No.2752
Daily reminder the incan state was socialist monarchism. So is the DPRK.
If you think they are socialist and admire their achievements as a vast empire, you are an enemy of both /pol/ and /leftypol/.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2754
This is a slide thread.
>muh incans
Heh.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2758
>>2754
What am i sliding on this slow ass board?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2759
I was just going to make a thread about this earlier today but the pdf did not load.
It is a worthwhile point that monarchism can be rather "apolitical" when it comes to the left/right divide, since there are very economic right and economic left models of monarchism.
I do have to ask, however, what does /monarchy/ think caused the Incan Situation? How did they end up with such a spectacularly socialist system?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2761
>>2759
Simple. Socialism is human nature, and private ownership of the means of production did not exist up until a certain point in human history. Same as most people did not believe in land "ownership" until feudalism was created.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2763
>>2761
>human nature
I bet /leftypol/ gets a kick out of you.
>>2758
Seems like a very daft discussion. The Incan Empire was the Incan Empire. It doesn't need to be called any -ism, it simply was a relic of native American civilization. Our notions of it are pure speculation.
>>2759
While it is true that /monarchy/ is apolitical, the left/right divide has its origins in the French Revolution. In other words, beware the offspring of radicals. Don't stick your hand in the meat-grinder, AKA partisan politics. Best we may do as humble monarchists is listen and partake in wisdom.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2764
>>2763
Wise words. Is all of /monarchy/ as honorable as you?
t. OP
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2765
I would also like to note how imprudent it is to fuss about land ownership. Primitive man always had a sense of belonging and tribes were territorial. You might as well take an extra step and vilify the human condition aka man itself because it was human desire that utilized property. De Maistre addressed this problem in his refutation of Rousseau. Say what you will about ownership of any kind, whether it benefits monarchy or does injustice, I would disagree.
>>2764
Possibly,but there are a few newfags here. Many monarchists need to be put through bootcamp. They need to stop thinking like republicans.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2766
>>2765
>I would also like to note how imprudent it is to fuss about land ownership. Primitive man always had a sense of belonging and tribes were territorial. You might as well take an extra step and vilify the human condition aka man itself because it was human desire that utilized property. De Maistre addressed this problem in his refutation of Rousseau. Say what you will about ownership of any kind, whether it benefits monarchy or does injustice, I would disagree.
>he doesn't specify what he means by "property"
Primitive man never thought that the earth could be "owned" by individuals. Generally, they always thought of earth as a "mother" to them, and something that mankind as a whole would have to live side-by-side with. The land they lived on wasn't ever theirs in their mind, it was a place they lived. It was where they built their walls, where they ate and slept, where they raised families and grew crops. Land is a force of nature, not a tool of man.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2767
>>2766
My dear peasant, this is exactly what Maistre warned. Man was not made for the "state of nature" rather man was made for civilization. My biggest fear and concern about this doctrine is the mentality around institutions and technology as a thing that is bad. As Maistre put it, "Man breaks the state of nature for simply cooking an egg." Man instinctively makes tools and works on behalf of others since the notion of the family.
Many monarchists are /liberty/ here and monarchy itself is typically a conservative institution and authority, because it always was a traditional and legitimate authority. However, I have nothing to impede about a social monarchy, and I won't stop an authority from using its power if it meant securing a task. My only lament is concern for the implications of this doctrine.
We had a thread on this too. Just be warned you'll find many spergs and people from /liberty/ with half a mind on this issue. I don't necessarily agree with them fundamentally, but I also disagree with this doctrine.
https://8ch.net/monarchy/res/2414.html
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2768
>>2767
If man is made for the civilization of man, then it only makes sense that he will support the socialist system, a system built in which man works for a common, collective goal.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2769
>>2768
Okay.
Concerning property, it seems that property and authority consist together. To secure and maintain a property, there must be a system of justice; and before you truly have a conduct of justice and authority, a strong code of honor is absolutely necessary. The basis for this institution is built on what is read in Patriarchia, that the first rulers were fathers of families and this best secured liberty. Property is a means of producing and building a reputation. Remember old chivalrous banners of the feudal age and the coat of arms of the estate. A traditional outlook for a few monarchists is property is necessary for the well being of this, but I won't classify this notion of "private" or "public" property.
>socialist system
I'm a very pragmatic person. Whatever works, sirrah. A few countries are well endowed with wealth and a socialist system looks admirable to a kind of capitalist system, but the reverse is also true with another country that is well endowed and is market-based.
Do you see this quote? Maistre refutes it in notion that we ought not to make judgments about the "primitive" man. Maistre deconstructs that a primitive man ever existed, and Maistre asserts that there was only the "savage man". I could link to you the pdf where Maistre refutes Rousseau. I am extremely skeptical because it is often attributed that Rousseau was the brain behind the French Revolution.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2770
I wouldn't describe monarchy as a "collective" or "individualistic" goal. It is a fair middleground between the individual and society, that being the family as the origin of the individual and society. If you examine portraits of royal families and a monarch's duties to the sovereignty,you see a strike of individualism and honor for the state. The ideal is the monarch is reputable, pious, and brings justice and peace.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2777
>>2768
Have you ever considered looking into "Distributism"? I think G.K. Chesteron and Belloc helped devised it. It might feel appropriate for what you want, but I doubt it will satiate what you essentially have been discussing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2792
>>2761
>Simple. Socialism is human nature, and private ownership of the means of production did not exist up until a certain point in human history.
