, can only be silent regarding it.

For normality admits doubtless of being expressed, but it gives us only the negative notion of the absence of defect; the secret of nature, whereby in her most finished manifestations normality and individuality are combined, is beyond expression. Nothing is left for us but to deem those fortunate who beheld this perfection, and to gain some faint conception of it from the reflected lustre which rests imperishably on the works that were the creation of this great nature. These also, it is true, bear the stamp of the time. The Roman hero himself stood by the side of his youthful Greek predecessor not merely as an equal, but as a superior …

With reason therefore the delicate poetic tact of the nations has not troubled itself about the unpoetical Roman, and on the other hand has invested the son of Philip with all the golden lustre of poetry, with all the rainbow hues of legend. But with equal reason the political life of the nations has during thousands of years again and again reverted to the lines which Caesar drew; and the fact, that the peoples to whom the world belongs still at the present day designate the highest of their monarchs by his name, conveys a warning deeply significant and, unhappily, fraught with shame. …

…Caesar came not to begin, but to complete. The plan of a new polity suited to the times, long ago projected by Gaius Gracchus, had been maintained by his adherents and successors with more or less of spirit and success, but without wavering. Caesar, from the outset and as it were by hereditary right the head of the popular party, had for thirty years borne aloft its banner without ever changing or even so much as concealing his colours; he remained democrat even when monarch... as he accepted without limitation, apart of course from the preposterous projects of Catilina and Clodius, the heritage of his party; as he displayed the bitterest, even personal, hatred to the aristocracy and the genuine aristocrats; and as he retained unchanged the essential ideas of Roman democracy, viz. alleviation of the burdens of debtors, transmarine colonization, gradual equalization of the differences of rights among the classes belonging to the state, emancipation of the executive power from the senate: his monarchy was so little at variance with democracy, that democracy on the contrary only attained its completion and fulfilment by means of that monarchy. For this monarchy was not the Oriental despotism of divine right, but a monarchy such as Gaius Gracchus wished to found … the representation of the nation by the man in whom it puts supreme and unlimited confidence.

... Caesar's work was necessary and salutary, not because it was or could be fraught with blessing in itself, but because-- with the national organization of antiquity, which was based on slavery and was utterly a stranger to republican-constitutional representation, and in presence of the legitimate urban constitution which in the course of five hundred years had ripened into oligarchic absolutism-- absolute military monarchy was the copestone logically necessary and the least of evils. …

… Little was finished; much even was merely begun. Whether the plan was complete, those who venture to vie in thought with such a man may decide; we observe no material defect in what lies before us--every single stone of the building enough to make a man immortal, and yet all combining to form one harmonious whole. Caesar ruled as king of Rome for five years and a half, not half as long as Alexander; in the intervals of seven great campaigns, which allowed him to stay not more than fifteen months altogether in the capital of his empire, he regulated the destinies of the world for the present and the future, from the establishment of the boundary-line between civilization and barbarism down to the removal of the pools of rain in the streets of the capital, and yet retained time and composure enough attentively to follow the prize-pieces in the theatre and to confer the chaplet on the victor with improvised verses. The rapidity and self-precision with which the plan was executed prove that it had been long meditated thoroughly and all its parts settled in detail; but, even thus, they remain not much less wonderful than the plan itself. The outlines were laid down and thereby the new state was defined for all coming time; the boundless future alone could complete the structure. So far Caesar might say, that his aim was attained; and this was probably the meaning of the words which were sometimes heard to fall from him--that he had "lived enough." But precisely because the building was an endless one, the master as long as he lived restlessly added stone to stone, with always the same dexterity and always the same elasticity busy at his work, without ever overturning or postponing, just as if there were for him merely a to-day and no to-morrow. Thus he worked and created as never did any mortal before or after him; and as a worker and creator he still, after well nigh two thousand years, lives in the memory of the nations--the first, and withal unique, Imperator Caesar. …
 
Laura said:
And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with Putin picking mayors. Democracy is a load of propagandistic BS, in case you haven't noticed that. We supposedly have a democracy in the US, but it's not, it's an oligarchy.

Amen to that!

Democracy is dead - long live the democracy.... It is best suited for psychopaths to get what they cherish for -power, money and stuff... and also there is a "gentlemen's convention" at play, so as many of them can exercise their urges. - regular elections every four years or so... Sheeple simply are not capable of proper selecting - they have no deeper interest in politics - so they choose among shills presented by mainstream media (religions included) playing on on their faked self-importance (as prominent constituents). So at times of elections people get their electoral ego trip overdose and live to the consequences next four and more years. Democratic hangover that never ends...
 
Yup, democracy IS a load of BS. I don't think it has ever existed for any considerable time anywhere from ancient times to the present. With the advent of agriculture and cities packed with people who don't know each other, the only way of having a decent system that will care for most of the people is when an exceptionally intelligent and caring leader comes to power - whatever the form of government. Given the thousands of years of pathological types seeking power and the dumbing down and degradation of the people in every way, democracy, as such, may be the worst system of government in practice, though one of the best in theory.

