Leftism and Monarchism

OP is just a reactionary anti-capitalist. Holla Forums is your home.

It would be a pretty strange thing in my opnion. OP, how do you imagine the existence of the noble class in socialist economic system? Would they be nobles in name only or would they have some special economic muh privileges?

This.
Ultimately, the economic - and social forces are going to push monarchies out of power(and even in some cases indirectly take them over or subvert them as was the case with Imperial Japan and her military).

Ironically the modern nation state that was born out of absolutism(with Napoleonic wars and more so thanks to national armies that were born out of it)

Shit.

Left wing is by its very definition against the monarchy. The first time it was used was litterally to overthrow a monarch. Monarchism is by its definition reactionairy, and leftism is by its definition the opposite of reactionary.

Thoughtful and adequate responses as always Holla Forums

Nobility rarely is in any control in monarchy(with the exception of royals themselves) since age of absolutism reached its peak.

i have a m8 who is a monarchist and a socialist

Jacobins did nothing wrong, the aristocracy deserved worse tbh.

I feel the idea that a socialist economic system could be maintained with political power centralized in a the hand of someone who is totally unaccountable to the popular will. You'd end up in a "classless" society like the USSR were the political elite are a new ruling class who weren't really all that much better then the capitalists.

Perhaps, but I'm thinking about the right to the throne in case of the royal family going extinct.

Out of the ashes of the hypocritical republics of the Earth, a new philosopher kingdom shall rise.

And we will kill him. :DDD

Well I'm personally a massive Kaiser-boo and would literally discard everything else and immigrate to Germany if I believed there to be even a slight chance of a restoration of the Empire.

Apart from that, I'm rather ambivalent towards to concept of monarchism.

Hi Rebel, we missed you.

start with killing yourself

Jesus wasn't a commie you loser

Not if I kill you first…
*takes out gladius*

Apparently Japanese Communist Party has stopped complaining about the emperor a few years ago, not surprising considering how nice Akihito is.

legitimistadigital.com/

Spanish carlists are very monarchist and very socialist,
Still there is no properly marxist defense of monarchism

most of the existing monarchies have had plenty of bad kings or queens in the past and yet quite a few of these existing dynasties are older than any other current state.

I would say that my own views are something of a mix of distributism, traditional conservatism and anarchism of the more individualist or religious variety. I don't see anything itself wrong with capitalism if by capitalism one simply means the ownership of property and the business of buying and selling, but I feel like something needs to be there in order to prevent the decadence and waste of rampant consumerism as well as to prevent certain individuals of lesser moral temperament from undermining the freedom of the markets and assuming control of the state through bribery and subterfuge in order to crush any potential competition and exploit workers at home and in undeveloped countries without consequence. I would say my views are closest to Tolkien's:

I also don't give a damn about protecting the white race or all that other nonsense Holla Forums gibbers on about since for me it's more about rewarding outstanding individuals for their personal virtue. Black, white, it doesn't matter. Nationalism basically feels to me like some kind of way of compensating for the loss of that real, deeper sense of unity that only the common loyalty to God and king brought to people. I would also say I am less anti-socialist and more anti-marxist. For me the ideal system would combine elements of socialism and capitalism, but would respect the divine character of the individual.

Greece here.
We had a King.
We then had Junda and then voted not to have a King.

We now have a President of the Democracy and he does exactly what a King would do. Be there.

And no, Monarchy and herreditary rule don't go with socialism.

Feudalism was legitimately a more equitable system and better for human welfare than capitalism

That's horseshit, fuck Dickens

the division between rich and poor now is far greater now than it has ever been at any other point in history. Sure, the average person today probably lives better than the average medieval peasant, but in terms of the wealth gap, the richest capitalists in the world today are far wealthier than any king or noble of the past ever dreamed possible. The actual gap in the quality of life between the wealthiest peasant and poorest lord was not that great and the lord's wealth was often in relative proportion to the productiveness of the peasantry under his domain and the fertility and value of the property upon which the peasants worked. Poor peasants + bad land=poor lords and low wages for peasants, skilled peasants + fertile land=rich lords and higher wages for peasants. The black plague was actually a huge boon for the surviving peasants and a great blow to the surviving nobility because many nobles were left with no one to work their lands and those who had people left to work their lands were forced to pay the peasants even more since there were now so few of them after the destruction of the plague.

nobles make a good target practice

That's why we need socialism and, after that, communism.

