Monarchism

Monarchism is the absolute reactionary position. Even liberals are leftist compared to them. The direct opposition to reactionary monarchism is anarchocommunism.

its for faggots and weebs

Aristocratic system got so degraded it's not even funny. In the original meaning it was rule of the best, meaning people of noble values and honor, which was proto-leftism. Aristoctacy meant "what is morally and idealistically right is right".

Democracy on the other hand means "what majority thinks is right is right". Majority wants to lynch ethnic minority so we have trump and ICE. Many of present day leftist who are marxists faps to da will of da masses, not noticing that democrapcy is perpetual competition of tribalistic interests, be it ethnic, religious, gender and so on. "Tyranny of the majority" is what democracy looks in practice, it is to democracy what "crony capitalism" is to capitalism.

God used to mean idealism and higher values, you on the other hand want da will of da vile masses so enjoy trump and le pen. Under true aristocracy these bandits would be kept away from politics.

Leftism will ALWAYS lose in a democratic system, because noble people of high empathy are a minority everywhere.

You dont need theory to understand why monarchism is shit, just history.

hi Plato.

Ummm guys. The twitter man has quotes that sound nice so monarchy must be the solution to all of our problems

Just sage. Gulag and cambodian killing fields for the ultra right.

Which form of democracy isnt the rule of the majority?
Actually parliamentary democracy is better than direct democracy or whatever since when a good person manages to get elected, he can not give a fuck about vile wills of the majority to some extent.

In direct democratic Europe right now we would probably have civil war with identarian gangs attacking refugees (which happens anyway but as incidents)

Look at Switzerland to see how great direct democracy is.

Why did you even bother coming here?

Not the same guy. But look at how the masses currently run society. It's a neoliberal hellhole

It shows. Literally just read Aristotle.

...

Yeah. That is why one must get rid of both things.

I can hear the sounds of the ghosts haunting you.

The point of democracy isn't that whatever the majority decides is magically the best choice. The point of democracy is holding leaders responsible for their actions to prevent corruption and abuse of power. Read Weber.

...

...

You fell for Engels's big ruse. Stirner is the biggest spook of all.

I would take a monarch over bourgeois democracy tbh, at least the monarch isn't necessarily aligned with the bourgeoisie

Oh no!
I just got BTFO.

The system that brings the most advantages to me is the one in which I'm king.

faggot

Only if it is guaranteed that you will be king. Otherwise, you benefit the most from a system that can guarantee you a good quality of life regardless of where you land in society.

Why would I have to decide on this beforehand. This some John Rawls type of shit.

The majority of people didn't vote for Trump. Half of eligible voters didn't even vote.
The one you're probably living in right now.

Because I doubt that if a monarchy were put in place, you would have any claim to the throne.

You have it the wrong way round OP. It's for you to justify your position with a burden of proof not for me to refute it.

It's inefficient and unresponsive to the people's needs. Liberals covered most of this 200 or so years ago though.

*It's inefficient and unresponsive to porky's needs. Liberals covered most of this 200 or so years ago though.

Its got an unaccountable absolute ruler who has the power to fuck me and everyone else over just because he feels like it? Like sending us to send to fight wars so he can have more land, more peasants and thus more power?

All systems of governance requires the people to believe in the authority of the rulers. Kings had their position not because people honestly believed they were superior rulers, but because God Himself appointed them to rule humans in His name. People no longer believe that so monarchy cannot be justified.

No they didn't. Read Hobbes. Also

Because I don't want to have any masters over me. It's humiliating.

Abolishing the monarchy isn't even that useful if you preserve aristocratic institutions. I see a bunch of brits today ranting against the monarchy, but how about you remove the House of Lords first? The monarch doesn't have real power nowadays but this is a direct social division in your legislative body, it's fuckin disgusting.

Obviously the rulers have their power because of material conditions, but beliefs are very useful in maintaining it. Telling everyone you rule over them because of might makes right just makes them think you're a warlord, saying that you're king because God Himself has given you that position makes people significantly less likely to revolt or not comply.

this but unironically

Is a Marxist-Platoist transitional socialist Kingdom the answer we need?

I understand what you are getting at however the feudal system was not as simple as liberals have made it out to be. It was not just a bunch of ignorant peasants who had been hoodwinked into supporting tyrannical royal families. Liberals like to imagine that monarchism is simply the result of ignorance and backwards ideology when it was much more complex. Basically what I getting at is that liberal critiques of monarchy and feudalism are bad and no one should be repeating them.

