Many people seem to have a favorable opinion of him, for supposedly defending the Roman republic during its collapse, but seeing his history and actions he did everything to defend the interests of the Roman elite to the detriment of the Roman population, and abused the system against their enemies when it was convenient and was a landowner famous for building the buildings in a horrible shape. Still, it has a reputation for having defenders to this day.
yeah, IIRC he was a landlord and slave owner whose claims are still taken at face value by bourgeois historians
That's what bothers me, they take his allegations as truth, without doubting their veracity.
It's not the veracity that has to be taken into account but rather the context. There are very little competing accounts from his time because historically persistent writing was a huge privilege back then.
that's the fundamental problem with bourgeois history, it doesn't reflect the working class perspective even when it's been recorded (which was much less common back then for obvious reasons)