except the division between rich and poor under state socialism or communism has hardly been any better and if anything has been far worse. The feudal society was characterized by a many tiered hierarchy of from top to bottom, while we often speak of peasants and nobles as if there were only two or three major classes, within each of these classes there were many levels, with various subclasses that acted as segways between one class division and another. It wasn't as simple as just haves and have-nots but rather every have was practically a have-not relative to another have that the division between haves and have nots is rather meaningless in the context of feudal society. The only reason we can speak of haves and have-nots in modern society is because the destruction of the medieval class structure brought with it not a classless society but just simply collapsed the diversity and equilibrium created by that class structure into just two competing classes, the gap between them only becoming wider and wider as the medieval system has further and further eroded. If the goal of a non-marxist socialism is to bridge the gap between the classes, allowing some freedom of commerce to ensure some measure of social mobility and prevent the abuses of unfettered capitalism, feudalism or feudal socialism like that which characterized much the medieval period was far more efficient at this than almost any modern republican capitalist or socialist system. Whether or not the overall quality of life was that great or not is likely owed more to the primitive nature of that society relative to ours and not necessarily to any inherent flaw of that society's basic system of government and doesn't necessarily refute the fact that such a society was much more equitable in terms of the distribution of wealth compared to our own.

Maurras was the only good Monarchist.

I don't have to remind you, what happened to monarchies with bad rulers, that stopped existing. What happened to Romanovs and set Russia back 100 years in development, massacred large part of population, could have been prevented with a competent monarch. I am sympathetic to monarchy, but the system is not resistant to bad leadership.

I'm not suggesting it is, but the idea that one bad monarch necessarily invalidates the whole system is ridiculous when you consider how old many existing monarchies in fact are. It is not one bad monarch that suddenly breaks a mighty dynasty in most cases but a consistent decline in the quality of leadership over several generations.

In the case of the Romanovs too, you had the introduction of a new sensibility that didn't really exist in times before. In the past, people weren't generally inclined to rebel against their monarchs because on the one hand most people never had any direct contact with the monarch and were generally self-sufficient enough that their lives remained more or less the same from king to king and dynasty to dynasty and also the general temperament of people was that rather than rebelling against your kings when they were bad, you should pray for them so that maybe God can guide them aright and try not to be a burden so that the king is tempted to do further wrong by interfering in your affairs. People's attitude back then was that they generally got the rulers they deserved and that a ruler's authority was justified not on the basis of how good of a ruler he was but on the basis that he had somehow possessed the right from some source that remained unaffected by this. If a ruler is bad, it's God punishing you or testing you. If a ruler is good, it's God rewarding you. Advisers and representatives are there to help guide the king on the proper holy path, but if he strays from that path, it is God's responsibility to punish him. This kind of attitude changed with the introduction of the modern concept of revolution. In the past when people revolted, it was normally against the corruption of the aristocracy or on the behalf of another royal's claim to power. The Peasant's Revolt in England in 1381 is one example, because even though the peasants were ransacking and looting the homes of the nobility and executing officials, the propaganda of the movement was that they were in fact there to SAVE the king, whom they saw as their father, from being the pawn of a corrupt nobility.

HAHAHAHAHA YOUR IDEOLOGIES DEAD BRO

YOU'RE FUCKING IRRELEVANT

It isn't until it is. The monarchs before Louis XVI or Nicholas II could be the most competent, but their incompetence, when it mattered the most, is what ended the monarchic dynasties in the respective countries. The surviving monarchies are proof, that at no point in history they were incompetent enough to get slaughtered. Their survival doesn't prove anything else.

Why am I not surprised?

It is. Monarchists need to be culled and their followers are lemmings.

The incompetence of these monarchs has been grossly overstated when they were certainly better rulers in the long run than any of the regimes who eventually replaced them and many more incompetent monarchs than themselves never suffered the effects of revolution. You're trying to portray these events that befell these monarchs as a reflection of their quality as leaders and attempting to wash the rebels of any and all responsibility for their actions. The truth is that these monarchs' destruction was hardly anything more than a mixture of historical accident and the clever actions of lesser men who craved their power.

The British crown produced some of the most incompetent monarchs in world history and is still around.

honestly stirner's elitism and monarchism are not totally incompatible Some modern monarchists actually find some value in Stirner's work and criticisms of certain trends in leftist thought.

All memes aside, feudalism actually has some advantages over capitalism in terms of its sustainability. It doesn't have capital accumulation or surplus extraction because there is no private property but the right of usufruct.

That's why it lasted 1000 years. Capitalism is probably going to implode sooner by its own contradictions.

IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES

GET THE GUILLOTINE

HEY GUYS REBEL IS BACK!

10/10

FULLY
AUTOMATED
GUILLOTINES

How about bullet to the head you delusional LARPer.

Back to Holla Forums you go.

ALL YOU OTHER KINGS WITH YOUR PUMPED UP KICKS
YOU BETTER RUN BABY RUN
FASTER THAN MY BLADE

They read up to "own everything", get a boner and start fapping to their neo-reactionary fantasies.

Robespierre did nothing wrong.