You can't be both a monarchist and a socia…

*blocks your path

Other urls found in this thread:'a



how are we supposed to take the right seriously if they call everything socialism?

socialism just doesn't work

t. francisco pizarro

can you even explain why monarchism is good?

nigger which book is that you better post the PDF

Wow, read Marx anytime.

Holy shit Inca where NazBol

And they say we betray the Revolution.

Clever and appropriate flag choice, user.

They weren't socialist, they had a monarchy and a nobility. But it's interesting to see how later Peruvian socialists (most famously Mariategui) were inspired by their economic system; it's not just rightists strawmanning.

If they were around today tankies would defend them as real socialism.

Marx is lame, non-marxist state socialism is best socialism

Forgot to take off shitposting flag, but point still stands.

Kek, Europeans are literally sandniggers.


I'm afraid I don't know. These excerpts were posted by another user many moons ago.

Thanks for reminding me. Another passage.

I thought you were using it as a reference to the wiphala and some of the attested Tawantinsuyu banners. (because AFAIK it's the only rainbow we have here).

Well, maybe it was better I didn't said anything.
(Nice quads.)


Wew lad, are you being ironic? Poe's Law is strong here.

Shame about the diseases, the world woulda been much more interesting without all America being absorbed into Iberian or πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§AngloπŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ culture.

That's a pretty amazing step forward, I was never aware that there was anyone who achieved this at all.


In fact I'm curious, was this just a kind of feudalism? I never finished Braudel, but when I read it I remember he claimed that the peasants may not have used very much currency at all, though they were obviously familiar with it as a concept. They also produced for use, but had a surplus that was directly appropriated by a lord according to his birth in a higher caste.

In fact they seem pretty similar, it just seems the Inca were a little more authoritarian, whereas feudal lords may leave the peasants to do what they will, they just needed to deliver some amount of harvest and other materials to the lord.

Upp against the Wall you go sunshine

He's referencing Kaiserreich

A sort of proto-feudalism, maybe? I think it would depend on the development of land rights, but if everything technically belonged to the emperor I don't know that you could call it proper feudalism.


Asian Mode of Production on steroids.



It works out

First as tragedy, then as farce, third as LARP.

can you explain why its bad ;^)

OP never said it was, merely that you can be both monarchist and socialist

Read Tyranny of a Construct. "Feudalism" does not exist.

Is this from Settlers?

There are other modes of production that exist independently of socialism and capitalism.

Don't forget the Montagne Blanche, Rouge Lilly, Paleo Eurasianists(I.e. Maladrossi, Trubetkoy) and Maurassians.

Also, Caesar ;)'a

Sounds like feudalism to me, vassalage and labour in exchange for rights and protection.


NazBols never die, after physical death we become NazBol Einherjar and go to NazBol Valhalla

Feudalism (economically at least) was generally a matter of Rent: A set portion of your labor belongs to the Landlord, the rest of it belongs to yourself (as opposed to capitalism's 'a set portion of it belongs to you, the rest belongs to the Boss')

To be perfectly honest… "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" really does fit it better than either of those two.

You mean the nazi valhalla

It's a joke you humorless muggle.

Under socialism, in theory, the people should be able to send the army to depose unpopular leaders. However in reality demagogues successfully prevent this.

Apart from ideology, what is the difference in "material reality" between the lifestyle of a socialist and that of a monarchical subject?

Damn I didn't know that empire was that large.

This can't possibly be grammatically correct.

People who cite the Inca as a socialist conveniently ignore the fact that there was a rigid class system, where the the nobles could hold private property and the lower class was forced to constantly labor for the nobles and the state.

Obviously this appeals to tankies, but no leftist who believes in freedom should cite the Inca as a good example of socialism or even as a socialist society at all.

The Inca Empire falling was a historical fluke brought about by the Spaniards and their plagues hitting right in the middle of a civil war. It was really very powerful.

What's wrong with it? "The amount of genetic homogeneity" is "extraordinary."

Homogeneity can't be quantified, so "amount" makes no sense. Also, "extraordinary amount" means a high number of thing whereas "genetic homogeneity" means only one thing. Using simply "extraordinary genetic homogeneity" would solve both problems.

Thus Spiritual/cultural racism as opposed to biological racism.