If you were a Left-leaning college student in the 1960s there is a good chance that you had a copy of Ramparts magazine on the coffee table. From 1964-1969, under the leadership of executive editor Warren Hinckle, Ramparts was arguably the most important anti-war, counter-culture, general circulation magazine in the United States. Closely associated with the New Left political movement the magazine reached an ultimate circulation of 250,000 in 1968. That was a large number in those days, especially for an ostensibly underground publication frequently denigrated by its competitors in the mainstream media. Ramparts was so good at its craft that it became the ire of the CIA, which tried to censor the magazine and then shut it down, failing on both counts, not to mention breaking the law and its own charter prohibiting it from domestic spying.
Why was the CIA so rattled?
In the April 1966 edition Ramparts exposed a program the CIA was running clandestinely out of Michigan State University as part of the Michigan State University Vietnam Advisory Group (MSUG). Though there were some positive outcomes from MSUG the article revealed that the Agency had infiltrated it early on and was using it as a front for covert operations, including training and arming police interrogators in South Vietnam to spy on and harass dissidents in Saigon. Though not explicit in the record there were almost certainly some classes on torture methods in the curriculum. What we do know is that Diem’s forces had gained considerable expertise in using such brutal practices during the time period in question. Ramparts asked: “what the hell is a university doing buying guns, anyway?” It was one of the early sparks in what would erupt into open confrontations between students and their universities over support for the Vietnam War, most famously at Berkeley, Michigan, Columbia, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Kent State, among many others. Ramparts won the 1966 George Polk Award for Magazine Reporting for the article. The cover is a 60s classic (see below).
Then in March 1967 Ramparts created a national sensation by publishing an embarrassing expose of CIA secret funding of the National Student Association (NSA) which was the largest college student organization in America. A year earlier the New York Times ran a series of articles which began to uncover secret CIA funding of various fronts going back to the late 1940s, including arts organizations, political and cultural journals, radio stations, cultural foundations etc. That operation, known as the Congress For Cultural Freedom, aka the Mighty Wurlitzer within the CIA, was a primary weapon against Soviet influence in what is today known as the Cultural Cold War. But the Ramparts story went one step further by including the first acknowledgement of the program’s existence by a former CIA officer involved in the covert operations, Michael Wood, who had records, not just about the NSA, but other related fronts that the CIA had established. The upstart magazine had once again scooped the big players in the main stream media on one of the biggest stories of the time, pouring more gasoline on the fire on campuses nationwide.
A side note about the March 1967 issue: Hinckle wrote the cover story, “A Social History of the Hippies.” Editorial differences over that story led contributing editor Ralph J. Gleason to resign in protest. Gleason and former Ramparts staffer Jann Wenner, then founded a new magazine, Rolling Stone, later that year.
Below are photos of these two landmark issues of Ramparts, they are two of the more influential magazine editions of any kind from the time period, helping to lay the foundation for the student radicalism that was to follow.
This issue is notable for several reasons. First, there is an article covering the ceasefire agreement ending formal fighting in the Korean War. Entitled “No Whistles, No Cheers, No Dancing” it is less than enthusiastic, not surprising considering Henry Luce’s antipathy toward the Chinese Communists. The French were also less than enthusiastic about the agreement, since it freed up the Chinese to focus on supporting Ho Chi Minh’s forces in the ongoing Indochina War.
Second, we are introduced for the first time in the Vietnam context to the great combat photographer David Douglas Duncan, from whom we will see more during the American phase of the war. The photos captioned “Corruption and Vice Sap Nation’s Energy” convey the effects of the opium trade in Saigon. We get a rare glimpse of the Grand Monde Casino and the French underworld boss Mathieu Franchini, the Corsican, who controlled most of Saigon’s opium exports to Marseille. (see Bodard, Lucien, The Quicksand War: Prelude to Vietnam. Faber and Faber Limited, London, 1967. And, McCoy, Alfred. The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. Harper and Row, New York, 1972.)
Last, with the title “Indochina All But Lost” featured on the cover, the first time that the war is mentioned on a cover, a turn toward pessimism about the ultimate outcome is apparent. The editorial on page 28 titled Indochina, France and the U.S. (shown below) posits that “Americans who know Indochina” are disheartened with France’s conduct of the war, calling Paris “the world headquarters of sophisticated defeatism,” and that it is time for new decisions on Indochina.*
This was an abrupt departure from the hopeful tone of previous Life reporting on the Indochina War. Just two years earlier the novelist Graham Greene had visited Vietnam, sent by Luce as a correspondent for Life. In the July 30, 1951 issue Greene reported on the war in Malaya, known as the Malayan Emergency. He crossed into the Tonkin region of Indochina on that trip. He ends his article with a comparison between the two insurgencies, both featuring colonial armies fighting local Communists. Greene applauds the performance of the Vietnamese Catholic infused forces that were helping the French while he denigrates the Malayan armed police fighting alongside the British, a hasty judgement that may have been clouded by his overt Catholicism. Yet, with more time spent in Vietnam, after gaining a better understanding of the situation, history and players, his confidence appears to have waned. A subsequent report, while not overly critical of the French forces, was not enthusiastic about their chances of prevailing either. Luce censored the article, and no other American publishers would run it. The piece ended up in the French magazine, Paris Match, for which Greene had become a correspondent. What he saw on that assignment, and future trips for Paris Match, provided the foundation for his masterpiece “The Quiet American,” considered to be one the greatest novels of the Cold War period. (see Greene, Graham, Indochina: France’s Crown of Thorns, Paris Match, July 12, 1952. And, Greene, Graham, Reflections, ed. Adamson, Judith, Reinhardt, New York, 1990.)
* The editors mention the arrival of General Henri Navarre and his proposed plan for a victorious offensive as a hopeful development. They urge Paris to accept the plan, stating that with “Vietnamese and American assistance victory is entirely feasible.” This so-called victorious offensive turned out to be Operation Castor, which ended with the Battle of Dien Bien Phu.
When I’m in the Journalism Building at Ohio State University I am often reminded that I am roaming the same hallways that Phil Ochs did back in the year that I was born (although the building was renovated in 1973, so they aren’t exactly the same hallways). Phil Ochs will always be my Ohio State hero.
Ochs studied journalism in college and formed a keen interest in politics, signing on with the student newspaper, the Lantern, as a student reporter (1959-1962). While there he contributed some interesting editorials on the Cold War events of the day. But when the student paper refused to publish some of his more radical articles, and then passed him over for the editor-in-chief job, he dropped out in his last quarter and moved to New York City in 1962.
While at OSU he developed a liking for the folk music of Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, the Weavers and the mythical IWW union leader Joe Hill, among others. Inspired by this music, he learned the guitar and formed a duo called the Sundowners. His first gig was at the legendary campus bar named Larry’s, right next door to where I tended bar for a few years in my college days. I spent many nights that I don’t remember at Larry’s, as I am sure Phil probably did too.
In Greenwich Village he emerged as one of the most influential folk singers of the sixties. He had a good friendship, and also an artistic rivalry, with Bob Dylan. Suze Rotolo, Dylan’s girlfriend at the time (seen on the cover of The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan), attended his wedding. He performed at the 1963 and 1964 Newport Folk Festivals to thunderous applause and great reviews. He appeared at Carnegie Hall and became a mainstay at many of the most famous civil rights rallies and anti-war demonstrations of the time. He was involved in the creation of the Youth International Party, known as the Yippies, along with Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.
But, like many of his contemporaries, the moment of change came with Dylan’s famous electric performance at Newport in 1965, one of the most important dates in 20th century American music. Ochs was unable, or unwilling, to make the leap to the new sound and his star began to slowly fade. These days he is hardly remembered. Sadly, even OSU remains ambivalent/silent about his legacy.
Here he is in 1965, young, vibrant and rebellious, on Let’s Sing Out, just a few months after the first ground troops landed in Vietnam. Note: if you watch to the end you’ll see a filler clip of him playing on the Oval at OSU in front of Orton Hall, the oldest building on campus and one that I help manage.
Michael Ochs, Phil’s younger brother, is an American photographic archivist best known for his extensive collection of pictures related to rock music dating back to the 1950s and 1960s. The Michael Ochs Archives contained 3 million vintage prints, proof sheets and negatives. The Los Angeles Times called Ochs “America’s preeminent rock ‘n’ roll photo archivist” and described his archive as “the dominant force in the rock image marketplace”; The New York Timescalled it “the premier source of musician photography in the world”. (Wikipedia)
Michael Ochs earned a B.A. in radio and television writing from Ohio State University in 1966. He then managed for his folk singer brother, worked as a photographer for Columbia Records, and later headed the public relations departments at Columbia Records, Shelter Records and ABC Records. He began collecting photographs as a hobby and spent years building the collection, ultimately establishing The Michael Ochs Archives in 1977. In the eighties he hosted his Archives Alive radio show on KCRW.
From his collection, he has produced six books: Rock Archives; Elvis In Hollywood; Marilyn: March, 1955; Shock, Rattle & Roll; Marilyn Monroe: From Beginning To End; and 1,000 Record Covers. He was one of three producers of the 2010 documentary film Phil Ochs: There but for Fortune.
Life January 22, 1951 – General Jean de Lattre Enters
1949-50 were critical years in the evolution of the Cold War. In 1949 the Soviets detonated their first atomic bomb and Mao’s communist forces defeated Chiang Kai Shek and took control of China. Henry Luce, founder and editor-in-chief of Time and Life magazines, was born in China. The son of a missionary, Luce spent his childhood there, and was a great admirer of Chiang Kai Shek. He had featured Chiang on the cover of Time ten times and had named him person of the year in 1937.
Then in June 1950 communist North Korea crossed the 38th parallel and attacked South Korea. While the world’s attention was focused on Korea and the fear of an atomic war, Ho Chi Minh’s top general, Vo Nguyen Giap, launched a series of devastating attacks on French forts north of Hanoi along the Chinese border. The French were routed and forced to abandon the forts, leaving behind many tons of precious artillery, ammunition and guns. The French army was demoralized and plans were being made to evacuate French citizens and soldiers’ families. It looked as if the Vietminh were on the verge of winning the war.
Enter General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny. The famous French hero of Verdun and the Resistance against the Nazis temporarily stopped the bleeding. He immediately canceled all evacuations, reasoning that by keeping their families in danger the soldiers would have something to fight for. Ironically, it was his own son who was killed a few months later in battle by the Vietminh. De Lattre died of cancer the following year, never recovering from his son’s death. The French-Indochina War would continue on for three more bloody years.
Here is the Life Magazine edition from January 22, 1951 with an overly hopeful piece announcing his arrival….
In 1902, after years of struggle and tragedy far from home, the French were grinding down in their calamitous Panama Canal effort. The overextended European power was anxious to cut its losses and hoped to entice the adventurous U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, into assuming ownership of the disastrous headache. The initial price offer was reportedly $100 million. Here in the States powerful business forces were pushing our government to blast our own shipping shortcut through Nicaragua and Congress was leaning toward the Nicaragua plan. The House had already voted in favor of building the canal there and it seemed a virtual shoo-in that the Senate would follow suit. The French reduced the price tag to $40 million out of desperation but the prospects for a successful sale appeared dim.
Then fate intervened. On May 8, 1902 Mount Pelee erupted on the island of Martinique, killing an estimated 29,000 people! It remains one of the deadliest volcanic eruptions in history. Even though Martinique is over 1,500 miles from Managua, it is in the Caribbean, and it was big news, so the question of volcanoes in the Nicaraguan canal zone resurfaced on Capitol Hill. The Nicaraguans sternly denied the presence of any active volcanoes and for the time being the vote looked safe.
According to author Stephen Kinzer, the French Panama Canal Company had hired an agent, William Cromwell, to lobby the U.S. Congress for the Panama option. Cromwell was about to leave town empty-handed when at the last minute a colleague showed him a recent Nicaraguan postage stamp. In an episode of unbelievable bad timing for the Nicaraguans, the stamp displayed a picture of the Momotombo volcano spewing lava and smoke. Seizing the moment, the lobbyist reportedly scoured the various Washington DC area stamp sellers and acquired copies to circulate to the senators. Accompanying the stamp was a note suggesting that the evidence proved that Nicaragua was no stranger to violent geological events and the Nicaraguans knew it. It was a Hail Mary, but the stamp ploy was successful. On June 28, 1902 The Senate voted for the Spooner Act authorizing the purchase of France’s Panama Canal assets. The Nicaraguan canal was dead. It was in an amazing turn of events that had devastating consequences for Nicaraguan people. (See Kinzer, Stephen – Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq. Times Books, 2006)
The Fletcher Brothers’ Gold Mine…
When it looked like the canal would traverse Nicaragua, American officials and Nicaraguan President Jose Santos Zelaya enjoyed positive relations. After the deal fell through everything changed. Zelaya’s hostility toward foreign interests operating in and near his country grew. With time his rhetoric of economic nationalism proved to be his undoing. In 1906 he sent troops to neighboring Honduras, overthrowing a government that ruled at the behest of the United Fruit (Chiquita), Standard Fruit (Dole), and Cuyamel Fruit Companies.* He then tried to foment revolution in El Salvador for similar purposes. His efforts brought the area to the verge of international war, prompting intervention in Honduras by the United States to restore order, i.e., the fruit cartels.
Eventually the American interests decided enough was enough. According to Kinzer, American President William Taft closely followed the increasingly belligerent doings of Mr. Zelaya. When Zelaya threatened to cancel the lucrative La Luz y Los Angeles mining concession, and seize the mines held by the influential Fletcher Brothers of Pennsylvania, Taft’s Secretary of State Philander Knox used the pretext to go on the offensive. Kinzer describes the connection:
“the Philadelphia-based La Luz and Los Angeles Mining Company … held a lucrative gold mining concession in eastern Nicaragua. Besides his professional relationship with La Luz, Knox was politically and socially close to the Fletcher family of Philadelphia, which owned it. The Fletchers protected their company in an unusually effective way. Gilmore Fletcher managed it. His brother, Henry P.Fletcher, worked at the State Department, holding a series of influential positions and ultimately rising to undersecretary. Both detested Zelaya, especially after he began threatening, in 1908, to cancel the La Luz concession. Encouraged by the Fletcher brothers, Knox looked eagerly for a way to force Zelaya from power.”
Knox commenced a sabre rattling campaign in the press. He seized on several minor incidents in Nicaragua, one in which an American tobacco merchant was briefly jailed, to paint the Nicaraguan regime as brutal and oppressive. He sent diplomats to Nicaragua whom he knew to be strongly anti-Zelaya, and passed their lurid reports to friends in the press. Soon American newspapers were screaming that Zelaya had imposed a “reign of terror” in Nicaragua and had become “the menace of Central America.” As their sensationalist campaign reached a peak, President Taft gravely announced that the United States would no longer “tolerate and deal with such a medieval despot.”
The handwriting was on the wall for the long-serving Nicaraguan president. In October 1909 an American proxy, General Juan Jose Estrada, declared himself president, igniting revolution in the country. When U.S. officials tried to persuade Costa Rica to invade Nicaragua in support of Estrada Costa Rican officials declined, stating that they considered the United States to be a more serious threat to Central American peace and harmony than Zelaya. Taft then ordered troops to Panama to further intimidate the besieged Zelaya. In December, the Nicaraguan president ordered the execution of two U.S. soldiers of fortune for fighting in Estrada’s rebellious army. Probably not the wisest course of action. The United States broke off diplomatic relations and the Marines landed in the country. Within two months Zelaya was forced to resign. He had ruled Nicaragua since 1893. Estrada later marched unopposed into Managua. The New York Times printed this when Estrada was sworn in: “On that day began the American rule of Nicaragua, political and economic.” (Kinzer – Overthrow)
A succession of conservative rulers went on supporting the U.S. military occupation that lasted until 1933. Meanwhile, the Fletcher Brothers continued to run their gold mines in Nicaragua.
The Sandino Insurrection…
After the fall of Zelaya the country endured years of humiliating subservience to foreign interests, with pliant rulers propped up by the U.S. Military. In the mid-1920s opposition increased, finally spilling over into civil war. By 1927 the war had been going on for three years and the fighting was becoming a real threat to U.S. interests. Rebels began to menace American companies, including the Fletcher owned mines. The American President, Calvin Coolidge, countered by sending more troops and proposing a solution which entailed United States oversight of a presidential election in 1928. In addition, funding was provided for the creation of a new national security force that was to be trained by the Marine Corps and nominally led by Nicaraguan soldiers, The Guardia Nacional de Nicaragua was born. (See U.S. Naval institute – Marines in Nicaragua, 1927-32)
The civil war was taking a heavy toll on Leftist forces. Many rebels had left the field, or had been killed. One refused to back down. In July 1927, with his legendary San Albino Manifesto, the revolutionary, Augusto “Cesar” Sandino, proclaimed his war of resistance against U.S. intervention. Over the next six years, his forces, the original Sandinistas, engaged in a military campaign that was a classic example of asymmetric guerrilla warfare. Once again, the Fletcher Brothers and their mines were at the center of events, and once again an American president sent troops, but this time the Marines could not save them.
According to a Herald Tribune report on April 23, 1928:
“The first report of the raid reached Mr. Fletcher, who is brother of Henry P. Fletcher, ambassador to Rome, on Saturday, April 21. It read: “On the 12th Sandino raided La Luz (name of the mine), taking all gold, money, merchandise, and animals. Also Marshall and all employees prisoners.”
“Mr. Fletcher immediately communicated with the State Department, asking that the Marines be sent to rescue the prisoners. Fletcher indicated that Sandino had returned to the mine following the raid on April 12 and was forcing the superintendent and his American assistants to operate the property, which he says produces about $30,000 worth of gold monthly.” (Herald Tribune April 23, 1928)
On May 7, 1928 Time magazine reported:
“Last week President James Gilmore Fletcher of the mining corporations and his co-owning brothers, G. Fred & D. Watson Fletcher, all of Manhattan, were irate. President Fletcher dashed to Washington to inform Secretary of State Frank Billings Kellogg that much was amiss in the valley of the purling Pis-Pis River. The Fletcher mines had been seized, he declared, by the forces of General Augusto Calderon Sandino, whom. U. S. Marines have been hunting vainly up and down Nicaragua for many a month.
To correspondents President Fletcher said bitterly: “My brothers and I are not in politics down there, and we have nothing to do with Wall Street. . . . From the meagre information I have the losses from looting our movable property may run to $100,000; but if the pipe line and mill plant have been destroyed the loss might run to $3,000,000 . . . and the owners would face ruin. … I guess this is what comes of investing one’s money in foreign countries.” (Time May 7, 1928)
On May 28, 1928 Time Magazine quoted from Sandino’s letter to Fletcher:
“I have the honor to inform you that on this day your mine has been reduced to ashes. . . . The losses which you have sustained in the aforementioned mine you may collect from the Government of the United States and Mr. Calvin Coolidge, who is truly responsible for the horrible and disastrous situation through which Nicaragua is passing at present.
“As long as the Government of the United States of North America does not order retirement of its pirates from our territory there will be no guarantee in this country for North Americans residing in Nicaragua.
“In the beginning I was confident that the people of North America would not be in accord with the abuses committed in Nicaragua by the Government of Mr. Calvin Coolidge, but I am now convinced that North Americans in general uphold the attitude of Coolidge in my country; and it is for this reason that all that is North American that falls into our hands assuredly will have come to its end.
Such was a letter found last week amid the ruins of the two Nicaraguan gold mines owned by brothers of U. S. Ambassador to Italy Henry P. Fletcher which were recently gutted by Nicaraguan guerrillas with a loss of $2,000,000. (Time, May 28, 1928)
A year later, May 9, 1929 Time Magazine reported:
“President Coolidge sent 6,000 Marines to Nicaragua and their officers told them to “Get Sandino dead or alive!” In two years of furious guerrilla fighting no one ever “got” General Augusto Calderon Sandino, though at last this slender, sallow, wild-eyed patriot was driven from Nicaragua. Last week a roving correspondent found Sandino in Yucatan, the arid Mexican state which bulges like a sand blister out into the Gulf of Mexico.” (Time May 9, 1929)
After a devastating earthquake hit Managua, Sandino returned to Nicaragua in 1931 to continue the fight for liberation. His continued resistance was a key factor in the eventual removal of the Marines from Nicaragua in 1933, although deep military budget cuts brought on by the Great Depression in the U.S. were also critical.
Sandino was never caught by the Marines, but he was eliminated nonetheless. While attending peace talks at the Presidential Palace in 1934 he was double-crossed by General Anastasio Somoza of the Guardia Nacional. The rebel leader’s murder was most likely carried out without the approval of the president, Juan Sacasa. The Guardia then forced Sacasa out of office and installed Somoza two years later. The Guardia Nacional de Nicaragua became Somoza’s personal police force and it kept the Somoza family dynasty in power for the following four decades. But in the end, in a textbook example of the phenomenon known as blowback, Augusto Sandino’s struggle, his defense of national self-determination, and his development of guerrilla warfare tactics, inspired the rise of Nicaragua’s Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN), the modern Sandinistas, who finally ended the right-wing Somoza family tyranny in 1979. What goes around comes around.
Epilogue...
Nicaragua’s failed dream of a canal linking its Atlantic and Pacific coasts turned out to be a costly nightmare. After the stamp episode and Zelaya’s subsequent overthrow by agents of the United States the country suffered through a series of banana wars and decades of tin-pot dictators and brutal Somoza family rule on behalf of American interests. The promise of the Sandinista revolution in 1979 was never realized, it did not arrest the poverty and strife brought on by years of political repression and economic instability. Today, its radical goals have largely faded into thermidor.
Panama’s reward for success on the other hand has been considerable. Around 14,000 ships transit the Panama canal each year, carrying 300m tons of cargo, earning the country about $2.5 billion in 2022. In 2022 the IMF ranked Panama 55th in the world in GDP per capita adjusted for relative purchasing power, Nicaragua did not make the top 100. (Panama Canal Traffic by Fiscal years)
Jose Santos ZelayaBuilding the Panama CanalPhilander KnoxU.S. Marines Head to Nicaragua 1909Augusto Cesar SandinoHenry P. Fletcher
*In 1904, the writer O. Henry coined the term “banana republic” to describe Honduras, inspired by his experiences there, where he had lived for six months.
Georgette Louise Meyer (March 14, 1918 – November 4, 1965), known as Dickey Chapelle (self-named after her favorite explorer, Admiral Richard Byrd), was an American photojournalist known for her work spanning from World War II to the Vietnam War.
While still in her twenties, posted with the Marines during World War II, she became one of the country’s first female war correspondents, covering the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa for National Geographic.
Chapelle covered the Hungarian revolt in 1956, The Lebanon Crisis in 1958, The Algerian War for Independence against France, The Cuban Revolution and the Vietnam War. In Algeria she travelled with the FLN rebels, in Cuba with Castro’s troops. She was in Vietnam and Laos as early as 1961, when US presence was still in the advisory phase. Chapelle became the first female reporter to win approval from the Pentagon to jump with American troops in Vietnam.
On the morning of November 4, 1965, she was killed by a land mine while on patrol with a Marine platoon, becoming the first war correspondent killed in the American war in Vietnam. Loved by the troops, her body was repatriated with a Marine honor guard and she was given a full Marine burial, also a first. She was the first American female reporter ever to be killed in action.
Here is a copy of one of her photos that I obtained from the Wisconsin Historical Society taken while covering the fighting in Cuba in 1958. The caption: Major Antonio Lusson, battalion commander for Castro during the fight for the town of LaMaya, fires on a strafing B-26 from Batista’s air force. Dickey Chapelle 1958.
There’s a Riot Goin’ On was recorded, mixed and over-dubbed, in 1970-71 by Sly Stone, mostly alone in the studio. It was made during a period of escalated drug use and turmoil between Sly and his Family Stone. The album is a sharp departure from the group’s previous 1960s records. The upbeat psychedelic soul sound of Everyday People, Dance to the Music and I Want to Take You Higher is instead replaced by a more edgy, funky and rhythmic sound. It is also very pessimistic and reflects Sly’s increasing disillusionment at the turn of 1970s, brought on by political assassinations, police brutality, the decline of the civil rights and anti-war movements, and the Nixon presidency. The first track “Luv n’ Haight” reflects his growing disdain for the hippie counterculture that was retreating from political and artistic activism, and relevance.
It is a commonplace declaration that the Altamont concert represented the “death of the sixties.” Perhaps, but for me this landmark recording also stands as a symbol of the changeover from the hopeful and progressive spirit of the 60s to the malaise and hedonism of the decades to come. This is perfectly captured in the album’s title, which was coined in response to Marvin Gaye’s album released six months before, What’s Going On, There’s a Riot Goin’ On.
As time has passed the album has consistently been praised as one of the greatest and most influential recordings of all time. It is one of the primary archetypes for the funk and hip hop genres that followed. It seems to creep higher with each release of greatest all-time lists. Rolling Stone had it at 82 on its most recent top 500. I personally put it much higher than that, and I bet George Clinton does too.
Much about the country has changed since my youth. One of the things I miss is the 4th of July smoke-in. The Youth International Party (YIP) organized smoke-ins annually across the US through the 1970s and into the early 1980s. The annual 4th of July smoke-in at Lafayette Park in DC became a counterculture tradition, as did the Ann Arbor Hash Bash. We all knew that the cops hated us but we outnumbered them so there wasn’t much they would do, although some did feature cop riots over the years, 1979 in DC comes to mind. The good news is that after all these years much of the country has finally come to its senses, legalizing marijuana to some degree, one of the few changes for the better since the coming of Reagan
The computer punch card, now a quaint artifact, was an important symbol of the times in 1964.
In 1964 the IBM Aerospace Headquarters building (pictured below) opened in Los Angeles. Originally built to house IBMs data processing facilities this seven-story office building with its “computer punch card” array of windows conducted the earliest versions of machine computing. It is considered an important part of industrial design history and a landmark of mid-century architecture.
That same year, in the fall of 1964, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement occurred, and the punch card was part of it. The confrontation evolved into a battle over academic freedom and the role of the university in society. Was it a factory designed to produce a managing class and “cogs in the machine”, or was it a marketplace of ideas designed to produce educated citizens?
The University of California used computer punch cards for class registration. FSM protestors turned them into a symbol of the “system” and as a symbol of alienation. The argument found its ultimate expression in the “Operation of the Machine” speech made by FSM leader Mario Savio. You can listen to the speech below. For a fascinating take on the cultural history of the punch card, including its role in the campus protests, read “Do Not Fold, Spindle or Mutilate” included below.
Life December 29, 1947 – Introduction of Ho Chi Minh
Photos from Life magazine, and others, that featured stories about the Vietnam War. Shared here in chronological order, along with some historical background for context. They are interesting artifacts of the time period. The ads are memory inducing too.
For people of my generation who grew up in the 1960s the war in Vietnam was, along with the Civil Rights Movement, the biggest ongoing news story of our youth. A substantial portion of popular culture, music, literature, movies etc, developed in reaction to these events. Much has been made of the role of TV media in influencing public opinion during the war, ultimately turning the majority of Americans against it. The war has been called the first living room war.
Less has been made of the role of the print media in leading the country into the war. No entity was more prominent in that role than Henry Luce’s Time and Life magazines. By 1950 nearly half of all college educated men in America regularly read these magazines, a number which grew throughout the 50s and 60s before ultimately fading in the late 60s under competition from television. Luce was immensely influential in political circles. Life introduced American readers to Ho Chi Minh in the December 29, 1947 issue.
By late 1947 the French had concluded that they weren’t going to take back their former colony without a substantial amount of military aid. Unfortunately for them they also knew that most Americans were staunch anti-colonialists. Truman was facing a tough re-election in 1948 and did not want to be seen as supporting colonialism. The French then hit on a brilliant strategy. They rehabilitated the son of a former emperor and installed him as the nominal “sovereign.” They then re-branded the war, not as a colonial reacquisition, but as a fight for Vietnamese nationalism versus Ho Chi Minh’s communists, ergo a crucial front in the life and death struggle between the west and soviet-directed communism. Life Magazine was quick to take up the cause. The ploy worked, the U.S. waded waist deep into the big muddy…
Livy, Latin in full Titus Livius (born 59/64 bc, Patavium, Venetia, Italy —died ad 17, Patavium), with Sallust and Tacitus, one of the three great Roman historians.
The History of Rome (Books I-V) – a foundational work in the history of western thought – covers the earliest history of Rome, from the arrival of Aeneas and the myth of Romulus and Remus to its capture and burning by the Gauls in 386BC. Livy’s storytelling radiates in vivid accounts of constant class warfare interspersed with military adventure. Here we learn about the Rape of the Sabine Women, the Alban Compact, Coriolanus, Cincinnatus, the Fabii and the slave Vindictus, the rise and fall of the Tarquin kings, the battle of Lake Regillus, the Commission of the Ten (the Decemvirs) and their law-code known as the twelve tables, the coming of the consuls and the tribunes, the winter soldiers, and finally the Gallic sacking of Rome and Camillus’ memorable speech echoing the foundation of the city.
Livy recorded his history of Rome at the end of the first millennium, hundreds of years after many of the events he describes, in a period when Rome was just emerging from nearly a century of civil war. His retelling of these traditional stories handed down from ancient times was heavily influenced by political strife more contemporary to his day. Myth, history and tradition fuse together within a political superstructure that depicts early Rome in perpetual turmoil, featuring constant power struggles between the masses (Plebeians) and the elites (Patricians). He writes in 2.23, “Nevertheless, danger was threatening the city’s peace . . . [in the form of] ever-increasing bitterness between the ruling class and the masses. The chief cause of the dispute was the plight of the unfortunates who were ‘bound over’ to their creditors for debts.”
The author interweaves the entire narrative with this class-warfare theme. Plentiful throughout are stories about pressure from below for political and economic reform vigorously countered by ruling elites. Over and over we read that the primary method for bolstering the bulwark against popular change was the manipulation of external threats to divert popular opinion. Nowadays we’ve heard the standard refrain all too many times, eerily similar to that of Livy– an enemy, real or perceived, threatens the national safety so an army must be raised. Senate (Patricians) can vote for war, but the Tribunes (Plebeians) can block the troop levy. Brinkmanship ensues, lines are drawn and scapegoating begins, political vacuums emerge and are filled, frequently by dictators, then more war. Dictators rise and fall, heroes are worshipped and human frailties frowned upon, gods are angered and placated with religious offerings, consuls and tribunes come and go. Through it all the populace is kept in constant fear of the barbarians just outside the gates. Rinse and repeat.
History reveals that the Plebeians have not fared well on average over the years in this environment. On the rare occasions when popular sentiment won the day the victors sometimes gained only the appearance of more power. Take the story of Servius for example. In it Livy explains that there was fairly broad suffrage among men in Rome, but that each vote did not carry the same weight from class to class. “The political reputation of Servius rests upon his organization of society according to a fixed scale of rank and fortune. He originated the census, a measure of the highest utility to a state destined, as Rome was, to future preeminence; for by means of its public service, in peace as well as in war, could thence forward be regularly organized on the basis of property; every man’s contribution could be in proportion to his means.” Livy states that “this had the effect of giving every man nominally a vote, while leaving all power actually in the hands of the Knights and the First Class.” (Livy, 1.44) Hence a narrowing of the field upon which the struggle for power is contested to a small number of privileged property owners.
Now think about how the US Congress is stacked against the popular will. By the time each Congress comes to order for the first time we the people have already surrendered a significant portion of our popular will by allowing ourselves to be winnowed down to 535 representatives (plus DC’s 3 electoral votes), some of whom stay on for decades. This narrowing of the target range to a manageable size creates a distinct advantage for influence peddlers (lobbyists and their benefactors). Then we double down by giving the less representative Senate the filibuster, thereby allowing a determined minority to kill bills that might emerge from the popular passions of the more representative House. The founding fathers did this by design to offset the tyranny of the majority. This is one of the famous checks and balances, and to be clear, by itself it is a strong philosophical concept and a serious requirement in a democracy. How else to offset the rule of the mob? In an oligarchy unfortunately it becomes a device to lock-in the desires of the ruling class. So, in the Senate, Wyoming has just as much power as California. Two senators each. Again the targets are narrowed even further for those fortunate enough to be allowed on the shooting range. Add a pinch of Citizen’s United and a dash of Gerrymandering and just as in Livy’s day there is broad suffrage, but most power actually resides in the hands of the Knights and the First Class. In that environment it is easy to see how the hopes and aspirations of the many can easily be hamstrung by the wishes of the few. Any wonder that it took one hundred years after the Civil War, and numerous failed attempts, to pass a civil rights act?
Livy writes in the preface: “The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see: and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings: fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”
The class struggle still exists, and it is still rotten. For the Plebeians hope is the dope their masters keep pushing, but it’s a weak dose, just enough to keep ’em strung out. The Patricians meanwhile continue to sit high on the hog. The history is there for all to see, but the power elite owns powerful tools to blind people from seeing it, and hence learning lessons from it. They keep a nice clean the sheet of the collective memory. When is the last time you saw a history of American labor on the TV? We get barraged with content on the history of war, and capitalism, and politicians, and celebrity, but you will be hard-pressed to find anything on the struggle for unions, equal rights and fair wages and better working conditions. Several years ago I visited the Newseum in Washington, which was advertised as the national museum on the history of the American media, dedicated to news and journalism that promoted free expression and the First Amendment. I found precious little material on working class movements, strikes or industrial and corporate malfeasance. How much of this information were you taught in school? How much is in the textbooks? Yet most of us spend a large portion of our waking lives laboring. I imagine you will hear plenty about Chinese balloons today though. Not much has changed in the 2700 years since Livy’s tales. RF
Einstein famously said: “God does not play dice with the universe.” Centuries earlier the christian philosopher Blaise Pascal similarly ruminated on God’s connection to gambling. Pascal’s Wager simply put says:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus a finite gain.
God exists
God does not exist
Believe in God
Infinite gain in heaven
Insignificant loss
Disbelieve in God
Infinite loss in hell
Insignificant gain
(Above is from From Rationalwiki.org)
Pascal (1623 – 1662) was reacting primarily to the essays of Montaigne, the most popular skeptic of the day. Medieval theology was by then fading almost entirely from vogue, crushed on the shoals of the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. For the religious set the trend was certainly in the wrong direction. In response Pascal crafted an apologetic for Christianity which is basically an exercise in managing on the margins of reason. Based on probability theory and game theory his Wager attempted to show that it is a no-brainer for someone to believe that God exists, even though this cannot be proved or disproved through reason. If one is willing to “bet” on the existence of God, even without certainty or proof, with no guarantee of winning the bet, that option still far outweighs the alternative with regard to potential gains. Makes sense…
But this assumes that God has taken the bet. After all, the Wager appeals to a base, some would say biological, instinct for self-preservation rather than to an ideal faith in some cosmic omniscient being. In fact, if God does exist, and is indeed a gambler, might not a person who is willing to take a big risk for his/her belief (or disbelief as the case may be) rate higher in God’s estimation than one who is just defaulting to the safest position to cover his bet (or rear-end)? Should one spend a lifetime collecting silver bullets on the off chance that there are werewolves bent on killing him? Or take a risk and ignore the wager? The answer: who knows?
MAGA squirms in denial over the Iran failure. Who could have predicted that the war would be an exercise in tragic futility and a foreign policy embarrassment of epic proportions? Pretty much anyone with a modicum of foreign policy knowledge not employed by Fox News, that’s who. So it’s no surprise then that Trump now pivots from “we will settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender” to “it’s just common sense for Iran to have a nuclear program… and ballistic missiles… after all, they have to be able to defend themselves.” A switcharoo worthy of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and its famous form-shifting trickster Jove.
No sooner had the words spewed from their false god’s lips than his consuls, who have secretly sworn their oath of office in his name and not the Constitution, marched forth to sacrifice themselves at his feet. How long before they start calling for him to get the Nobel Peace Prize, again? Being nothing more than parasitic bugs methinks that Kafka’s Metamorphosis is a more apt portrayal of these vermin. In the end though, I’m betting on Melville’s prophetic vision…
“As for the men, though some of them lowly rumbled, their fear of Ahab was greater than their fear of Fate.” -Herman Melville, Moby Dick. Chapter 124, Paragraph 13. The Needle.
We all know the fate of Ahab and his men…
“better is it to perish in that howling infinite, than be ingloriously dashed upon the lee.” -Chapter 23, Paragraph 4. The Lee Shore.
Grateful Dead:
“Though I could not caution all I still might warn a few Don’t lend your hand to raise no flag Atop no ship of fools”…
For Bibi Netanyahu:
“All your seasick sailors, they’re all rowing home Your empty-handed army is all going home Your lover who just walked out the door Has taken all his blankets from the floor”
National Lampoon:
“A mighty mass of furry little mindless animals A million lemmings marching to the sea We are lemmings We are crazies We will feed our flower habits pushing daisies”…
A troubling political development for me is the rise of the “news” site called The Bulwark. I have had several conversations lately with people that consider themselves knowledgeable Lefties who say they have turned to this outlet as an alternative to the MAGA hijacked mainstream media, that it better reflects their politics and viewpoints. My response has been, have you done your homework? Let’s not forget that these are the Neocons, the loudest cheerleaders for, and managers of, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They come from various conservative bastions like the defunct Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal.
Disaffected from their party by the rise of MAGA and led by Bill Kristol who, among other destructive endeavors, co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This so-called bulwark is comprised mostly of “former” right-wing commentators masquerading as cool-headed centrists fighting for democracy and social liberalism (taken directly from the Bulwark Substack site). Yet, their godfather Irving Kristol, Bill’s pop, was a prime actor in the smearing of the Great Society programs. His frequent screeds complained that using the government to help underprivileged, underserved, and underrepresented people only created dependency instead of alleviating poverty, destroyed the dignity of hard work, and led to bloated bureaucracy. His aim was to undermine GS social programs- war on poverty, medicare/medicaid, welfare, food stamps, environmental protection etc. That strategy was then effectively co-opted by the ultra-right and has led us to where we are today. I’m surprised that David Brooks and David Frum haven’t joined up. Oh right, they have both resurfaced at that other landing spot for Neocons, The Atlantic. My question to them: FDR or Reagan? Which side are you on? (hint: I already know the answer).
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows. Remember, those who sleep with dogs may wake up with fleas. In a world where the goal of the news media has degenerated into an exercise in deceiving rather than informing, be aware and consider your sources. This has been a public service announcement.
If you think military incompetence on the scale of Trump and Hegseth is something new, think again. If you think their hubris driven non-strategy might somehow succeed, think again. If you think the slide toward mob rule and despotism can’t happen here, think again. Polybius (201-117 BC) was already on to them nearly 2200 years ago…
Part I – Iran, What Polybius WouldHave Done:
Hannibal correctly judges the character of Flaminius:
“it is mere blind ignorance to believe that there can be anything of more vital importance to a general than the knowledge of his opponent’s character and disposition, —so must a commander of an army look out for the weak place, not in the body, but in the mind of the leader of the hostile force. For it has often happened before, that from mere idleness and lack of energy, men have let not only the welfare of the state, but even their private fortunes fall to ruin: some are so addicted to wine that they cannot sleep without bemusing their intellects with drink; and others so infatuated in their pursuit of sensual pleasures, that they have not only been the ruin of their cities and fortunes, but have forfeited life itself with disgrace. In the case of individuals, however, cowardice and sloth bring shame only on themselves; but when it is a commander-in-chief that is concerned, the disaster affects all alike and is of the most fatal consequence. It not only infects the men under him with an inactivity like his own; but it often brings absolute dangers of the most serious description upon those who trust such a general. For rashness, temerity, and uncalculating impetuosity, as well as foolish ambition and vanity, give an easy victory to the enemy, and are the source of numerous dangers to one’s friends: for a man who is the prey of such weaknesses falls the easiest victim to every stratagem, ambush or ruse. The general then who can gain a clear idea of his opponent’s weaknesses, and direct his attack on the point where he is most open to it (think Strait of Hormuz), will very soon be the victor in the campaign. For as a ship, if you deprive it of its steerer, falls with all its crew into the hands of the enemy; so, in the case of an army in war, if you outwit or out-manœuvre its general, the whole will often fall into your hands.” – Polybius The Histories. Bk 3 section 81.
The Trump/Hegseth combine eerily fits the description of Flaminius, whose naked ambition and vainglory Hannibal masterfully manipulated. Note: on June 24, 217 BC, during the Battle of Lake Trasimene in the Second Punic War Flaminius was ambushed and killed along with most of his legions by the Carthaginian army led by Hannibal. The Iranians appear to have followed Polybius’ advice to a T and as such have achieved similar results, at least politically. Observation: with the level of political infighting now taking place on the political Right over the capitulation MOU the Iranians may yet cause the severance of Trump’s head from its MAGA body.
The Gaul Ducar beheads the Roman general Flaminius in the Battle of Lake Trasimeno. Sylvestre Ducar decapite Flaminius (Trasimene). 1882
The Necessity of Caution in Dealing With an Enemy:
“The conclusion, then, is that those who put themselves in the power of the enemy from want of proper precaution deserve blame; but those who use every practicable precaution not so: for to trust absolutely no one is to make all action impossible; but reasonable action, taken after receiving adequate security, cannot be censured. Adequate securities are oaths, children, wives, and, strongest of all, a blameless past. To be betrayed and entrapped by such a security as any of these is a slur, not on the deceived, but on the deceiver. The first object then should be to seek such securities as it is impossible for the recipient of the confidence to evade; but since such are rare, the next best thing will be to take every reasonable precaution one’s self: and then, if we meet with any disaster, we shall at least be acquitted of wrong conduct by the lookers on. And this has been the case with many before now: of which the most conspicuous example, and the one nearest to the times on which we are engaged, will be the fate of Achaeus. He omitted no possible precaution for securing his safety, but thought of everything that it was possible for human ingenuity to conceive: and yet he fell into the power of his enemies. In this instance his misfortune procured the pity and pardon of the outside world for the victim, and nothing but disparagement and loathing for the successful perpetrators….” -Polybius The Histories. Bk 8 Section 2
“Thus Achaeus, in spite of having taken every reasonable precaution, lost his life by the perfidy of those in whom he trusted. His fate may teach posterity two useful lessons,—not to put faith in any one lightly; and not to be over-confident in the hour of prosperity, knowing that, in human affairs, there is no accident which we may not expect… -Polybius The Histories. Bk 8 Section 23
Let’s see how the Trump administration snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in terms of Polybius’ rules above. Beginning the war with an overwhelming advantage of military force…
Trump has left the US “in the power of the enemy from want of proper precaution.” Militarily, by making the same mistake that his predecessor’s made in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, ie. an over reliance on air power. Knowing full well that the country has no stomach for ground troops these amateurs still walked right into the same old self deluded trap. Politically, by failing to recognize, either through ignorance or hubris, that their strategy had several single points of failure, the biggest choke point being the Straight of Hormuz. After surviving the initial sucker punch, the Iranians got to their feet and promptly shut down that transit point vital to world commerce, putting the political pressure back on Trump, who never really had time on his side to begin with.
“But reasonable action, taken after receiving adequate security, cannot be censured. Adequate securities are oaths, children, wives, and, strongest of all, a blameless past.” We at one time had an adequate security oath (JCPOA), at least it was more adequate and less harmful to our interests than the capitulation MOU, but Trump tore it up. We certainly don’t have anything close to a blameless past in the region, beginning with our role in the 1953 coup that overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh and the subsequent installment of the Shah of Iran in his place. Our actions in the region ever since can be described as controversial, to put it mildly.
“He omitted no possible precaution for securing his safety, but thought of everything that it was possible for human ingenuity to conceive: and yet he fell into the power of his enemies. In this instance his misfortune procured the pity and pardon of the outside world for the victim…” Trump ignored warnings from pretty much the entire foreign policy establishment (not affiliated with Fox News) and threw in his/our lot with Bibi Netanyahu exclusively. He then failed to get buy-in from either our allies or congress before launching the ill-fated debacle. When the thing went south on him, he pleaded to no avail for the allies to rescue him, and now that he has surrendered, that is, we have surrendered, he flails wildly on X and TV at the lookers on that refuse to buy into his hastily concocted false narrative of victory.
“Thus Achaeus… lost his life by the perfidy of those in whom he trusted.”
The famous Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote in his foundational treatise On War that “War is the continuation of politics (policy) by other means.” The dictum defines war as a political instrument meant to achieve specific national or state objectives. This entry-level military strategy has been taught across the globe to those attending officer training schools since its coinage in 1832. One doubts that it is also taught to aspiring Fox News anchors. Therefore, to win a war means changing the politics of the enemy such that they must surrender. That is precisely what Iran just did to the United States.
Tetradrachm of Achaeus, minted around 220-214 BC
Polybius Describes How to Assess the Characteristics of Good Leaders:
“In private life if you wish to satisfy yourself as to the badness or goodness of particular persons, you would not, if you wish to get a genuine test, examine their conduct at a time of uneventful repose, but in the hour of brilliant success or conspicuous reverse. For the true test of a perfect man is the power of bearing with spirit and dignity violent changes of fortune.”-Polybius The Histories. Bk 6 Preface
In American history George Washington and Abraham Lincoln can be considered to be the greatest examples of this rule, along with FDR (IMO). Trump on the other hand, has done nothing but fail miserably during “violent changes of fortune”- covid, 2020 election and denial, Jan 6 insurrection and pardons, and now the Iran catastrophe- his vanity, corruption, racism and jealousy knows no bounds.*
For Polybius the prototype was Publius Cornelius Scipio (236/235–c. 183 BC), often regarded as one of the greatest military commanders and strategists of all time. One of the few survivors of Hannibal’s greatest victory, the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), Scipio suffered through years of exile but returned against all odds to mastermind the defeat of Hannibal at the Battle of Zama (202 BC), earning himself the honorific title Africanus (“the African”).
“Landing of Scipio Africanus at Carthage,” attributed to Michiel Coxcie (Belgium,1499-1592), shows the Roman general arriving in Africa. He would defeat Hannibal and the Carthaginians at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE, effectively ending the Second Punic War.
* Trump has floated the idea of adding his face to Mount Rushmore alongside Washington and Lincoln. Short of that preposterous goal, he now proposes to build an arch worthy of Mussolini directly blocking the view between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington National Cemetery was established on 13 May 1864, during the Civil War after Arlington Estate, the land on which the cemetery was built, was confiscated by the federal government from the private ownership of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. The selection of the location for the Lincoln memorial, with its view of the cemetery and Lee’s Arlington House was explicitly promoted as a vehicle for national reconciliation. To Trump no doubt it is a symbol of Lincoln looking down on Lee, and by association, the Confederacy. Far from “bearing with spirit and dignity,” MAGA’s raison d’etre is the severance of national reconciliation.
Part II – Polybius’ Theory of Political History:
Polybius’ Famous Theory of Anacyclosis: circular cycle of regimes: Polybius believed that human societies naturally cycle through six forms of government in a continuous, repeating loop. Notice that he emphasizes “the violation of women or the forcible appropriation of boys” in the transition from aristocracy to oligarchy. MAGA is clearly engaged in verbal and physical violence toward women, while insidiously working to strip them of their rights; the covering up of pedophilia by it’s leaders and members, and the protection and pardoning of child rapists, is a prominent feature of the movement’s resume.
Polybius on the classification of polities: “Now, it is undoubtedly the case that most of those who profess to give us authoritative instruction on this subject distinguish three kinds of constitutions, which they designate kingship, aristocracy, democracy. But in my opinion the question might fairly be put to them, whether they name these as being the only ones, or as the best. In either case I think they are wrong. For it is plain that we must regard as the best constitution that which partakes of all these three elements. And this is no mere assertion, but has been proved by the example of Lycurgus, who was the first to construct a constitution—that of Sparta—on this principle. Nor can we admit that these are the only forms: for we have had before now examples of absolute and tyrannical forms of government, which, while differing as widely as possible from kingship, yet appear to have some points of resemblance to it; on which account all absolute rulers falsely assume and use, as far as they can, the title of king. Again there have been many instances of oligarchical governments having in appearance some analogy to aristocracies, which are, if I may say so, as different from them as it is possible to be. The same also holds good about democracy.”
Six forms of polity, and their natural cycle: “I will illustrate the truth of what I say. We cannot hold every absolute government to be a kingship, but only that which is accepted voluntarily, and is directed by an appeal to reason rather than to fear and force. Nor again is every oligarchy to be regarded as an aristocracy; the latter exists only where the power is wielded by the justest and wisest men selected on their merits. Similarly, it is not enough to constitute a democracy that the whole crowd of citizens should have the right to do whatever they wish or propose. But where reverence to the gods, succour of parents, respect to elders, obedience to laws, are traditional and habitual, in such communities, if the will of the majority prevail, we may speak of the form of government as a democracy. So then we enumerate six forms of government,—the three commonly spoken of which I have just mentioned, and three more allied forms, I mean despotism, oligarchy and mob-rule. The first of these arises without artificial aid and in the natural order of events. Next to this, and produced from it by the aid of art and adjustment, comes kingship; which degenerating into the evil form allied to it, by which I mean tyranny, both are once more destroyed and aristocracy produced. Again the latter being in the course of nature perverted to oligarchy, and the people passionately avenging the unjust acts of their rulers, democracy comes into existence; which again by its violence and contempt of law becomes sheer mob-rule. No clearer proof of the truth of what I say could be obtained than by a careful observation of the natural origin, genesis, and decadence of these several forms of government. For it is only by seeing distinctly how each of them is produced that a distinct view can also be obtained of its growth, zenith, and decadence, and the time, circumstance, and place in which each of these may be expected to recur. This method I have assumed to be especially applicable to the Roman constitution, because its origin and growth have from the first followed natural causes.”
The origin of the social compact: “What is the origin then of a constitution, and whence is it produced? Suppose that from floods, pestilences, failure of crops, or some such causes the race of man is reduced almost to extinction. Such things we are told have happened, and it is reasonable to think will happen again. Suppose accordingly all knowledge of social habits and arts to have been lost. Suppose that from the survivors, as from seeds, the race of man to have again multiplied. In that case I presume they would, like the animals, herd together; for it is but reasonable to suppose that bodily weakness would induce them to seek those of their own kind to herd with. And in that case too, as with the animals, he who was superior to the rest in strength of body or courage of soul would lead and rule them. For what we see happen in the case of animals that are without the faculty of reason, such as bulls, goats, and cocks,—among whom there can be no dispute that the strongest take the lead,—that we must regard as in the truest sense the teaching of nature. Originally then it is probable that the condition of life among men was this,—herding together like animals and following the strongest and bravest as leaders. The limit of this authority would be physical strength, and the name we should give it would be despotism. But as soon as the idea of family ties and social relation has arisen amongst such agglomerations of men, then is born also the idea of kingship, and then for the first time mankind conceives the notion of goodness and justice and their reverse.”
Origin of morality: “The way in which such conceptions originate and come into existence is this. The intercourse of the sexes is an instinct of nature, and the result is the birth of children. Now, if any one of these children who have been brought up, when arrived at maturity, is ungrateful and makes no return to those by whom he was nurtured, but on the contrary presumes to injure them by word and deed, it is plain that he will probably offend and annoy such as are present, and have seen the care and trouble bestowed by the parents on the nurture and bringing up of their children. For seeing that men differ from the other animals in being the only creatures possessed of reasoning powers, it is clear that such a difference of conduct is not likely to escape their observation; but that they will remark it when it occurs, and express their displeasure on the spot: because they will have an eye to the future, and will reason on the likelihood of the same occurring to each of themselves. Again, if a man has been rescued or helped in an hour of danger, and, instead of showing gratitude to his preserver, seeks to do him harm, it is clearly probable that the rest will be displeased and offended with him, when they know it: sympathising with their neighbour and imagining themselves in his case. Hence arises a notion in every breast of the meaning and theory of duty, which is in fact the beginning and end of justice. Similarly, again, when any one man stands out as the champion of all in a time of danger, and braves with firm courage the onslaught of the most powerful wild beasts, it is probable that such a man would meet with marks of favour and pre-eminence from the common people; while he who acted in a contrary way would fall under their contempt and dislike.”
Which transmutes despotism into kingship: “From this, once more, it is reasonable to suppose that there would arise in the minds of the multitude a theory of the disgraceful and the honourable, and of the difference between them; and that one should be sought and imitated for its advantages, the other shunned. When, therefore, the leading and most powerful man among his people ever encourages such persons in accordance with the popular sentiment, and thereby assumes in the eyes of his subject the appearance of being the distributor to each man according to his deserts, they no longer obey him and support his rule from fear of violence, but rather from conviction of its utility, however old he may be, rallying round him with one heart and soul, and fighting against all who form designs against his government. In this way he becomes a king instead of a despot by imperceptible degrees, reason having ousted brute courage and bodily strength from their supremacy.”
Which in its turn degenerates into tyranny: “This then is the natural process of formation among mankind of the notion of goodness and justice, and their opposites; and this is the origin and genesis of genuine kingship; for people do not only keep up the government of such men personally, but for their descendants also for many generations; from the conviction that those who are born from and educated by men of this kind will have principles also like theirs. But if they subsequently become displeased with their descendants, they do not any longer decide their choice of rulers and kings by their physical strength or brute courage; but by the differences of their intellectual and reasoning faculties, from practical experience of the decisive importance of such a distinction. In old times, then, those who were once thus selected, and obtained this office, grew old in their royal functions, making magnificent strongholds and surrounding them with walls and extending their frontiers, partly for the security of their subjects, and partly to provide them with abundance of the necessaries of life; and while engaged in these works they were exempt from all vituperation or jealousy; because they did not make their distinctive dress, food, or drink, at all conspicuous, but lived very much like the rest, and joined in the everyday employments of the common people. But when their royal power became hereditary in their family, and they found every necessary for security ready to their hands, as well as more than was necessary for their personal support, then they gave the rein to their appetites; imagined that rulers must needs wear different clothes from those of subjects; have different and elaborate luxuries of the table; and must even seek sensual indulgence, however unlawful the source, without fear of denial. These things having given rise in the one case to jealousy and offence, in the other to outburst of hatred and passionate resentment, the kingship became a tyranny; the first step in disintegration was taken; and plots began to be formed against the government, which did not now proceed from the worst men but from the noblest, most high-minded, and most courageous, because these are the men who can least submit to the tyrannical acts of their rulers.”
Tyranny is then displaced by aristocracy: “But as soon as the people got leaders, they co-operated with them against the dynasty for the reasons I have mentioned; and then kingship and despotism were alike entirely abolished, and aristocracy once more began to revive and start afresh. For in their immediate gratitude to those who had deposed the despots, the people employed them as leaders, and entrusted their interests to them; who, looking upon this charge at first as a great privilege, made the public advantage their chief concern, and conducted all kinds of business, public or private, with diligence and caution. Which degenerates into oligarchy:But when the sons of these men received the same position of authority from their fathers,—having had no experience of misfortunes, and none at all of civil equality and freedom of speech, but having been bred up from the first under the shadow of their fathers’ authority and lofty position,—some of them gave themselves up with passion to avarice and unscrupulous love of money, others to drinking and the boundless debaucheries which accompanies it, and others to the violation of women or the forcible appropriation of boys; and so they turned an aristocracy into an oligarchy. But it was not long before they roused in the minds of the people the same feelings as before; and their fall therefore was very like the disaster which befell the tyrants.” (italics are mine)
Which is replaced by democracy: “For no sooner had the knowledge of the jealousy and hatred existing in the citizens against them emboldened some one to oppose the government by word or deed, than he was sure to find the whole people ready and prepared to take his side. Having then got rid of these rulers by assassination or exile, they do not venture to set up a king again, being still in terror of the injustice to which this led before; nor dare they intrust the common interests again to more than one, considering the recent example of their misconduct: and therefore, as the only sound hope left them is that which depends upon themselves, they are driven to take refuge in that; and so changed the constitution from an oligarchy to a democracy, and took upon themselves the superintendence and charge of the state. And as long as any survive who have had experience of oligarchical supremacy and domination, they regard their present constitution as a blessing, and hold equality and freedom as of the utmost value. Which degenerates into rule of corruption and violence, only to be stopped by a return to despotism: But as soon as a new generation has arisen, and the democracy has descended to their children’s children, long association weakens their value for equality and freedom, and some seek to become more powerful than the ordinary citizens; and the most liable to this temptation are the rich. So when they begin to be fond of office, and find themselves unable to obtain it by their own unassisted efforts and their own merits, they ruin their estates, while enticing and corrupting the common people in every possible way. By which means when, in their senseless mania for reputation, they have made the populace ready and greedy to receive bribes, the virtue of democracy is destroyed, and it is transformed into a government of violence and the strong hand. For the mob, habituated to feed at the expense of others, and to have its hopes of a livelihood in the property of its neighbours, as soon as it has got a leader sufficiently ambitious and daring, being excluded by poverty from the sweets of civil honours, produces a reign of mere violence. Then come tumultuous assemblies, massacres, banishments, redivisions of land; until, after losing all trace of civilisation, it has once more found a master and a despot.”
“This is the regular cycle of constitutional revolutions, and the natural order in which constitutions change, are transformed, and return again to their original stage. If a man have a clear grasp of these principles he may perhaps make a mistake as to the dates at which this or that will happen to a particular constitution; but he will rarely be entirely mistaken as to the stage of growth or decay at which it has arrived, or as to the point at which it will undergo some revolutionary change. However, it is in the case of the Roman constitution that this method of inquiry will most fully teach us its formation, its growth, and zenith, as well as the changes awaiting it in the future; for this, if any constitution ever did, owed, as I said just now, its original foundation and growth to natural causes, and to natural causes will owe its decay.”
“All those changes which I have enumerated come about by an undeviating law of nature; and reflected that every form of government that was unmixed, and rested on one species of power, was unstable; because it was swiftly perverted into that particular form of evil peculiar to it and inherent in its nature. For just as rust is the natural dissolvent of iron, wood-worms and grubs to timber, by which they are destroyed without any external injury, but by that which is engendered in themselves; so in each constitution there is naturally engendered a particular vice inseparable from it: in kingship it is absolutism; aristocracy it is oligarchy; in democracy lawless ferocity andviolence; and to these vicious states all these forms of government are, as I have lately shown, inevitably transformed.”- Polybius The Histories. Bk 6 sections 1-10.
Part III:
Polybius and the Roman Constitution:
“I am aware that some will be at a loss to account for my interrupting the course of my narrative for the sake of entering upon the following disquisition on the Roman constitution. But I think that I have already in many passages made it fully evident that this particular branch of my work was one of the necessities imposed on me by the nature of my original design; and I pointed this out with special clearness in the preface which explained the scope of my history. I there stated that the feature of my work which was at once the best in itself, and the most instructive to the students of it, was that it would enable them to know and fully realise in what manner, and under what kind of constitution, it came about that nearly the whole world fell under the power of Rome in somewhat less than fifty-three years,—an event certainly without precedent…What is really educational and beneficial to students of history is the clear view of the causes of events, and the consequent power of choosing the better policy in a particular case. Now in every practical undertaking by a state we must regard as the most powerful agent for success or failure the form of its constitution; for from this as from a fountain-head all conceptions and plans of action not only proceed, but attain their consummation.” – Polybius The Histories. Bk 6 Preface.
“I will now endeavour to describe that of Rome at the period of their disastrous defeat at Cannae…”
Triple element in the Roman Constitution: “As for the Roman constitution, it had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers: and their respective share of power in the whole state had been regulated with such a scrupulous regard to equality and equilibrium, that no one could say for certain, not even a native, whether the constitution as a whole were an aristocracy or democracy or despotism. And no wonder: for if we confine our observation to the power of the Consuls we should be inclined to regard it as despotic; if on that of the Senate, as aristocratic; and if finally one looks at the power possessed by the people it would seem a clear case of a democracy. What the exact powers of these several parts were, and still, with slight modifications, are, I will now state.
The Consuls: “The Consuls, before leading out the legions, remain in Rome and are supreme masters of the administration. All other magistrates, except the Tribunes, are under them and take their orders. They introduce foreign ambassadors to the Senate; bring matters requiring deliberation before it; and see to the execution of its decrees. If, again, there are any matters of state which require the authorisation of the people, it is their business to see to them, to summon the popular meetings, to bring the proposals before them, and to carry out the decrees of the majority. In the preparations for war also, and in a word in the entire administration of a campaign, they have all but absolute power. It is competent to them to impose on the allies such levies as they think good, to appoint the Military Tribunes, to make up the roll for soldiers and select those that are suitable. Besides they have absolute power of inflicting punishment on all who are under their command while on active service and they have authority to expend as much of the public money as they choose, being accompanied by a quaestor who is entirely at their orders. A survey of these powers would in fact justify our describing the constitution as despotic,—a clear case of royal government. Nor will it affect the truth of my description, if any of the institutions I have described are changed in our time, or in that of our posterity: and the same remarks apply to what follows.”
The Senate: “The Senate has first of all the control of the treasury, and regulates the receipts and disbursements alike. For the Quaestors cannot issue any public money for the various departments of the state without a decree of the Senate, except for the service of the Consuls. The Senate controls also what is by far the largest and most important expenditure, that, namely, which is made by the censors every lustrum for the repair or construction of public buildings; this money cannot be obtained by the censors except by the grant of the Senate. Similarly all crimes committed in Italy requiring a public investigation, such as treason, conspiracy, poisoning, or wilful murder, are in the hands of the Senate. Besides, if any individual or state470 among the Italian allies requires a controversy to be settled, a penalty to be assessed, help or protection to be afforded,—all this is the province of the Senate. Or again, outside Italy, if it is necessary to send an embassy to reconcile warring communities, or to remind them of their duty, or sometimes to impose requisitions upon them, or to receive their submission, or finally to proclaim war against them,—this too is the business of the Senate. In like manner the reception to be given to foreign ambassadors in Rome, and the answers to be returned to them, are decided by the Senate. With such business the people have nothing to do. Consequently, if one were staying at Rome when the Consuls were not in town, one would imagine the constitution to be a complete aristocracy: and this has been the idea entertained by many Greeks, and by many kings as well, from the fact that nearly all the business they had with Rome was settled by the Senate.”
The people: “After this one would naturally be inclined to ask what part is left for the people in the constitution, when the Senate has these various functions, especially the control of the receipts and expenditure of the exchequer; and when the Consuls, again, have absolute power over the details of military preparation, and an absolute authority in the field? There is, however, a part left the people, and it is a most important one. For the people is the sole fountain of honour and of punishment; and it is by these two things and these alone that dynasties and constitutions and, in a word, human society are held together: for where the distinction between them is not sharply drawn both in theory and practice, there no undertaking can be properly administered,—as indeed we might expect when good and bad are held in exactly the same honour. The people then are the only court to decide matters of life and death; and even in cases where the penalty is money, if the sum to be assessed is sufficiently serious, and especially when the accused have held the higher magistracies. And in regard to this arrangement there is one point deserving especial commendation and record. Men who are on trial for their lives at Rome, while sentence is in process of being voted,—if even only one of the tribes whose votes are needed to ratify the471 sentence has not voted,—have the privilege at Rome of openly departing and condemning themselves to a voluntary exile. Such men are safe at Naples or Praeneste or at Tibur, and at other towns with which this arrangement has been duly ratified on oath…”
“Again, it is the people who bestow offices on the deserving, which are the most honourable rewards of virtue. It has also the absolute power of passing or repealing laws; and, most important of all, it is the people who deliberate on the question of peace or war. And when provisional terms are made for alliance, suspension of hostilities, or treaties, it is the people who ratify them or the reverse…”
“These considerations again would lead one to say that the chief power in the state was the people’s, and that the constitution was a democracy.”
The mutual relation of the three: “Such, then, is the distribution of power between the several parts of the state. I must now show how each of these several parts can, when they choose, oppose or support each other…”
The Consul dependent on the Senate: “The Consul, then, when he has started on an expedition with the powers I have described, is to all appearance absolute in the administration of the business in hand; still he has need of the support both of people and Senate, and, without them, is quite unable to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. For it is plain that he must have supplies sent to his legions from time to time; but without a decree of the Senate they can be supplied neither with corn, nor clothes, nor pay, so that all the plans of a commander must be futile, if the Senate is resolved either to shrink from danger or hamper his plans. And again, whether a Consul shall bring any undertaking to a conclusion or no depends entirely upon the Senate: for it has absolute authority at the end of a year to send another Consul to supersede him, or to continue the existing one in his command. Again, even to the successes of the generals the Senate has the power to add distinction and glory, and on the other hand to obscure their merits and lower their credit. For these high achievements are brought in tangible form before the eyes of the citizens by what are called “triumphs.”
and on the people: “But these triumphs the commanders cannot celebrate with proper pomp, or in some cases celebrate at all, unless the Senate concurs and grants the necessary money. As for the people, the Consuls are pre-eminently obliged to court their favour, however distant from home may be the field of their operations; for it is the people, as I have said before, that ratifies, or refuses to ratify, terms of peace and treaties; but most of all because when laying down their office they have to give an account291 of their administration before it. Therefore in no case is it safe for the Consuls to neglect either the Senate or the goodwill of the people.”
The Senate controlled by the people: “As for the Senate, which possesses the immense power I have described, in the first place it is obliged in public affairs to take the multitude into account, and respect the wishes of the people; and it cannot put into execution the penalty for offences against the republic, which are punishable with death, unless the people first ratify its decrees. Similarly even in matters which directly affect the senators,—for instance, in the case of a law diminishing the Senate’s traditional authority, or depriving senators of certain dignities and offices, or even actually cutting down their property,—even in such cases the people have the sole power of passing or rejecting the law. But most important of all is the fact that, if the Tribunes interpose their veto, the Senate not only are unable to pass a decree, but cannot even hold a meeting at all, whether formal or informal. Now, the Tribunes are always bound to carry out the decree of the people, and above all things to have regard to their wishes: therefore, for all these reasons the Senate stands in awe of the multitude, and cannot neglect the feelings of the people.”
The people dependent on the Senate: “In like manner the people on its part is far from being independent of the Senate, and is bound to take its wishes into account both collectively and individually. For contracts, too numerous to count, are given out by the censors in all parts of Italy for the repairs or construction of public buildings; there is also the collection of revenue from many rivers, harbours, gardens, mines, and land—everything, in a word, that comes under the control of the Roman government: and in all these the people at large are engaged; so that there is scarcely a man, so to speak, who is not interested either as a contractor or as being employed in the works. For some purchase the contracts from the censors for themselves; and others go partners with them; while others again go security for these contractors, or actually pledge their property to the treasury for them. Now over all these transactions the Senate has absolute control. It can grant an extension of time; and in case of unforeseen accident can relieve the contractors from a portion of their obligation, or release them from it altogether, if they are absolutely unable to fulfil it. And there are many details in which the Senate can inflict great hardships, or, on the other hand, grant great indulgences to the contractors: for in every case the appeal is to it. But the most important point of all is that the judges are taken from its members in the majority of trials, whether public or private, in which the charges are heavy. Consequently, all citizens are much at its mercy; and being alarmed at the uncertainty as to when they may need its aid, are cautious about resisting or actively opposing its will… and Consul: And for a similar reason men do not rashly resist the wishes of the Consuls, because one and all may become subject to their absolute authority on a campaign.”
“The result of this power of the several estates for mutual help or harm is a union sufficiently firm for all emergencies, and a constitution than which it is impossible to find a better. For whenever any danger from without compels them to unite and work together, the strength which is developed by the State is so extraordinary, that everything required is unfailingly carried out by the eager rivalry shown by all classes to devote their whole minds to the need of the hour, and to secure that any determination come to should not fail for want of promptitude; while each individual works, privately and publicly alike, for the accomplishment of the business in hand. Accordingly, the peculiar constitution of the State makes it irresistible, and certain of obtaining whatever it determines to attempt. Nay, even when these external alarms are past, and the people are enjoying their good fortune and the fruits of their victories, and, as usually happens, growing corrupted by flattery and idleness, show a tendency to violence and arrogance,—it is in these circumstances, more than ever, that the constitution is seen to possess within itself the power of correcting abuses. For when any one of the three classes becomes puffed up, and manifests an inclination to be contentious and unduly encroaching, the mutual interdependency of all the three, and the possibility of the pretensions of any one being checked and thwarted by the others, must plainly check this tendency: and so the proper equilibrium is maintained by the impulsiveness of the one part being checked by its fear of the other….” -Polybius The Histories. Bk 6 Sections 11-18.
Polybius characterized the Roman constitution as a mixed form of government, which in his view was the best form of government. For this reason, combined with military might, Rome had achieved dominion over the known world in a matter of 53 years. The constitution was virtuous because it provided a system of checks and balances that contained aspects of each of his three basic types: kingship, aristocracy, and democracy, yet no one aspect of the constitution could become dominant and each part depended on the others to carry out its functions. He argued that the rotation of polities was a natural course of events, exemplified more clearly by Rome than any other state. To his mind the Roman system of government was the product of natural causes, destined to arise, destined to rule.
America’s founders based our constitution closely on the principles set down by the Romans. Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its longevity primarily due to its clearly defined system of check and balances. But now we are facing an unprecedented assault against these cherished principles led by the aspiring tyrant Donald Trump and enabled by the GOP and Supreme Court, who don’t even try to hide that they have abandoned their oaths of office and have sworn fealty to him over the Constitution. They more resemble a crime organization than a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” They are traitors to our democracy plain and simple. But if we subscribe to Polybius’ circular theory of regimes there is hope on the horizon, and although it will get worse before it gets better, a time of reckoning will come for these usurpers. Our sacred freedoms enshrined in the constitution shall not perish from the earth.
Other Noteworthy Fragments:
On the Two Methods of Encouraging the Troops for Battle:
“The two armies being now within a short distance of each other, Hannibal and Publius both thought it necessary to address their men in terms suitable to the occasion…”
“The manner in which Hannibal tried to encourage his army was this. He mustered the men, and caused some youthful prisoners whom he had caught when they were attempting to hinder his march on the Alpine passes, to be brought forward. They had been subjected to great severities with this very object, loaded with heavy chains, half-starved, and their bodies a mass of bruises from scourging. Hannibal caused these men to be placed in the middle of the army, and some suits of Gallic armour, such as are worn by their kings when they fight in single combat, to be exhibited; in addition to these he placed there some horses, and brought in some valuable military cloaks. He then asked these young prisoners, which of them were willing to fight with each other on condition of the conqueror taking these prizes, and the vanquished escaping all his present miseries by death. Upon their all answering with a loud shout that they were desirous of fighting in these single combats, he bade them draw lots; and the pair, on whom the first lot fell, to put on the armour and fight with each other. As soon as the young men heard these orders, they lifted up their hands, and each prayed the gods that he might be one of those to draw the lot. And when the lots were drawn, those on whom they fell were overjoyed, and the others in despair. When the fight was finished, too, the surviving captives congratulated the one who had fallen no less than the victor, as having been freed from many terrible sufferings, while they themselves still remained to endure them. And in this feeling the Carthaginian soldiers were much disposed to join, all pitying the survivors and congratulating the fallen champion…”
“Having by this example made the impression he desired upon the minds of his troops, Hannibal then came forward himself and said, “that he had exhibited these captives in order that they might see in the person of others a vivid representation of what they had to expect themselves, and might so lay their plans all the better in view of the actual state of affairs. Fortune had summoned them to a life and death contest very like that of the two captives, and in which the prize of victory was the same. For they must either conquer, or die, or fall alive into the hands of their enemies; and the prize of victory would not be mere horses and military cloaks, but the most enviable position in the world if they became masters of the wealth of Rome: or if they fell in battle their reward would be to end their life fighting to their last breath for the noblest object, in the heat of the struggle, and with no sense of pain; while if they were beaten, or from desire of life were base enough to fly, or tried to prolong that life by any means except victory, every sort of misery and misfortune would be their lot: for it was impossible that any one of them could be so irrational or senseless, when he remembered the length of the journey he had performed from his native land, and the number of enemies that lay between him and it, and the size of the rivers he had crossed, as to cherish the hope of being able to reach his home by flight. They should therefore cast away such vain hopes, and regard their position as being exactly that of the combatants whom they had but now been watching. For, as in their case, all congratulated the dead as much as the victor, and commiserated the survivors; so they should think of the alternatives before themselves, and should, one and all, come upon the field of battle resolved, if possible, to conquer, and, if not, to die. Life with defeat was a hope that must by no means whatever be entertained. If they reasoned and resolved thus, victory and safety would certainly attend them: for it never happened that men who came to such a resolution, whether of deliberate purpose or from being driven to bay, were disappointed in their hope of beating their opponents in the field. And when it chanced, as was the case with the Romans, that the enemy had in most cases a hope of quite an opposite character, from the near neighbourhood of their native country making flight an obvious means of safety, then it was clear that the courage which came of despair would carry the day.”
“When he saw that the example and the words he had spoken had gone home to the minds of the rank and file, and that the spirit and enthusiasm which he aimed at inspiring were created, he dismissed them for the present with commendations, and gave orders for an advance at daybreak on the next morning…”
“About the same day Publius Scipio, having now crossed the Padus, and being resolved to make a farther advance across the Ticinus, ordered those who were skilled in such works to construct a bridge across this latter river; and then summoned a meeting of the remainder of his army and addressed them: dwelling principally on the reputation of their country and of the ancestors’ achievements. But he referred particularly to their present position, saying, “that they ought to entertain no doubt of victory, though they had never as yet had any experience of the enemy; and should regard it as a piece of extravagant presumption of the Carthaginians to venture to face Romans, by whom they had been so often beaten, and to whom they had for so many years paid tribute and been all but slaves. And when in addition to this they at present knew thus much of their mettle,—that they dared not face them, what was the fair inference to be drawn for the future? Their cavalry, in a chance encounter on the Rhone with those of Rome, had, so far from coming off well, lost a large number of men, and had fled with disgrace to their own camp; and the general and his army, as soon as they knew of the approach of his legions, had beat a retreat, which was exceedingly like a flight, and, contrary to their original purpose, had in their terror taken the road over the Alps. And it was evident that Hannibal had destroyed the greater part of his army; and that what he had left was feeble and unfit for service, from the hardships they had undergone: in the same way he had lost the majority of his horses, and made the rest useless from the length and difficult nature of the journey. They had, therefore, only to show themselves to the enemy.” But, above all, he pointed out that “his own presence at their head ought to be special encouragement to them: for that he would not have left his fleet and Spanish campaign, on which he had been sent, and have come to them in such haste, if he had not seen on consideration that his doing so was necessary for his country’s safety, and that a certain victory was secured to him by it.”
“The weight and influence of the speaker, as well as their belief in his words, roused great enthusiasm among the men; which Scipio acknowledged, and then dismissed them with the additional injunction that they should hold themselves in readiness to obey any order sent round to them.” -Polybius The Histories Bk 3, sections 62-64
Hannibal’s Speech before the Battle of Cannae:
“Then Hannibal, seeing that his circumstances called for a battle with the enemy, Hannibal harangues his troops.being anxious lest his troops should be depressed by their previous reverse, and believing that it was an occasion which required some encouraging words, summoned a general meeting of his soldiers. When they were assembled, he bid them all look round upon the country, and asked them, “What better fortune they could have asked from the gods, if they had had the choice, than to fight in such ground as they saw there, with the vast superiority of cavalry on their side?” And when all signified their acquiescence in such an evident truth, he added: “First, then, give thanks to the gods: for they have brought the enemy into this country, because they designed the victory for us. And, next to me, for having compelled the enemy to fight,—for they cannot avoid it any longer,—and to fight in a place so full of advantages for us. But I do not think it becoming in me now to use many words in exhorting you to be brave and forward in this battle. When you had had no experience of268 fighting the Romans this was necessary, and I did then suggest many arguments and examples to you. But now seeing that you have undeniably beaten the Romans in three successive battles of such magnitude, what arguments could have greater influence with you in confirming your courage than the actual facts? Now, by your previous battles you have got possession of the country and all its wealth; in accordance with my promises: for I have been absolutely true in everything I have ever said to you. But the present contest is for the cities and the wealth in them: and if you win it, all Italy will at once be in your power; and freed from your present hard toils, and masters of the wealth of Rome, you will by this battle become the leaders and lords of the world. This, then, is a time for deeds, not words: for by God’s blessing I am persuaded that I shall carry out my promises to you forthwith.” His words were received with approving shouts, which he acknowledged with gratitude for their zeal; and having dismissed the assembly, he at once formed a camp on the same bank of the river as that on which was the larger camp of the Romans.” -Polybius The Histories Bk 3, sections 111
Polybius tells us the best course of action for a conqueror to take:
“But the fact is, that whereas the taking and demolishing an enemy’s forts, harbours, cities, men, ships and crops, and other such things, by which our enemy is weakened, and our own interests and tactics supported, are necessary acts according to the laws and rights of war; to deface temples, statues, and such like erections in pure wantonness, and without any prospect of strengthening oneself or weakening the enemy, must be regarded as an act of blind passion and insanity. For the purpose with which good men wage war is not the destruction and annihilation of the wrongdoers, but the reformation and alteration of the wrongful acts. Nor is it their object to involve the innocent in the destruction of the guilty, but rather to see that those who are held to be guilty should share in the preservation and elevation of the guiltless. It is the act of a tyrant to inflict injury, and so to maintain his power over unwilling subjects by terror,—hated, and hating those under him: but it is the glory of a king to secure, by doing good to all, that he should rule over willing subjects, whose love he has earned by humanity and beneficence…For in truth to conquer one’s enemies in integrity and equity is not of less, but of greater, practical advantage than victories in the field. In the one case the defeated party yields under compulsion; in the other with cheerful assent. In the one case the victor effects his reformation at the cost of great losses; in the other he recalls the erring to better courses without any damage to himself. But above all, in the one case the chief credit of the victory belongs to the soldiers, in the other it falls wholly and solely to the part of the leaders.” – Polybius The Histories Bk 5, section 12
Coinage minted to mark Hadrian’s visit to Judea.
On Historians and The Role of Composing Universal History:
“it is impossible for historians of particular places to get a view of universal history. For how is it possible for a man who has only read a separate history of Sicilian or Spanish affairs to understand and grasp the greatness of the events? Or, what is still more important, in what manner and under what form of polity fortune brought to pass that most surprising of all revolutions that have happened in our time, I mean the reduction of all known parts of the world under one rule and governance, a thing unprecedented in the history of mankind. In what manner the Romans took Syracuse or Iberia may be possibly learned to a certain extent by means of such particular histories; but how they arrived at universal supremacy, and what opposition their grand designs met with in particular places, or what on the other hand contributed to their success, and at what epochs, this it is difficult to take in without the aid of universal history. Nor, again, is it easy to appreciate the greatness of their achievements except by the latter method. For the fact of the Romans having sought to gain Iberia, or at another time Sicily; or having gone on a campaign with military and naval forces, told by itself, would not be anything very wonderful. But if we learn that these were all done at once, and that many more undertakings were in course of accomplishment at the same time,—all at the cost of one government and commonwealth; and if we see what dangers and wars in their own territory were, at the very time, encumbering the men who had all these things on hand: thus, and only thus, will the astonishing nature of the events fully dawn upon us, and obtain the attention which they deserve. So much for those who suppose that by studying an episode they have become acquainted with universal history…”-Polybius The Histories. Bk 8 section 4.
The history of Polybius the Megalopolitan: containing a general account of the transactions of the world, and principally of the Roman people, during the first and second Punick Wars, &c. Translated by Sir H.S. To which is added, a character of Polybius and his writings: by Mr. Dryden …, 2 vols. Photo: Edward Worth Library
Why History is Essential to Understanding the Present:
“Some uncritical readers may perhaps say that such minute discussion on points of this kind is unnecessary. And if any man were entirely self-sufficing in every event, I might allow that the accurate knowledge of the past, though a graceful accomplishment, was perhaps not essential: but as long as it is not in mere mortals to say this, either in public or private affairs,—seeing that no man of sense, even if he is prosperous for the moment, will ever reckon with certainty on the future,—then I say that such knowledge is essential, and not merely graceful. For take the three commonest cases. Suppose, first, a statesman to be attacked either in his own person or in that of his country: or, secondly, suppose him to be anxious for a forward policy and to anticipate the attack of an enemy: or, lastly, suppose him to desire to maintain the status quo. In all these cases it is history alone that can supply him with precedents, and teach him how, in the first case, to find supporters and allies; in the second, to incite co-operation; and in the third, to give vigour to the conservative forces which tend to maintain, as he desires, the existing state of things. In the case of contemporaries, it is difficult to obtain an insight into their purposes; because, as their words and actions are dictated by a desire of accommodating themselves to the necessity of the hour, and of keeping up appearances, the truth is too often obscured. Whereas the transactions of the past admit of being tested by naked fact; and accordingly display without disguise the motives and purposes of the several persons engaged; and teach us from what sort of people to expect favour, active kindness, and assistance, or the reverse. They give us also many opportunities of distinguishing who would be likely to pity us, feel indignation at our wrongs, and defend our cause,—a power that contributes very greatly to national as well as individual security. Neither the writer nor the reader of history, therefore, should confine his attention to a bare statement of facts: he must take into account all that preceded, accompanied, or followed them. For if you take from history all explanation of cause, principle, and motive, and of the adaptation of the means to the end, what is left is a mere panorama without being instructive; and, though it may please for the moment, has no abiding value.”-Polybius The Histories. Bk 3 section 31.
Epilogue:
The Decline and Fall of American Civilization:
On Trump’s 80th Birthday: Nothing says “decline of civilization” like gladiator fights at the capitol for the emperor’s amusement, while simultaneously losing a war at the frontier.
“For our history now descends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust.” ~Cassius Dio upon the death of Marcus Aurelius and the ascent of Commodus.
A marble bust of Roman emperor Commodus as the hero of Greek mythology Hercules, c. 190-2 CE. (The Capitoline Museums, Rome). Photograph by Mark Cartwright
Here are a couple of artifacts from the Bay Area music scene in the 1980s. These are two of the earliest issues of the punk zine Maximum RockNRoll. The magazine was originally founded by Tim Yohannan, who also helped found the 924 Gilman Street club. Vol 1, issue 2 is from 1982. It features a scathing expose on the Bechtel corporation. Indicative of the amateurish feel of the underground press, at least some of its claims about what Bechtel was up to have been confirmed over time. Also included are early interviews with Husker Du and Dirk Dirksen. By issue 9, in 1983, MRR had begun it’s long time practice of focusing on the regional and international punk scenes. There is also a nice listing of what punk was being played on the radio in the Bay Area and elsewhere. Over 400 issues later, Maximum RockNRoll published its last in 2019.
Parallel Narratives 
The author interweaves the entire narrative with this class-warfare theme. Plentiful throughout are stories about pressure from below for political and economic reform vigorously countered by ruling elites. Over and over we read that the primary method for bolstering the bulwark against popular change was the manipulation of external threats to divert popular opinion. Nowadays we’ve heard the standard refrain all too many times, eerily similar to that of Livy– an enemy, real or perceived, threatens the national safety so an army must be raised. Senate (Patricians) can vote for war, but the Tribunes (Plebeians) can block the troop levy. Brinkmanship ensues, lines are drawn and scapegoating begins, political vacuums emerge and are filled, frequently by dictators, then more war. Dictators rise and fall, heroes are worshipped and human frailties frowned upon, gods are angered and placated with religious offerings, consuls and tribunes come and go. Through it all the populace is kept in constant fear of the barbarians just outside the gates. Rinse and repeat.
History reveals that the Plebeians have not fared well on average over the years in this environment. On the rare occasions when popular sentiment won the day the victors sometimes gained only the appearance of more power. Take the story of Servius for example. In it Livy explains that there was fairly broad suffrage among men in Rome, but that each vote did not carry the same weight from class to class. “The political reputation of Servius rests upon his organization of society according to a fixed scale of rank and fortune. He originated the census, a measure of the highest utility to a state destined, as Rome was, to future preeminence; for by means of its public service, in peace as well as in war, could thence forward be regularly organized on the basis of property; every man’s contribution could be in proportion to his means.” Livy states that “this had the effect of giving every man nominally a vote, while leaving all power actually in the hands of the Knights and the First Class.” (Livy, 1.44) Hence a narrowing of the field upon which the struggle for power is contested to a small number of privileged property owners.
Now think about how the US Congress is stacked against the popular will. By the time each Congress comes to order for the first time we the people have already surrendered a significant portion of our popular will by allowing ourselves to be winnowed down to 535 representatives (plus DC’s 3 electoral votes), some of whom stay on for decades. This narrowing of the target range to a manageable size creates a distinct advantage for influence peddlers (lobbyists and their benefactors). Then we double down by giving the less representative Senate the filibuster, thereby allowing a determined minority to kill bills that might emerge from the popular passions of the more representative House. The founding fathers did this by design to offset the tyranny of the majority. This is one of the famous checks and balances, and to be clear, by itself it is a strong philosophical concept and a serious requirement in a democracy. How else to offset the rule of the mob? In an oligarchy unfortunately it becomes a device to lock-in the desires of the ruling class. So, in the Senate, Wyoming has just as much power as California. Two senators each. Again the targets are narrowed even further for those fortunate enough to be allowed on the shooting range. Add a pinch of Citizen’s United and a dash of Gerrymandering and just as in Livy’s day there is broad suffrage, but most power actually resides in the hands of the Knights and the First Class. In that environment it is easy to see how the hopes and aspirations of the many can easily be hamstrung by the wishes of the few. Any wonder that it took one hundred years after the Civil War, and numerous failed attempts, to pass a civil rights act?
Livy writes in the preface: “The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see: and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings: fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”
The class struggle still exists, and it is still rotten. For the Plebeians hope is the dope their masters keep pushing, but it’s a weak dose, just enough to keep ’em strung out. The Patricians meanwhile continue to sit high on the hog. The history is there for all to see, but the power elite owns powerful tools to blind people from seeing it, and hence learning lessons from it. They keep a nice clean the sheet of the collective memory. When is the last time you saw a history of American labor on the TV? We get barraged with content on the history of war, and capitalism, and politicians, and celebrity, but you will be hard-pressed to find anything on the struggle for unions, equal rights and fair wages and better working conditions. Several years ago I visited the Newseum in Washington, which was advertised as the national museum on the history of the American media, dedicated to news and journalism that promoted free expression and the First Amendment. I found precious little material on working class movements, strikes or industrial and corporate malfeasance. How much of this information were you taught in school? How much is in the textbooks? Yet most of us spend a large portion of our waking lives laboring. I imagine you will hear plenty about Chinese balloons today though. Not much has changed in the 2700 years since Livy’s tales. RF