Lads, what is my ideology?

Yes you can.

Absolute freedom isn't good for the people, they need a strong leader to guide them. In this case, a monarch.

NAZBOL

The Church is the single best institution for ensuring societal stability and one of the best for the maintenance of law and order.

Distributism

Ordoliberalism.

Bolshevism is a brutal ideology, both in theory and in practice.

...

uh huh tell me more about how stable the church is

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

brutal is good

y

I'm talking about within a society. Regardless, European wars of religion were more to do with consolidating power, and eliminating hostile neighbours, rather than wars due purely to religious differences.

you're such a brainlet. This is such a brainlet thread and worldview.

Church can get fucked, your mixing up control with fear of the elite. The only reason they didnt take on the church was fear of consequences, if not religiously then certainly execution for heresy and other batshit ideas

...

Nowhere did I advocate that. Having a Monarch with significant power does not equal feudalism.

The Church gives people a purpose in life, ostensibly sanctioned by the almighty. Sermons ought to be dictated by the government to glorify not only God, but also "his" nation, and to promote the strengthening of it through mutual sacrifice and comradeship. Not to mention the act of going to Church with one's family, and meeting with others in the community, helps to engender within a society a certain spirit that is conducive to not only mass mental-wellbeing, but will also give people something of a stake in their particular locality.

Imagine choosing to get cucked by the "sky man"

Its not real, and your organised religion can get tae fuck

Okay, your not advocating feudalism, just tyranny

Huge fucking contradiction.

Well, I'm an agnostic myself, but I recognise that utilising organised religion, and especially Christianity, is immensely important in ensuring societal stability.

If you want to change a political system, control of the people is paramount. The Church fills this role nicely, without the need for mass repression and execution (methods so many leftist regimes have found themselves employing in the past).

Sounds either tankie or fash (as if there's a difference)
TOP LEL
What fucking year is it? Do you also think slavery is bad and people should be tried for crimes instead of summarily executed?
See above.
That's pretty specific for a hypothetical system we barely know the details of.
Why?
No fucking shit. Again, what year is it?
Pfffffhahaha you are a meme.
Cool so at least you're relatively open about the whole worker control/ownership thing just being lipservice to socialism instead of a real change.
What a weirdly specific point. Socialists generally assume people will earn the value of their labor (during a transitionary period particularly) or simply receive what they need from public resources.
Little more than buzzwords. What matters is worker control.
What year is it?
The education system is a meme. Kids are much better at teaching themselves than the state is. Give them an interesting/relevant goal and access to the internet and they'll learn all kinds of shit.

You sound like some kind of weird quasi-fash Falange-esque reactionary tbh. Franco would probably be /yourguy/ at least to some extend.

Which means I'd probably give you the wall I'm sorry to say.

*ehem*
may i direct you to the entire history of Catholicism, Protestantism and church of england in the united kingdom, i think youll find theres a just a bit of mass repression and execution

omg dad, you don't get it, it's a constitutional monarchy, like omg

you kids and your wacky world views about what you think socialism is *slaps knee and chuckles*

Don't know where you live, but you'd be surprised at the number of people in the current year who think the market should deal with it all, and who think prison ought to be for retribution and/or locking away people indefinitely.

The family unit aids stability, and gives people a reason to work.

I don't think workers can be trusted to produce what the government requires. Division of labour will hopefully be minimised as much as possible, and vocational work promoted though. If the slave enjoys their work, then they do not feel the shackles.

The state loses control over the chuldren in this situation, which is far from ideal. The children are the only class of people capable of being almost entirely indoctrinated to believe what you need them to.

except you also want the state to be governed by the monarch, and for it to own all major industries, in practice this would be feudalism.

wow, great, give legislative power and complete ownership of key industries to some bloke, call him king, then start a propaganda program in order to persuade my children they should sacrifice themselves for him. Sounds amazing.
church power has always relied on mass repression and executions. Especially when establishing power. Look to the middle east and you will get a good idea what implementing your system would look like.

C U R S E D P O S T

Which I disagree with, and which was also a power grab and not because of religion. Perhaps it was loosely justified by it, but again it was often to quash discontent.

Precisely the kind of disregard for human life I would hope to see society avoid.

hate to use it because i get maligned for
but…
sorry bud, thats what church and state is, if not its like saudi arabia and what a prosperous socialist paradise that is

I would disagree. That is the result of a tyrant who uses religion as justification for mass atrocity.