You know that a simple shovel, or a plough, are means of production, right? And these things have been privately owned for a long time. Same with ships, or carts, or oxens.
Also, there have been references to servitude in the Old Testament. If the means of production weren't privately owned (which they often were), then they certainly weren't owned by the workers, either.
>Same as most people did not believe in land "ownership" until feudalism was created.
People did not believe in land ownership until they started believing in land ownership, glorious insight. Ever considered that at a time of extremely low population density and low agricultural development, people had little need to establish land rights? Property rights presuppose scarcity.
I am fairly sure that the Old Testament nevertheless mentions land ownership, what with land being redistributed every ten years. That would make little sense if everyone owned every tract of land.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2793
>>2752
>Daily reminder the incan state was socialist monarchism.
It was, but it was also not any monarchism that we should care about. When I call myself a monarchist, that's shorthand for saying I want a little of the ancien régimé back. I want monarchy specifically of the Middle Age variety. No absolutism or constitutional trash. That's better than democracy, but still inferior to the feudalism of old. Likewise, I want no Chinese emperor, no Khan and no Tenno. Something closer to Charlemagne.
Other people will disagree with me, but my point still stands that every monarchist wants a specific form of monarchy. Throwing the Inca Empire at us will not embarass us. Me, I'll just say that the Peruvians were better off for being monarchist and worse off for being socialist. They were docile and incredibly dull, from all reports, and the Incas even experimented with social engineering, by binding the skulls of children off so they could grow a specific way, which was supposed to make them more obedient and timid. However, the unlimited power in the hands of the Inca would've been wielded far more irresponsibly in the hands of a democratic council.
The Inca Empire had a very low time-preference, a good demonstration of the Hoppean argument. They had no famines and few massacres in their time. They truly planned ahead. And while we're at it, the Incas also demonstrate the calculation-problem very well. They only got price signals from sporadic foreign trade and centrally planned all kinds of economic decisions. Their production procedures were incredibly simple, and frequently relied on the application of brute force. There were maybe three, at most something like five production steps before you arrived at a final product. In Adam Smiths time, you had twenty production steps or so, if I remember correctly, before you ended up with a nail.
>So is the DPRK.
Actually, by Platos classification, it is clearly a tyranny, not a monarchy. I'd agree with him, as the Kim-family still follows an ochlocratic ideology.
>>2777
G.K. Chesterton shoehorned some of it into his essay on eugenics. I wasn't impressed, von Mises debunked pretty much every myth Chesterton mentioned. I can respect the spirit behind distributism, but I think laissez-faire is superior. Mind you, laissez-faire precludes redistribution of property and the acceptance of ill-gained property. It could conceivably stand in the way of economic development, if every farmer owned a cozy piece of land and cared little for additional material gain. The hermit in the woods is safe when his property rights are unconditionally respected.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2794
>>2792
>I'm sure that the Old Testament
This is what irks me about leftists gloating over "muh Native Americans" like the rest of the Enlightenment political theorists and Rousseau. It's like they forgot about the Old World completely. They were in the Enlightenment era, saw native Americans and felt it would provide proper insight into early human development. Then they used their rationalism to determine this and deconstruct the order in Europe.
Maistre asserted tribes developed differently and it would be unwise to take judgments as to how they would develop.
>>2793
I think it's really a form of despotism, as the concept of liberty is being able to become free of labor and working. The danger is wanting to subject everyone to working. The relationship between laborer and non-laborer is interesting enough.
>Chesteron
To be fair, Chesteron admits every social "cure" doesn't really cure for the rest of a society. It often hurts others in the process. Chesteron says very fair things, tbqh.
I think Belloc insisted more people would appreciate property if more people had property. The vision of distributism has its roots in Catholic social doctrine, defending workers and industry for what it is. The concept of property and working to preserve a property and survive seems central in all fairness of sparing time for the contemplative life.
In the reading list, I posted encyclicals. They're very good, surprisingly.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2795
>>2793
I'm not a distributist, but like you said I appreciate the spirit. He has interesting social commentary.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2821
>>2765
>stop thinking like republicans.
This should be the board's tagline.
>>2767
>>2769
>Maistre
>But Maistre said
>According to the words of Maistre
We get it. You have a huge raging hardon for Joseph de Maistre.
>>2770
>I wouldn't describe monarchy as a "collective" or "individualistic" goal. It is a fair middleground between the individual and society
I'd describe it as a third way.
>>2793
>my point still stands that every monarchist wants a specific form of monarchy
It's almost as if monarchism comes in many different forms or something.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2822
>>2765
>stop thinking like republicans.
This should be the board's tagline.
>>2767
>>2769
>Maistre
>But Maistre said
>According to the words of Maistre
We get it. You have a huge raging hardon for Joseph de Maistre.
>>2770
>I wouldn't describe monarchy as a "collective" or "individualistic" goal. It is a fair middleground between the individual and society
I'd describe it as a third way.
>>2793
>my point still stands that every monarchist wants a specific form of monarchy
It's almost as if monarchism comes in many different forms or something.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2827
>>2822
>We get it. You have a huge raging hardon for Joseph de Maistre
Okay, we get it. You have a huge hardon for HansAdamII.
I can't help it if Maistre is so correct in bashing Rousseau. How could you blame a monarchist for liking this man? Don't bully, Liechtenstein-poster.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.6949
Please see >>950 , this thread has been bumplocked.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.