In our times, the best we can expect is when a JFK or Putin come on the world scene. That is the closest we are going to get to our analogy of Caesar. Well, JFK ended up assassinated by the oligarchy just like Caesar. Let's hope Putin lives to a natural death and accomplishes all he can - although I get the feeling if they could have assassinated him, they'd have done it by now; probably, it would have been more likely to kill him before around 2004 or 2005.
 
So what is a good alternative to democracy?

Democracy does get subverted - however, in some countries it seems to work better than in others. I think the direct democracy like in Switzerland (more decisions made directly by people) may be a better form than the representative democracy almost everywhere else (everything decided by elected "representatives").
 
axj said:
So what is a good alternative to democracy?

Democracy does get subverted - however, in some countries it seems to work better than in others. I think the direct democracy like in Switzerland (more decisions made directly by people) may be a better form than the representative democracy almost everywhere else (everything decided by elected "representatives").
In the republic of Plato, the philosopher four century before J-C, described all the political systems. Tyrannical, democratic, republic, Communism, royalist. It seems to say that the best system, is that of one of a good king. It is thus the man who makes the good policy and not the political system. Because the bad men will corrupt any system.
 
How realistic or probable is it to get a "good king"? Are the chances of a getting good leader better or worse in a democracy/republic?

Also, having "a leader" or "king" may be another STS distortion. Who says that the most important questions cannot be decided by votes directly from people? Again, the example of Switzerland. Of course, this system can be subverted too, but it may be more secure again subversion than having someone at the top who makes all the decisions for everyone else.
 
axj said:
How realistic or probable is it to get a "good king"? Are the chances of a getting good leader better or worse in a democracy/republic?

Also, having "a leader" or "king" may be another STS distortion. Who says that the most important questions cannot be decided by votes directly from people? Again, the example of Switzerland. Of course, this system can be subverted too, but it may be more secure again subversion than having someone at the top who makes all the decisions for everyone else.

I thought about these things too, and I think it's kind of ridiculous that there's such an aversion against "strong leaders". Especially in Germany, the thinking is kind of "strong leaders often become tyrants, so strong leaders must not be allowed", which in our democracy leads to a bunch of weak puppets posing as presidents and leaders who have zero backbone (and often are psychopaths), while the real leaders remain in the shadows. A "strong leader", as in the sense of someone who really tries to serve the people against all odds, is the last thing the oligarchs want. So this twisted thinking that "strong leaders" are bad by definition serves them well, osit.

As for the "king", I often thought about this while reading fantasy novels (love those Stephen Lawhead novels!). Sure, there is a lot of romantisation/idealization going on in such novels, but nonetheless I think that a system with a "strong, good, just king" - especially in smaller tribes - would be way better than a formal, lifeless democracy that is so easily exploited and overtaken by psychopaths. Granted, the king (or queen, of course) should be held accountable based on his achievements and a proven track record of improving the conditions for the people. And he should become king based on a proven track record of hard work for the common good, courage and backbone in the first place. He should be an example for the rest and living up to the highest standards - not by words, but deeds. This would probably involve some kind of voting mechanism. And as has been said before, a king doesn't have to be a "saint". He has to be a warrior, willing to sacrifice his own comfort for the ongoing struggle against the forces of darkness. Something very few people are willing and capable of, so the position wouldn't be very attractive indeed!

As we can see with Putin, the people stand behind him - because they see his track record, osit. And so if he changes the law allowing him to appoint regional governors and now mayors, I guess they don't see this as "undemocratic", but as another smart move by their strong leader whom they support to prevent the oligarchic forces from taking over. Just some thoughts I had about this...
 
luc said:
I thought about these things too, and I think it's kind of ridiculous that there's such an aversion against "strong leaders". Especially in Germany, the thinking is kind of "strong leaders often become tyrants, so strong leaders must not be allowed", which in our democracy leads to a bunch of weak puppets posing as presidents and leaders who have zero backbone (and often are psychopaths), while the real leaders remain in the shadows. A "strong leader", as in the sense of someone who really tries to serve the people against all odds, is the last thing the oligarchs want. So this twisted thinking that "strong leaders" are bad by definition serves them well, osit.

The aversion of Germans towards strong leaders because of recent history is a somewhat unique case, I think. And I'm not sure if it's completely true. There was Schroeder who stood up to Bush and did not join the Iraq war, for example. Also, looking at the "long-reigning" Merkel and Kohl before, maybe stability is what people in Germany look first and foremost for in a strong leader?

luc said:
As for the "king", I often thought about this while reading fantasy novels (love those Stephen Lawhead novels!). Sure, there is a lot of romantisation/idealization going on in such novels, but nonetheless I think that a system with a "strong, good, just king" - especially in smaller tribes - would be way better than a formal, lifeless democracy that is so easily exploited and overtaken by psychopaths. Granted, the king (or queen, of course) should be held accountable based on his achievements and a proven track record of improving the conditions for the people. And he should become king based on a proven track record of hard work for the common good, courage and backbone in the first place. He should be an example for the rest and living up to the highest standards - not by words, but deeds. This would probably involve some kind of voting mechanism. And as has been said before, a king doesn't have to be a "saint". He has to be a warrior, willing to sacrifice his own comfort for the ongoing struggle against the forces of darkness. Something very few people are willing and capable of, so the position wouldn't be very attractive indeed!