Despots have used this throughout history, oftentimes using all manner of questionable justifications.

Your ideology is shit

I would point you toward the executions of so-called saboteurs, fifth-columnists, anti-revolutionaries and so forth under Stalin.

Nobody reasonable could possibly suggest that this is the defining characteristic of socialism. It's a perversion of everything socialism ought to stand for.

/thread

Distributists are made to be bullied, with my dick.

Sounds like a more social falanism

at the end of the day i dont like your ideology

its pish

Holla Forums has not been able to afford 1 coherent argument against religion as an ultimately leftist asset. Your opposition to spirituality is simply mindless tribalism that you unduly believe it should attend to the rest of your leftist opinions

Wow…. so this is the power of leftypol…….. not bad not bad at all

This but unironically

Didn't expect many would, I just thought I would ask here because on Holla Forums I'd just be called a commie or a strausserist, and I'm neither.

Maybe, but from what I know about Franco's regime, he was pretty pally with capitalists. I'd rather see a great deal of their wealth requisitioned, and their managerial positions stripped.

All organised religion is a tool of the capitalist class and elite to suppress the prole, this is as true now as it ever was. Its not an opposition to spiituality, its organised religion. Constitutional monarchy still tyranny.

Well, it's not, but I do wish the Iranians success.

You're a smart reactionary who knows the value of bribing the working class. That, or you're just an idiot.

???
Even if that correct, that does not mean that the inherent egalitarianism that is exposited by many creeds could not be assumed by leftist movements. Spiritual authority and conclusive theological discourse is necessary for religion to firstly effect society for the better and secondly to deter schismatism and subsequent sectarian conflict.

Define "tyranny". Are you opposed to representative democracy?
I will concede that monarchy is largely incompatible to current leftist thought, but I think "tyranny" would be an exaggeration. Unless you're an anartard and every state short of somalia is despotism to you.

I would suggest it liberates the working class from hedonism and idleness.

Also, I would rather see the capitalists liquidated as a class. Those with certain proficiencies should be preserved as specialists and industry advisers, but the others will be treated much the same as any other citizen.

Those with inherited titles should be allowed to keep them (Lords, Dukes, Ladies, and so forth), but they must take leadership of their communities, and the extra wealth they enjoy would be only sufficient to ensure they carry out their duties. They would sit at the head of local councils and the like, and would be there as representatives of the crown.

I'm certainly a reactionary socially, but I do want to see an end to the egregious oppression and exploitation of the working man.

tyranny is a single ruler maintaining a grip on the people through "divine right" aswell as general despots and dictators. Organised Religion can have no place no matter how moral righteous or "good" because its authoritarian in nature and cannot justify its on existance.

I will concede in the past the church is a tool for bribing the masses into servitude and compliance but it has no grip in the current year unless you start a new one (good luck). And you basically allowing the capitalists and ruling class to retain power as long as, im sure, they bend the knee. Because that will work for sure. Uniting an entire power structure under the boot of a monarch will only cause them to go underground and conspire in said monarchs ousting. And if not, youve still given them power over the proles aswell as allowing them to keep the money theyve exploited.

So lets get a quick rundown:

…. yeah thats feudalism

yea, blablabla. No one is gonna say "I fucking hate the poor and they can suck it". It doesn't matter what you want as long as the real policies you enact perpetuate their oppression, which yours do on several level, subjugating the people to aristocratic, clerical and capitalist rule all at the same time.

A typicall conservative worker

Not the OP, but

That is not what he ever advanced
Have you heard of Hobbes?
Elaborate

Too lazy to reread the OP but a parliamentary constitutional monarchy is a constitutionaly monarchy
How can that be if there is a King? Smartass. Church would simply succor the state/monarchy
It was never stated that these functions were hereditary in the OP. Feuds/fiefs were hereditary possesions endoued upon a subject by a sovereign in exchange for service. A superior class owning the means of production is not a defining characteristic of feudalism by any stretch. Have you ever read non-leftist non-fiction in your life?

I've only ever had one job tbqh lad, and my dad gave it to me. I'm a student atm.

What is wrong with having rulers? Rulers can liberate as much as the can oppress. A strong ruler, ostensibly given the right to rule by God, can guide the lost proletariat to fulfilment through serving their society.

