5 ms·

Wow, I never heard anything about this before and I love reading about Roman history. Humans don't really change much, do they? Any additional reading you migh

Wow, I never heard anything about this before and I love reading about Roman history. Humans don't really change much, do they? Any additional reading you might recommend?

colechristensen 4y ago
Read SPQR The Romans are really… familiar. They invented the blueprint for western civilization and there are lots of things about the people that feel very modern. With a few tweaks and lucky chances, the Industrial Revolution could have happened more than 1000 years earlier. To get a sense of this go look up translations of Roman graffiti, especially at Pompeii.
- hvs 4y ago
  The idea that the Roman Empire was on the verge of an Industrial Revolution on par with the 19th and 20th centuries is a bit overblow: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...
  - beambot 4y ago
    Fascinating article... But when you consider that the driving initial application was pumping water (out of coal mines), you have to acknowledge that pumping water would've also been a major concern for the Romans too -- i.e. hydrology and aquaducts
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      Yes, but transporting coal is harder than pumping water, at least until you get a relatively efficient engine.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Not sure I buy the article's explanation. It seems to hinge on the Industrial Revolution being dependent on coal, which was dependent on a use case for coal, which was powering Spinning Jennies at scale... but it was always my understanding that the invention of the Spinning Jenny was "the" start of the Industrial Revolution, and in any case the article just punts the question: what stopped the Romans from inventing the Spinning Jenny or something comparable? Surely the Roman textile market would've warranted it, no?
- tsol 4y ago
  When you think about it, that's not so surprising. I imagine that set up would be the optimal one for a good of unknown but probable high value. It'll always be more work than it's worth for the army, and yet by auctioning off the unknown treasure they could capitalize on it. I wonder if this was employed anywhere else in the ancient world, if others came to the same conclusion in similar situations.
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    A friend once said, in the future they'll be mining out dumps for the mix of already refined metals and minerals.
- GalenErso 4y ago
  > They invented the blueprint for western civilization Ahem. The debate between Mary Beard and Boris Johnson convinced me it was the Greeks.
  - contravariant 4y ago
    Nah can't be, they were too busy arguing with each othe-- Actually, you may be on to something there.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    There’s a very old YouTube video of a drunken Boris Johnson reciting Homer in the original Greek.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  The Roman attitude toward work was the exact opposite of the capitalist attitude. Romans saw work as servile and debasing. One reason they had slaves was so they could be insulated from it. It’s hard to see that attitude leading to the Industrial Revolution.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    Capitalists also see work as servile and debasing. The reason they have employees is so they can be insulated from it. It's easy to see that attitude leading to the Industrial Revolution.
    - sacrosancty 4y ago
      [dead]
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      If I remember my Marxism classes in college, the capitalists worked longer hours than many workers, and used that as a moral argument in their favor. The Marxist response was that capitalists weren’t estranged from their labor in the same way. A CEO might work 90 hours, but it isn’t 90 hours on the assembly line. It’s 90 hours building all parts of the business. The former CEO of Yahoo took two weeks maternity leave and promised to work 9-5 for all of it. Modern history is filled with capitalists complaining about their lazy children. I was in downtown San Francisco not long ago. There’s a Classical style statue in praise of the workers who built downtown. You won’t find anything like that in a pre-capitalist society. Edit: in many capitalist countries, left wing party is called Labour. I can’t imagine a serious conservative political party called the Leisure Party.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > A CEO might work 90 hours, but it isn’t 90 hours on the assembly line. It’s 90 hours building all parts of the business. More like 90 hours "supervising" the people actually building all parts of the business (or, more commonly, supervising one or more intermediate layers of supervisors who then supervise the people actually building all parts of the business). And that's taking the implication of 90 hour CEO workweeks being even common (let alone representative of most CEOs) at face value. More importantly, the Marxist response didn't/doesn't revolve around the nature of the work; rather, it revolves around the ownership of the profits from that work. Specifically, the Marxist argument is that the workers are the ones actually creating the vast majority of the company's value, yet do not typically receive commensurate compensation (i.e. wages + benefits + ownership stake). Ownership stake in particular is the main point of contention: the difference between "value created by this worker" minus "compensation paid to this worker" (which is necessarily a number greater than zero if executives/managers are getting salaries) would in any honest accounting be an investment - yet rarely do workers receive shares of the companies they build, and when they do it's typically a small fraction of what they "paid in". Likewise, employees rarely have any control over who their executives and supervisors even are; if their CEO spends 90 hours a week "working" on golf courses and in fancy restaurants with CEOs of other companies, employees rarely have any ability to fire that deadbeat and hire a replacement who actually provides value to their company. That, if you remember from your Marxism classes, is the estrangement of workers from their labor. They work, but are denied commensurate ownership/control over the results of that work. This is what cooperatives and unions seek to resolve "within" a capitalist system - whether by creating companies which do give workers commensurate ownership or by pressuring existing companies to address their employees' needs/wants. > Modern history is filled with capitalists complaining about their lazy children. History in general is filled with New Money's descendants becoming Old Money. New Money complaining about said descendants becoming Old Money ain't exactly unique to capitalism. > I can’t imagine a serious conservative political party called the Leisure Party. Nor can I imagine one called the Racism Party, yet my country manages to have multiple parties for whom such a name would be quite apt.
turndown 4y ago
This exact anecdote appears in The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan, if you are into podcasts.