If the "king" is elected and held accountable for his actions, then what you are describing is a democracy/republic with a lot of power for the president. A presidential democracy as they are called. In fact, the U.S. is one of those and we all know how well that worked out.

luc said:
As we can see with Putin, the people stand behind him - because they see his track record, osit. And so if he changes the law allowing him to appoint regional governors and now mayors, I guess they don't see this as "undemocratic", but as another smart move by their strong leader whom they support to prevent the oligarchic forces from taking over. Just some thoughts I had about this...

That may be the case. Or it may be an example of where Putin is "not perfect".
 
axj said:
So what is a good alternative to democracy?

Democracy does get subverted - however, in some countries it seems to work better than in others. I think the direct democracy like in Switzerland (more decisions made directly by people) may be a better form than the representative democracy almost everywhere else (everything decided by elected "representatives").

Most ordinary people don't want to take responsibility for making decisions about the running of their country. Most of the problems involved are too complex and unwieldy, which is understandable. Ordinary people want a leader(s) to take those decisions for them, and as long as they make good decisions that benefit the people, then it's all good.
 
Hi axj,

Thanks for the reply. Maybe we shouldn't let this discussion shift to the question of the best political system, since this would require a discussion about many more topics - for example, if voting can work at all when people are acting purely mechanical and the media is owned by the "shadow government" and lies all the time etc. I think that's also why we seem to disagree here. At the end of the day, I guess it's more about understanding Pathocracy than about the perfect political system.

My point was just that I have the impression that many of us always think "democracy" is the best system, since that's what we've learned all our lives. I think it doesn't hurt to forget that for a moment and think about such questions as "what is a good leader?", "can a good leader go against so-called democratic principles if it seems right?" etc.

For example, the whole Putin/Medvedjev show to ensure Putin remains in power surely makes many western "democrats" and "experts" scream "undemocratic!". But is it? If the people want Putin in power, is it "undemocratic" of him to circumvent or change the constitution in order to fulfill the will of the people?

That's what I mean with a strong leader, someone who is strong as opposed to someone like Obama or Merkel who have some powers on paper but know full well they can't use them against their masters who put them in power in the first place.

axj said:
The aversion of Germans towards strong leaders because of recent history is a somewhat unique case, I think. And I'm not sure if it's completely true. There was Schroeder who stood up to Bush and did not join the Iraq war, for example. Also, looking at the "long-reigning" Merkel and Kohl before, maybe stability is what people in Germany look first and foremost for in a strong leader?

Well, with Schroeder, I think this was just a show to ensure his victory in the upcoming elections. What were the consequences of his not joining the Iraq-war? Nothing. In fact, Germany supported it with logistics in a hidden way... My interpretation is that the PTB just needed Schroeder in power for him to "enforce" the cruel and brutal "Agenda 2010" to cripple social welfare and instill a neo-liberal agenda. This was more important to the PTB than the irrelevant "moral support" for Bush...

axj said:
If the "king" is elected and held accountable for his actions, then what you are describing is a democracy/republic with a lot of power for the president. A presidential democracy as they are called. In fact, the U.S. is one of those and we all know how well that worked out.

I can see your point. As I said, it really depends on the definition of a "strong leader", and of the level of brainwashing the population lives under.

axj said:
That may be the case. Or it may be an example of where Putin is "not perfect".

Yes, that's the question. Maybe it's more about the "why" than the "what"? Meaning, since there is good and bad and then there's the situation that determines which is which, maybe we should not discuss if it's good or bad for Putin to appoint mayors and governors, but why has he changed the law, and what does he intend to do with those powers?
 
The point is any system of government could be good if good people lead. The main problem with fake democracies - from ancient Athens and Rome to today's "democracies" - is that a tyrannical oligarchy legitimizes their machinations and too many people believe they live in a democracy and have "citizen's rights." So in that sense, it's worse than any overt tyranny.

I think it's missing the point to say that the U.S. is an example of a presidential democracy that is analogous to the "good king" that's held accountable. The US is neither a democracy (among other evidence, less than half who have the right to vote do so), but an oligarchy, and the "president" (nor most politicians) are not accountable, and the president has no real power - just a figurehead. If any president (or any other politician) goes against the PTB's agenda, they just take him/her out.
 
Another good one.

Why is Putin in Washington’s Crosshairs?

_http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/28/why-is-putin-in-washingtons-crosshairs/
 
RT video from the last few hours:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L4k62QabIM

Is anyone who speaks Russian able to tell who exactly the police in this video are lined up against?
 
Patience said:
RT video from the last few hours:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L4k62QabIM

Is anyone who speaks Russian able to tell who exactly the police in this video are lined up against?

As far as I can see and understand, the police is making buffer zone between two groups.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom