[Vladimir]

The same type of switch occured in principle. Lesser due to lesser technology. Organizing, and collectivising was as much as technology allowed it to be, much like industrial capitalism allows it to be today, and as much as space capitalism will allow it to be in the future. It is not dependant on marxist slave or prol theory, it is dependant on technology.

Yes it did, but it did not fully collectivise production, which is what people understand industrialisation to be.

Primary, technological characteristics are --
(i) SUBSTITUTION OF MACHINES FOR HUMAN SKILL
(ii) SUBSTITUTION OF INANIMATE POWER FOR HUMAN ND ANIMAL FORCE
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ecamwk/lec ... on-120.doc

Which did not occur during roman times, a different change occured. It is best to call it otherwise. I'm sure there is a name for it already in historical circles.

Again, on principle it is. Trying to find one difference that can be found due to the era difference is not an argument. Proletariat wage slavery might not be precisely the same in everything, but it certainly is in practise. And illegal immigrant slavery is the same in everything. Asian child-labour is the same again in everything, one can argue that it is actually worse, or the Black slavery which was worse indeed than roman slavery.

How so? A slave is himself a commodity. A proletarian has his labour as a commodity.
A proletarian is not owned by anyone, nor is his labour until he sells it.
Slave empires are founded upon trade of people; capitalist empires are based upon trade of labour.
It is a completely different structure!

Listen, the fact, that marx, and none of the marxists have located any actual legal developments inside the Legal framework taking place on a large-scale(as much as the theory postulates) exactly during the demarcation lines in between the theoretical eras, is the most tangible proof, that the whole theory is pure imagination, amounting to horse-shit.

They didn't?
Oh and this is rather off-topic btw.

[noemon]

Yes it did, but it did not fully collectivise production, which is what people understand industrialisation to be.

Industrialism did not fully collectivize production either. It simply expanded collectivization in more areas due to the technology utilized(not discovered). And it is expanded indeed to cover the majority of areas.

A slave is himself a commodity. A proletarian has his labour as a commodity.
A proletarian is not owned by anyone, nor is his labour until he sells it.
Slave empires are founded upon trade of people; capitalist empires are based upon trade of labour.
It is a completely different structure!

Neither empires are based on what you claim they are. Both empires run their economics through trade and currency. In both "slave" empires, and capitalist empires, the middle-class utilizes both slaves and consientious workers. Trying to prove that on the past the slaves exceeded the consientious workers, is impossible because you do not have the data to prove it, and the only thing you have, are the references made towards the slaves, because it was a subject-matter for discussion, while the consientious workers were not, and hence any data regarding them are lacking, without ofc meaning that they did not exist. It simply means that slave-subjects were a more catchy subject. Even if we assume, that they surpassed the consientious workers on the scales, it still means nothing, and is completely irrelevant to the reasons as to why they did not make the jump to 18th ace industrialism. In addition, just because the slaves did not have a choice on where to to be put to work, like the prol. allegedly has today(even though that is debatable, too), does not mean anything. It is completely irrelevant to the subject, and even if it can be taken to mean something, that would be that collectivization and industrialism is better achieved through slavery(in the majority of the workforce), in which case the elites do not have to worry about labour supply, so the point is moot anyhow one looks at it.

They didn't?
Oh and this is rather off-topic btw.

No they did not, do, what i described. And it is not at all off-topic.

--

To phrase even better something that i said above, the reason why Rome or Alexander did not have industrialism like the British, despite the fact that they had exactly the know-how(ie the steam engine in theory) to make the jump, is for the same reason that the bourgoisie does not make jumps unless it first exhausts, its on-going capital. The same reason why, we have the know-how to switch to nuclear energy, but we do not, unless we first exhaust oil, and more importantly exploit the cycles of supply and demand. For the same reason, they did not start building rail-roads and machines, because they had not even built roads yet. Once again, nothing to do with slave-prol, or wage crap theories.

[Vladimir]

Industrialism did not fully collectivize production either. It simply expanded collectivization in more areas due to the technology utilized(not discovered). And it is expanded indeed to cover the majority of areas.

Okay, what didn't it collectivise?

Neither empires are based on what you claim they are. Both empires run their economics through trade and currency.

Nothing is based on trade. Trade is distribution of what is produced; it is entirely dependant on production.
You can't trade anything until it's produced

In both "slave" empires, and capitalist empires, the middle-class utilizes both slaves and consientious workers. Trying to prove that on the past the slaves exceeded the consientious workers, is impossible because you do not have the data to prove it, and the only thing you have, are the references made towards the slaves, because it was a subject-matter for discussion, while the consientious workers were not, and hence any data regarding them are lacking, without ofc meaning that they did not exist. It simply means that slave-subjects were a more catchy subject.

When the Romans were farmers and shepherds, slaves were used for farm work. Citizens were often away at war and slaves were necessary to keep the farms going. So the use of slaves gradually increased, until they were more numerous than free men who worked for pay. Eventually competition with slave labour determined wages and living conditions of free workmen.
http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/slavery.html

Romans, free workmen were slave owners, and a had rights to own slaves (even if they had not enough money to).
If I'm not mistaken, those who worked for pay also had rights to own slaves. Therefore, the base of the labour legislation was slavery.