Wow, I never heard anything about this before and I love reading about Roman history. Humans don't really change much, do they? Any additional reading you might recommend?

colechristensen 4y ago

Read SPQR The Romans are really… familiar. They invented the blueprint for western civilization and there are lots of things about the people that feel very modern. With a few tweaks and lucky chances, the Industrial Revolution could have happened more than 1000 years earlier. To get a sense of this go look up translations of Roman graffiti, especially at Pompeii.

hvs 4y ago
The idea that the Roman Empire was on the verge of an Industrial Revolution on par with the 19th and 20th centuries is a bit overblow: https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/ https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-indus...
- beambot 4y ago
  Fascinating article... But when you consider that the driving initial application was pumping water (out of coal mines), you have to acknowledge that pumping water would've also been a major concern for the Romans too -- i.e. hydrology and aquaducts
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Yes, but transporting coal is harder than pumping water, at least until you get a relatively efficient engine.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Not sure I buy the article's explanation. It seems to hinge on the Industrial Revolution being dependent on coal, which was dependent on a use case for coal, which was powering Spinning Jennies at scale... but it was always my understanding that the invention of the Spinning Jenny was "the" start of the Industrial Revolution, and in any case the article just punts the question: what stopped the Romans from inventing the Spinning Jenny or something comparable? Surely the Roman textile market would've warranted it, no?
tsol 4y ago
When you think about it, that's not so surprising. I imagine that set up would be the optimal one for a good of unknown but probable high value. It'll always be more work than it's worth for the army, and yet by auctioning off the unknown treasure they could capitalize on it. I wonder if this was employed anywhere else in the ancient world, if others came to the same conclusion in similar situations.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  A friend once said, in the future they'll be mining out dumps for the mix of already refined metals and minerals.
GalenErso 4y ago
> They invented the blueprint for western civilization Ahem. The debate between Mary Beard and Boris Johnson convinced me it was the Greeks.
- contravariant 4y ago
  Nah can't be, they were too busy arguing with each othe-- Actually, you may be on to something there.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  There’s a very old YouTube video of a drunken Boris Johnson reciting Homer in the original Greek.
pyuser583 4y ago
The Roman attitude toward work was the exact opposite of the capitalist attitude. Romans saw work as servile and debasing. One reason they had slaves was so they could be insulated from it. It’s hard to see that attitude leading to the Industrial Revolution.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Capitalists also see work as servile and debasing. The reason they have employees is so they can be insulated from it. It's easy to see that attitude leading to the Industrial Revolution.
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    [dead]
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    If I remember my Marxism classes in college, the capitalists worked longer hours than many workers, and used that as a moral argument in their favor. The Marxist response was that capitalists weren’t estranged from their labor in the same way. A CEO might work 90 hours, but it isn’t 90 hours on the assembly line. It’s 90 hours building all parts of the business. The former CEO of Yahoo took two weeks maternity leave and promised to work 9-5 for all of it. Modern history is filled with capitalists complaining about their lazy children. I was in downtown San Francisco not long ago. There’s a Classical style statue in praise of the workers who built downtown. You won’t find anything like that in a pre-capitalist society. Edit: in many capitalist countries, left wing party is called Labour. I can’t imagine a serious conservative political party called the Leisure Party.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > A CEO might work 90 hours, but it isn’t 90 hours on the assembly line. It’s 90 hours building all parts of the business. More like 90 hours "supervising" the people actually building all parts of the business (or, more commonly, supervising one or more intermediate layers of supervisors who then supervise the people actually building all parts of the business). And that's taking the implication of 90 hour CEO workweeks being even common (let alone representative of most CEOs) at face value. More importantly, the Marxist response didn't/doesn't revolve around the nature of the work; rather, it revolves around the ownership of the profits from that work. Specifically, the Marxist argument is that the workers are the ones actually creating the vast majority of the company's value, yet do not typically receive commensurate compensation (i.e. wages + benefits + ownership stake). Ownership stake in particular is the main point of contention: the difference between "value created by this worker" minus "compensation paid to this worker" (which is necessarily a number greater than zero if executives/managers are getting salaries) would in any honest accounting be an investment - yet rarely do workers receive shares of the companies they build, and when they do it's typically a small fraction of what they "paid in". Likewise, employees rarely have any control over who their executives and supervisors even are; if their CEO spends 90 hours a week "working" on golf courses and in fancy restaurants with CEOs of other companies, employees rarely have any ability to fire that deadbeat and hire a replacement who actually provides value to their company. That, if you remember from your Marxism classes, is the estrangement of workers from their labor. They work, but are denied commensurate ownership/control over the results of that work. This is what cooperatives and unions seek to resolve "within" a capitalist system - whether by creating companies which do give workers commensurate ownership or by pressuring existing companies to address their employees' needs/wants. > Modern history is filled with capitalists complaining about their lazy children. History in general is filled with New Money's descendants becoming Old Money. New Money complaining about said descendants becoming Old Money ain't exactly unique to capitalism. > I can’t imagine a serious conservative political party called the Leisure Party. Nor can I imagine one called the Racism Party, yet my country manages to have multiple parties for whom such a name would be quite apt.

turndown 4y ago

This exact anecdote appears in The History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan, if you are into podcasts.