Socialism

[grumbler]

The social safety net idea in practical terms has been around since the beginning of western civilization. The Romans had it, and after Rome fell the church filled the role (people had to tithe, and the church had to provide for the poor).

I would argue that neither the Roman model nor the church model had much to do with the social safety net as we know it today.  The modern social safety net is a part of the social contract, and is a consequence of the processes of urbanization and industrialization (thus the rural poor have a much higher resistance to "relying on welfare" than their urban cousins).  The Roman model was a pure "buy off the mob" effort 9and was started and halted several times in the early years), while the religious model was built around the needs of the churches, not the poor.

[Razgovory]

I guess Grumber was dissatisfied with the bread and circuses as young and struggling gubernator.

[crazy canuck]

while the religious model was built around the needs of the churches, not the poor.

Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven.  At least in the early Church when the Roman elite was making the transition from Pagan to Christian and making the transition from donating to their town to become leading citizens to donating to the Church to become leading citizens - and to ensure their place in heaven.

[CountDeMoney]

Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven.  At least in the early Church when the Roman elite was making the transition from Pagan to Christian and making the transition from donating to their town to become leading citizens to donating to the Church to become leading citizens - and to ensure their place in heaven.

That's a rather exaggerated and extrapolated viewpoint, but typical of Languish.

[crazy canuck]

Or more to the point the needs of the donors who believed they were transfering wealth into heaven.  At least in the early Church when the Roman elite was making the transition from Pagan to Christian and making the transition from donating to their town to become leading citizens to donating to the Church to become leading citizens - and to ensure their place in heaven.

That's a rather exaggerated and extrapolated viewpoint, but typical of Languish.

Take of read of Eye of the Needle...

[The Minsky Moment]

The local Roman elites had  abandoned the provincial towns  due to changes to the administrative and fiscal structure, not to the change in cult.  That shift began before the 4th century.

[crazy canuck]

The local Roman elites had  abandoned the provincial towns  due to changes to the administrative and fiscal structure, not to the change in cult.  That shift began before the 4th century.

You might want to refresh your memory by also reading Eye of the Needle.  In the first third of his book Peter Brown deals with the transition of elites giving to the community (including provincial towns - indeed he opens his book examining an elite from a provincial town) in the Fourth century to giving to the Church and the poor through the Church.  His main thesis is that although most scholars believe that the elite transitioned easily from giving to the community (paying for public works and putting on games) to giving to the Church for many of the same reasons of prestige and patronage (as well as the concept of putting "treasure into heaven" which was a concept readily identifiable for a pagan elite) that interpretation is based on which the Chruch itself says about itself through the Church writers of the time.

He argues that although he does not reject this view gift giving in that culture also reflected humane behaviour embedded in the well established practices of pagans and Jews as well as the new Christian cult.

[garbon]

The local Roman elites had  abandoned the provincial towns  due to changes to the administrative and fiscal structure, not to the change in cult.  That shift began before the 4th century.

You might want to refresh your memory by also reading Eye of the Needle.  In the first third of his book Peter Brown deals with the transition of elites giving to the community (including provincial towns - indeed he opens his book examining an elite from a provincial town) in the Fourth century to giving to the Church and the poor through the Church.  His main thesis is that although most scholars believe that the elite transitioned easily from giving to the community (paying for public works and putting on games) to giving to the Church for many of the same reasons of prestige and patronage (as well as the concept of putting "treasure into heaven" which was a concept readily identifiable for a pagan elite) that interpretation is based on which the Chruch itself says about itself through the Church writers of the time.

He argues that although he does not reject this view gift giving in that culture also reflected humane behaviour embedded in the well established practices of pagans and Jews as well as the new Christian cult.

In his opinion.

[crazy canuck]

ok

[garbon]

I'm just saying that someone's counter-mainstream thesis presented in a published form, less than a year old - might not be the end all be all on how we should conceptualize said events. Not that he's necessarily wrong, of course.

[crazy canuck]

I'm just saying that someone's counter-mainstream thesis presented in a published form, less than a year old - might not be the end all be all on how we should conceptualize said events. Not that he's necessarily wrong, of course.

The point is that is that the mainstream thesis is consistent with what I said.

He doesnt disagree with the mainstream thesis.  He just wants it better understood within the context of the time.

[The Minsky Moment]

You might want to refresh your memory by also reading Eye of the Needle.  In the first third of his book Peter Brown deals with the transition of elites giving to the community (including provincial towns - indeed he opens his book examining an elite from a provincial town) in the Fourth century to giving to the Church and the poor through the Church.  His main thesis is that although most scholars believe that the elite transitioned easily from giving to the community (paying for public works and putting on games) to giving to the Church for many of the same reasons of prestige and patronage (as well as the concept of putting "treasure into heaven" which was a concept readily identifiable for a pagan elite) that interpretation is based on which the Chruch itself says about itself through the Church writers of the time.

I've read Brown's earlier books. As well as others on the subject.
The decline of the curiales has been a huge subject of inquiry in the study of late antiquity for about 100 years now.  Tpyically the "push" factors cited are the greater burden of fiscal responsibility placed on the curiales and a corresponding decrease in local discretion on how the funds raises were used (more going to the central administration).  "Pull" factors include the adminsitrative reorganization of the Empire which led higher-end or ambitious local notables to seek to attach themselves to imperial courts in Milan, Trier, etc.  The rise of the Church is often described as playing a role in this process because of Constantine's edict exempting clergy from civic responsibility (basically a tax exemption).

Now Peter Brown knows a lot more about this stuff then I do and if he is advancing a radically different thesis now I would assume he has good reason to.  But I would be interested to know whether he is discounting the traditional story or supplementing it.

[crazy canuck]

Now Peter Brown knows a lot more about this stuff then I do and if he is advancing a radically different thesis now I would assume he has good reason to.  But I would be interested to know whether he is discounting the traditional story or supplementing it.

It is not at all radically different.  You have simply overstated the case.  Elites didnt just all pack up and leave their provincial towns as you seemed to have suggested.  That would be very odd given the fact that many of those same elites became leaders in their local Churches (Ambrose is the best example we have of that).  The fact that he was always in a major centre is not evidence that all other elites left for major centres but rather accounts for the amount of power and influence he had in the formation of the Church and its doctrine.

As I already noted, Brown does not reject the scholarship that came before him.  Rather he is studying (in this book) how the rich elites of Roman society transitioned from Pagans to Christians given the early beginnings of the Church focused on the poor.

[The Minsky Moment]

Elites didnt just all pack up and leave their provincial towns as you seemed to have suggested. 

I wasn't suggesting that.  For one thing, there weren't enough places at the imperial court to permit such a mass elite migration.  Also a not uncommon pattern seems to have been stints at a regional court interspersed by time at home.  But the flight from curial office, if not from the physical location, is pretty well documented IIRC.

As I already noted, Brown does not reject the scholarship that came before him.  Rather he is studying (in this book) how the rich elites of Roman society transitioned from Pagans to Christians given the early beginnings of the Church focused on the poor.

Definite must read for, if I can find the time to get to it.

[Admiral Yi]

I propose that another defining characteristic of socialism is the belief that income and wealth equality is a desirable end in and of itself.