Even if we assume, that they surpassed the consientious workers on the scales, it still means nothing, and is completely irrelevant to the reasons as to why they did not make the jump to 18th ace industrialism.

I never said it was relevant.

In addition, just because the slaves did not have a choice on where to to be put to work, like the prol. allegedly has today(even though that is debatable, too), does not mean anything. It is completely irrelevant to the subject, and even if it can be taken to mean something, that would be that collectivization and industrialism is better achieved through slavery(in the majority of the workforce), in which case the elites do not have to worry about labour supply, so the point is moot anyhow one looks at it.

Not sure what you mean. Slavery is incompatible with industry - as evidenced by history of slavery in USA.

To phrase even better something that i said above, the reason why Rome or Alexander did not have industrialism like the British, despite the fact that they had exactly the know-how(ie the steam engine in theory) to make the jump, is for the same reason that the bourgeoisie does not make jumps unless it first exhausts, its on-going capital. The same reason why, we have the know-how to switch to nuclear energy, but we do not, unless we first exhaust oil, and more importantly exploit the cycles of supply and demand. For the same reason, they did not start building rail-roads and machines, because they had not even built roads yet. Once again, nothing to do with slave-prol, or wage crap theories.

Yes, because productive forces have not evolved to that stage.
It's no good having the technology if you can't implement it into mass production.
In the conditions of slavery, there is no market of labour, which is essential for this implementation, and no one interested in capital investments, no bourgeoisie.
Implementations are only possible after development of productive forces has freed peasants from the land, and made some peasants richer than others (who then can hire others to work for them, becoming the bourgeoisie).

It's like having a computer in ancient Egypt - you can't implement it because there's no electricity.

Basically industrial development needs a specific level of production forces, at which peasants are freed from the land.
And this level is way above the level of Rome

[noemon]

Okay, what didn't it collectivise?

The crystal souvenirs i make and sell in my shop.

Nothing is based on trade. Trade is distribution of what is produced; it is entirely dependant on production.
You can't trade anything until it's produced

Semantic irrelevancies.

When the Romans were farmers and shepherds, slaves were used for farm work. Citizens were often away at war and slaves were necessary to keep the farms going. So the use of slaves gradually increased, until they were more numerous than free men who worked for pay. Eventually competition with slave labour determined wages and living conditions of free workmen.
http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/slavery.html

Observe; your link cites, not one single reference. It might as well be imagination, or it might as well be an imagined axiom produced to serve the theories. These links do not work here, if you are to make a case, you ought to bring primary direct material, that illustrate your point. There is nothing that suggests that this history follows the theory and not the theory this history. But even in your source, it is obvious that there was a labour-market prior and during the slave-marxist paradigm, which during some succesful Imperial years, that labour-market decreased due to the slaves, brought in by the success of conquest, and then after conguest has rendered it impossible to bring any more, the labour-market re-asserted itself. Ergo, there is no constant general demarcation line as theorized by marx.

Not sure what you mean. Slavery is incompatible with industry - as evidenced by history of slavery in USA.

Sure, it is. All those illegal immigrants, and slave workers working for corporations under the table, make them very incompatible. Or what example, that the North after the South abolished slavery, took over all the industry?

The wealth of the United States in the first half of the 19th century was greatly enhanced by the labor of African Americans.[10][11] But with the Union victory in the American Civil War, the slave-labor system was abolished in the South.[12] This led to the decline of the antebellum Southern economy. The large southern cotton plantations became much less profitable because of the loss of the efficiencies in the gang system of agriculture.[13] Northern industry, which had expanded rapidly before and during the war, surged even further ahead of the South's agricultural economy. Industrialists from northeastern states came to dominate many aspects of the nation's life, including social and some aspects of political affairs. The planter class of the South lost power temporarily. The rapid economic development following the Civil War laid the groundwork for the modern U.S. industrial economy.

Yes, because productive forces have not evolved to that stage.
It's no good having the technology if you can't implement it into mass production.
In the conditions of slavery, there is no market of labour, which is essential for this implementation, and no one interested in capital investments, no bourgeoisie.

Labour market did not exist in the antiquity? LOL. Yeah if an economy did not run at 100% slave-oil it collapsed immediately. Sure...sure no bourgoisie. Putting aside the fact that according to the marxist definition of bourgoisie, bourgoisie existed, since workers existed(aside from slaves), but even if we accept that workers did not exist at all, and that only slaves existed, it was not just an infinite nobility(that is noble by birthright) that utilized them, and hence the marxist definition is at all sides inadequate.

Basically industrial development needs a specific level of production forces, at which peasants are freed from the land.
And this level is way above the level of Rome

Industrial developemnt prerequisites a specific level of technological advancement in the production forces so that the jump can be made.

It does not prerequisite any such freedom for the prol.