Prep urself for ur ban bougieboi

OP is pushing for a monarch aswell as a united church and state, so either the Ruler is the head of the church (Catholicism) OR the ruler has their place given to them by divine right, cant see any other way of his ideology working, and both are unjustifiable.

"Justify its existance" whilst not being an anarchist i draw from its theory of hierarchy that if it cannot justify its existance through its merits to the people then it must be dismantled . The idea of a organised church acting on the word of their god (he used the word church so i can only assume OP is either christian or drawing inspiration for christian structures) is authoritarian, it gives them the right to act however they wish, and cannot justify its existence because as a hierarchy, the top is "God" who cant communicate. The only benefits a church can offer than a collective or other power structure cant is "salvation" which cannot be proven and so is not justifiable.

Constitutional monarchies are few and far between, her in Britain our constitution is unwritten, and so technically doesnt exist, if the Queen wanted to, she has the power to seize all the land back George III loaned to parliament, ofcourse she doesnt get rent from them anymore but she still could. No constitution can limit an absolute monarch, unless OP wants a puppet monarch.

OP was pushing for both a monarch and combined church and state, so ask him to explain how it works cus i certainly dont like it.

By the very nature of owners owning means of production require them to be in "their" hands forever at risk of the production shutting down. Now by "their" i mean it in the meta sense, as the orginal owner will at one point have to hand over the business when he/she dies/gets sick etc. and most likely will be hereditary if not another member of this new owner class will step in. The means NEVER leave the owners hands. His point of owners serving their communities with their profits draw obvious parallels to the lords of old who owned all the land and essentially enslaved the locals into perpetual servitude in exchange for housing and food. How OP ever plans to avoid a peasant class living in severe poverty from manifesting and the owning class revolvting because they literally own all the means of production youll have to ask him.

This ideology is NOT socialist or any thing close to left wing and it certainly doesnt belong in the 21st century and i dont want it any where near me. It may not be feudalism by definition, but its damn close.

OP is retarded but you aren't much better
shit thread

theocrat

They predicate themselves by providing psychological comfort; Mnay churches also enterprise in charity relief and instruct missionaries who minister in underdeveloped countries, educating the willing, etc.

I have only a cursory understanding of Prussian constitutionalism, however I should be correct in saying that the monarch in such a system was not absolute and his powers were checked by popular mandate.

I don't see why these functions couldn't be appointed. But I agree that a hereditary property which is for the tenant to exact as he wishes is a compound for disaster (or any profitable property that is insufficiently regulated for the matter). These functions can be either hereditary or not, but entitled to a fixed pension/remittance for their administration, and be susceptible to demotion or dismissal if they are unfit for purpose.

Besides the King I do not believe a nobility should exist in but nominal form. They were perfidious motherfuckers.

Incorrect

these arent unique to the church especially less so nowadays, all of these now are undertaken by the state who do a far better and more efficient job.

The idea of having workers councils to appoint one of their own to a position of means owner is more like it but under the monarchy even then their labour is exploited so it would be futile.

Having the owning class is not something im as virulently adverse to as the monarchy and church as they does have room for a workers council, however with a monarch can be true freedom, but then again you werent for that so me trying to argue that point is equally as futile :/

Retarded, that's what your ideology is.

Your belief revolves around granny glasses worn by adult males.You identify their superior intellect and assemble what they say in no particular order.

Also cuckholdry, lots of that too.

What an insufferable faggot. Don't even stain the guillotine's blade with this loser's blood, just bury him alive.

It would be foolish to deny that domestically, lay institutions can perform lay services better than the church under current organization. But I gather that independent missions to the third world are offering opportunities that the state would not offer as readily to its responsibilities. As long as the church is running charities at a "gain" for those it interacts with it is predicated unto itself.

As for when the time comes that its services are no longer needed to aid the poor/disprivileged, consider that the society OP is proposing would/ought to be religious. In that case the church could operate as a propaganda outlet in favor of the state and its populist, distributivist economic policy, which intrinsically I would argue is reason enough to keep clergy employed at a living wage.

And if OPs society would patronage artists and researchers of niche studies/sciences, then I would say that clerics would earn their wage for a- conducting cultural services b- studying and developing philosophy as a consequence of their study of theology

Well, I've seen everything then.

the problem with missionaries is that charity to the developing world is RELIANT on them being either the religion of the mission or converting, otherwise they dont receive the aid. Whilst ISIS do the same, at least they give those that refuse a quick death rather than missionaries who will rather watch them starve than help a non believer.