No it isn't because minorities are safeguarded by the rule of law, constitution, separation of powers etc. And it's not even like 51% of people would ever want to shoot 49% of people so "Tyranny of the majority" is a baseless concept. Would you prefer "Tyranny of the minority"?

Ask yourself why that is and what system perpetuates it.

Obviously monarchism and feudalism is not the result of ideals but of the material conditions of their time. My original comment was that because the ideas are different (due to the material conditions) no one would ever accept a monarch.

The House of Lords is the second chamber and most Parliaments do have a second chamber. Removing the House of Lords would be awful because it would give the House of Commons no checks on them.

Only 92 Hereditary Peers remain (who will be evicted eventually), the 100s of others are appointed so the aristocratic element is basically dead.

Also, the House of Lords has actually restrained the House of Commons numerous times in recent years. For example, we would have ID cards without the House of Lords. It tells you how bad the House of Commons is that the House of Lords is frequently the voice of reason.

Monarchism sucks because that's true for hierarchy in general.

I would make an exception for Tolkienist-Kirkbridist transhumanist anarcho-monarchism but.

How come left wing monarchism never seriously developed?

Yeah, why any serious leftist hasn't proposed a system where rulers are decided by genetic lottery?

How would that even work?

Because leftism from its conception has been anti-monarchy.

Because history moves the other way.

This will never work in america, the creation of america is literally built on telling a king to go fuck himself.
Most modern right wingers have moved on and embraced scientific racism, sometimes secularism.

Monarchism is literally some rich guy telling you him and his family have the right to rule over the peasants (you) because the blood in their veins is blessed by god

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

and then america was all "nah nigga all men are created equal"

". . . but only the white ones tho"

wow, its almost like american had a civil war over that or something where millions died

And it's almost as if after the civil war non-whites still weren't equal.

It'd almost make you think things like segregation, Indian wars and other such inequalities went on well into the twentieth century and in some ways continue to make a deep impact on American society.

Go for left-monarchistic natiostirnerism while you're at it.

The problem isn't so much corruption itself since it's an inevitability, the real issue the capacity for one individual to exert a corrupt will over others. If a person is corrupt that's their problem, if they have the power to force their corruption on other people then its society's problem. The general concept of socialism is that through he decentralization/democratization of political and economic power corrupt individuals will be stripped of their power, since power would be evenly distributed.

History shows that Monarchies last longer than democratic societies, and have less laws. Many kind even required their people to be armed and trained.

What the fuck?

History also shows that feudalism existed for longer than capitalism has so far. Obviously you're going to find longer lasting countries when one mode of production is a thousand years older than another. Also why they would have historically had less laws, it's a completely different legal and economic framework. Hence why modern capitalist absolute monarchies tend to have just as many laws as modern capitalist republics.

Absolutely none of these quotes would make any sense to anyone older than 13.

It depends on the movement. Eurasianist monarchists, Maurrasians, and Social Monarchists (I.E. Montagne Blanche) are pretty cool all others are shit ass ancaps or distribuists.

The Montagne Blanche were obscure as fuck and never caught on outside of Lower France.
Maurras slipped into obscurity and then got arrested for collaboration. His leftish days were gone by then tho (due to a dispute with Georges Valois)

Left wing monarchy sauces
institutenr.org/2016/11/03/1793-2011-from-sans-culottes-to-troisieme-voie-the-history-of-french-revolutionary-nationalism-christian-bouchet/
institutenr.org/2016/11/11/from-mao-to-maurras-jean-philippe-chauvin-december-29th-2009/

the civil war was about the justification of slavery
Wew lad

The monarchs of Europe were/are a bunch of inbred, lunatic, incompetent morons and it's a profound shame not all of them suffered the National Razor.

It's stupid, but nothing to worry about as its even more politically irrelevant than libertarianism.

It's an ideology for maladjusted cranks

monarchy is the most degenerate system ever devised

>institutenr.org/2016/11/03/1793-2011-from-sans-culottes-to-troisieme-voie-the-history-of-french-revolutionary-nationalism-christian-bouchet/
>institutenr.org/2016/11/11/from-mao-to-maurras-jean-philippe-chauvin-december-29th-2009/
This isn't really informative

Not a lot of info to find. There's a bit of info on Red Torys but their still somewhere between SuccDem and Nixon Republicanism. A lot of Vietnamese monarchists became fans of Uncle Ho later on.

Should I be disappoint?

In Red Torys yeah. With Vietnam the situation is similar to France and Russia insofar as the left can work with the right in the face of true evil (Capitalism).

...

You can easily tell the subjective position of whoever makes these kinds of pictures.