Not false, but... but this underestimates the extent to which all these issues were in play throughout Rome's history.

Compare this article:
http://time.com/4986516/ancient-rome-comparison-mike-duncan/

I've just read the book discussed in that link, as it happens. It's excellent (I've just downloaded the podcast, which is highly regarded) but it led me to somewhat different conclusions:

1) The parasite classes win most of the struggles within every large society and ALL of the wars. They come up on top, once again imperiling the society within a generation or at most two, after even modest reforms. Note that this happened in the Soviet Union, too, after a parasite-swap. (See also, China's princelings.) Marxist rhetoric isn't a magic spell, either. For a long time, Rome's opponents were even more parasite-dominated, and this helped Rome to survive more than its own virtues did.

The book "How Asia Works" reinforces this lesson, saying (with much detail) that only the discipline of forced exporting of goods has limited uber-corruption within nations, even in our own time. Not laws, custom, or internal structures. Terrifying book.

Rome wasn't markedly less corrupt or egalitarian, early in its history (when the franchise was restricted to the city itself!) - it's more that its opponents were either less developed societies, then; or even more corrupt and parasite-ridden than Rome was when they happened to cross swords.

2) You can't set out to consciously reform society and get that result, at any sacrifice; both because 1), and because your reforms are probably ahistorical and an equally bad idea (I'm looking at you, Sulla, etc, etc.) You might put 'em in place, but dare to die and those changes will be quickly reversed, because you were an idiot, or because money. Marginal changes (such as once again enforcing laws vs monopoly/extending market power/restraint of trade) are possible and desirable: but also temporary. A strong monarchy can provide an exceptional century, but!; if you roll "five good Emperors" don't be surprised if you roll "five terrible Emperors" right afterward.

3) Technological change does survive - and it's better being poor now even than five decades ago, esp re entertainment and education-wise, because tech. And way better than a couple millennia ago. So, Go science and research, and Go tech. Go art too, that can also survive, now and then. Fund all this, and don't over-institutionalize 'em (as we have)!

4) Paradoxically, 3) - tech advance - while helpful in the long run, also makes more vicious parasitism likely in the short term: because anything that makes society a lot wealthier (such as final victory in the Punic Wars) allows worse parasitism without revolt. Oil nations suffer from this acutely in our own time.

5) Mores (latin for norms): Strong restraining and egalitarian mores can survive for generations only within a parasitical class that can only continue to exist if those mores also persist, keeping others down. The citizens of Rome rich and poor, were for a very long time before citizenship was finally extended to the Latins, just such a class, dominating and exploiting the Peninsula. A citizen might be poor, but they were also in the right place, and their sons and daughters had a good chance to do well off the crumbs from rich tables. But the massive extension of the vote outside Rome that Sulla entrenched also guaranteed the dissolution of previous norms. Restraint toward other Romans no longer served a practical purpose.

Similarly, after WWII the U.S. (while ruling benignly by any historical comparison, including Britain) exploited allied nations (and captured/stolen IP that it didn't share) far more than it is ready to acknowledge. That edge is gone, so without being able to exploit other allied nations, the U.S. elite can only exploit its own citizens, now - therefore goodbye to any norms that used to get in the way of that.