This relationship between Church and state is entirely unique so i cant really begin to poke holes tbh. Might work, might not. The religious aspect is still something i take issue with.

A church as powerful as OP suggest would have no interest in compensating science, as much as a hypothetical this is, as well as art that does not promote the values of said church. Theres a reason we had an enlightenment, and it was to spite the church not with its help. The Illuminati was invented for the very reason of an overbearing church.

Unless OP can specify what religion this ideology is based from then we cant possibly speculate what the church and state may or may not do.

tradcath

Absolutely vile rhetoric there.

STOP TREATING THE FORMATION OF A WORLDVIEW AS IF IT WERE A SUPERMARKET SHOPPING SESSION

YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL

FFS

You are what I like to call "a LARPing idiot"

Is this monarch elective or hereditary?

I said falangist not francoist

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falangism

Christcom here. Holy shit read your bible and actually talk to someone from a church, I can think of literally no one in the modern age who would support this. If I had the meme of the orthodox priest telling a neckbeard to fuckoff I would post it.

Not even distributist because at least distributists tend to push for a guild system with a certain amount of private property provided to each family (as the basic unit is the family now) which they can run a business on/live on with the larger necessary industrial functions (like factories) being run cooperatively by the community and guilds and so reject the use of a monarch. Its basically a system of trying to keep everything a small business and those that can't be small cooperative. This is just some kind feudalist socdem So basically proto-fash

Who decide who are the assembly members?

Constitutional Monarchy

Reactionary as Fuck!

That's not feudalism you dipstick.

Nazbol
Seriously read Maurras.

You just do not have an ideology. You have a meaningless jumble of thoughts that do not add up to a coherent system.

Justin Bargerism

A fucking retard.

You’re a Nazbollah. (National Hezbollah)

Gawdd

BUT WHYYYYYY

As well as others
These replies are loaded with unadulterated horseshit. The other poster mentioned wars in Europe between what you call multiple churches. But you fail to recognize that these churches split from other churches.
And herein lies the fundamental issue with your idea. Take for example the Bible (I'm assuming you're a christfag). There's some pretty appalling shit in the Bible, such as saying it's ok to beat your slave, as long as they don't die in less than 3 days after the beating, as they are your property. I'm assuming you're not ok with slavery, are you?
Let's assume your not, but I am, and within this theocratic state I start an ultra fundamentalist faction, I base my faction on the literal word. Yours is on interpretation. How's does your state under this regard deal with this lack of unity? In the past it has led to brutal wars and the division of the church. I'd like to see how you'd deal with it.
The problem with using religion, to be blunt, is it's all bullshit. It's your interpretation of literature and quasi-laws written thousands of years ago by poorly educated, slave owning desert nomads. It has no relevance to today's society. And nobody can agree on it because it's entirely open to interpretation and to personal boundary setting. I can't even tell you how many times I've heard somebody telling me not to take the slave owning parts literally, then quoting word for word biblical passages that stand against gay marriage. Where do you draw the line? The idea of organizing a nation state around such horseshit is laughable

He obviously hasn't read a bible or the passage with about Samuel and God

because OP is spoked af.

Tbh, a lot of those people fail to understand that your supposed to read the bible with the understanding that other people wrote it
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

Sure, supposed to, but how do you organize society around it? Look at the split between the holy roman and Greek Orthodox churches. The only church the holy roman church and the papacy recognizes as official (by means of the apostolic lineage of its bishops) is the Greek Orthodox, and yet to this day the split and resentment exists over interpretation of minor details of their religion.
It should be abundantly clear that religious text is not materialist nor objective enough to organize a society around.

I'm not OP, I agree that society should not be fundamentally structured around a single faith though I would have no problem with religious communes

none of those people are wearing the same types of glasses, and Louis C. K. wears contacts.

I support or at least understand everything else, but what are the points of these? Why are some people still attracted to monarchy or a busybody church?

Sounds like a My Little Pony fanfic.

It really does. I blame MLP for this resurgence of "we need a 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Good Monarch🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧" autists.

How do I angloflag lads

You have stage 7 terminal brain cancer.

Monarcho-Autism