And Roman prol. was not fixed on the land, the same way that medieval barbarians like the Goths, Slavs and Avars due to their roaming of the hinterland of empires and looting, forced some Empires to redefine the hinterland's administration, so that there are guards(knights) protecting it and its farmers. And this did not take place in the world, everywhere at the same time and stayed that way, for the whole of the marxist serf paradigm. It took place at different eras, different areas, and it was abandoned as soon as safety and normalization had reverted at each and every case in time.

It's like having a computer in ancient Egypt - you can't implement it because there's no electricity

Yes that is precisely my argument, and it is irrelevant with the marxist paradigms you are so trying to snuck up into the equation.

[Zagadka]

For one, they lacked many other innovations (block type, high-grade steel, etc), and economic incentive (as a centralized state, it would be a massive endeavor, and slave labor was cheaper).

[sixminuteabs]

The OP asks why Rome did not have a technological revolution.

It appears that the author of this question misunderstands what the Roman Empire was- Empire.

First, the Persian Empire failed at acquiring Greece. So, Empire, under a new name [Rome] took Greece from the other direction, and this came to be the one world government. It, of course, was designed to fail, as that is the point of Empire.

This is not unlike our current position, with the German Empire failing its goal by force and the American Imperialism taking its place. Just as they called the Persian Empire slavery and the Roman Empire Freedom, so too they call the German and American Empire(s). Of course, the goal of Empire is world order; world rule; world power. This has nothing to do with from which nation it originates; a word controlling power could care less as to which nation supposedly has a stake in it, because honestly, none of them do.

To not see that Rome lead to the Dark Ages and to then wonder whether there should have been an intellectual progress is inane.

[MB.]

I just wanted to say that obviously the Romans never had an industrial revolution because of the abundance of slavery throughout the empire.

Proletariat wage slavery might not be precisely the same in everything, but it certainly is in practise. And illegal immigrant slavery is the same in everything. Asian child-labour is the same again in everything, one can argue that it is actually worse, or the Black slavery which was worse indeed than roman slavery.

Which is exactly why this civilization, being reliant on wage-slavery as a means of coercing laborers will never progress into a true technocratic / abundance phase.

[starman2003]

Has anyone else read Goldsworthy's new tome How Rome Fell? It has some inteesting info about the scale of industry in ancient Rome. The author cites evidence for a high level of industrial activity in the first two centuries CE, which wasn't equalled again before the 19th century.

[telluro]

It's a combination of some replies here. They did have an industrial revolution or were on te verge of having one.

However, one cultural element they lacked was an evolved and sophisticated Christianity. This might seem antithetical if we work with conventional concepts of "Christianity versus science" (which are ahistorical), but Christianity helped the Western mind to make a clearer difference between Creator and created, between the supernatural and the natural. For the pagan mind, it was all one thing - the gods were to be found in nature.

So in short, Christianity helped the Western mind to desacralize nature, and make it something that could be dominated intellectually and scientifically, understood, because there was nothing mystical about nature and it was subordinate to man in God's eyes. Also, both the divine and nature for the Christian weren't capricious, arbitrary forces, but Order and ordered respectively, so that nature was expected to behave regularly, and natural laws were expected to be discovered. And of course the desacralization of nature, apart also from the divine directives found in Genesis, leads to understanding nature as one huge resource, rather than some mystical force.

Thus, Christian culture lead to science, technology and industry.

Of course, there were some pagans who had thought up a number of these elements (they were part after all of what gave rise to Christianity) but they weren't representative of pre-Christian culture.

[Potemkin]

Thus, Christian culture lead to science, technology and industry.

Actually, I agree with telluro's analysis. The modern idea of a conflict or incompatibility between Christianity and science is not strictly accurate - Galileo got into trouble with the Church not because his ideas conflicted with orthodox theology, but because his ideas conflicted with Aristotelian science, which the scholastic philosophers had only just succeeded in making compatible with Christian theology. This was not really a collision between science and faith, but a collision between one type of science - Galileo's new, experimental science - and another type of science - Aristotle's abstract, philosophical science.

[Igor Antunov]

Science, technology and industry are not christian concepts. In fact attributing these to any particular singular 'culture' is ridiculous. Telluro's entire argument is based on the assumption that they are a christian creation. This makes him laughably wrong.

[telluro]

They are consequences of Christian culture rather than direct artefacts. And yes, of course, science and technology as we think of them today are largely a product of Christian and post-Christian culture/s. Science didn't occur in a vaccuum, but in and because of a culture.

[Smilin' Dave]

Look at Potemkin's first post in this thread, it is apparent that science itself wasn't the missing factor. The Romans had scientific achievements. What was missing was flows of information, which Christianity (especially in its early days, which drew heavily from pagans and was fairly rigid) didn't have any impact on. If a concept isn't allowed to circulate, no one can improve upon the idea, production can never become standardised and so forth.

Potemkin got it right in his first post, then got it wrong in his last.

[dugfromthearth]

The lack of the easy spread of information was a big part. Scrolls could be shared, but the lack of the printing press and mass spread of information was a huge block to the spread of scientific knowledge.

It did not just affect spread of new ideas, it reduced the effectiveness of education. The idea of science and engineering was restricted to a very small educated elite.