No.950 [Last50 Posts]
/leftypol/ crashing in, sorry for crossposting hopefully I don't get banned
How do I reconcile being a far-leftist with my monarchist tendencies, I like the aesthetics of it but being a socialist is quite antithetical to it.
are there any readings on monarchism from a leftist perspective, a monarch that upholds the revolution, something similar to Napoleon and 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.951
You're looking for a man with absolute power who ruled like a monarch after a revolution? Look no further fam.
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.952
Or here, the anti-imperialist monarchy
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.953
>>951
too paranoid with all his purges for my taste, Marxism-Leninism in general really lacks the royal aesthetic feel I'm looking for
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.954
Moanrchy and leftwing thought are mutually exclusive, i'm sorry to say.
Socialism/communism/left thought in general works on the premises, are based on a radical egalitarianism and class struggle.
Monarchism enshrines the idea of the differences, of the hierarchy. It upholds that the differences are actually good, it could be used for the good of all. The king will be always the king and he's good because of that. Because of that fundamental difference everybody can work for the embetterment of all.
When you get things like stalinism or just your average bonafide communism, the egalitarian ideal devolves into dictatorship without limits, something way worse than a monarchical system, which usually have it's own systems of check and balances.
> a monarch that upholds the revolution, something similar to Napoleon and the french revolution
If we think about, Napoleon didn't uphold the Revolution. He just installed his own brand of monarchism, the Bonapartism. Monarchism isn't a monolitic system or political ideal. Actually in the end Napoleon was more coopted by monarchist ideals and practices than anything.
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.958
Socialism and Monarchy are NOT mutually exclusive, despite what many will tell you. The Palace Economies of Ancient Egypt and the Sassanid Empire under Mazdakism are just some historical examples of proto-socialism being a cornerstone of a purely monarchist state.
I once read someone's proposal for a modern equivalent of this system as such:
>a monarchial socialist ideology would have to view the monarch as the embodiment of the proletariat. The means of production are collectively owned by the people, in whom sovereignty resides; however, that sovereignty is delegated to the monarch, who holds the means of production in trust for the people and manages the economy for the greater good. The monarch would, in doctrinal terms, be a servant of the people, much as a party secretary or president might be, and his power to rule would be contingent upon his exercise of that power in the collective interest.
>The setup would probably have to include an oversight mechanism to ensure that the monarch is actually wielding his power in trust for the people rather than for his own gain, and the king would be subject to impeachment as an elected ruler would be- but only with the potential of being replaced by another claimant of the same dynasty OR (in the case of a really fucking awful dynasty like the Qings), a complete replacement dynasty.
>This obviously wouldn't be a monarchy with elaborate court trappings and etiquette, or one where the king would be entitled to live in unearned luxury, but it could conceivably be hereditary. Possibly the ruling family might be seen as the only ones who are above class politics, or maybe the king himself could be the one who conceives and implements the socialist system and believes that his family is the best placed to do the job. Or a more religious socialism could replace the divine right of kings with the divine right of the people as represented by a king. Or, in an alternate Middle East, socialism might develop out of an idealized version of ancient Egypt, in which the Bronze Age palace economy is viewed (through an ideological lens) as a proto-communist system in which land and resources were owned by the state and overseen by the pharaoh.
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.959
>>958
This is very interesting. Was this just an anon's proposal or is it a known author?
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.960
>>958
Equating the monarch to an embodiment of the proletariat is antithetical to traditional monarchism.
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.971
I want to disagree with you, but there is an unfortunate precedent:
http://mises.org/library/socialist-empire-incas-peru
When monarchism can result in one of the most pure implementations socialism and capitalism, then you know that such a system is a little more subtle than people let on.
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.993
>>971
It's interesting for Hoppes case. Somehow, the Incas made this work, and I have no doubt that their extremely low time-preference played a role. Democracy increases time-preference, and so does revolutionary utopianism. The Incas had neither. The result is that they actually did prepare for famines and didn't start large persecution campaigns against the population.
Still far from my favorite civilization. The Incas were tyrants, and their subjects impassive savages. Ancient Sparta was perhaps even shittier, though.
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.1005
>>993
>It's interesting for Hoppes case.
It's a very interesting counterargument to the Hoppe Thesis. I kind of wonder what his response to the Incas is. Anyone know?
>I have no doubt that their extremely low time-preference played a role.
Do you mean the Incan people as a whole?
>The Incas were tyrants, and their subjects impassive savages.
It's odd to have a people that is both impassive, and also is willing to save.
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.1015
>>1005
The Incas were the rulers, their people were just Peruvians. Sorry, forgot to mention that distinction.
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.1038
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.1059
Are ya marxist, or post marxist? theres a lot of strains of leftist thought, where you lie will determine how you answer that q
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.1060
>>1005
>It's a very interesting counterargument to the Hoppe Thesis.
Hoppes thesis has some problems, anyway. The high time-preference of democracies is without question. The Incas, like I said, did prove that they thought far ahead. They weren't mindless activists, that's for sure.
The tendency to redistribute property to buy voters is also something that is bound to happen in a democracy, but why not also in all other societies in which there never was a strong tradition of respecting property? To be sure, it will be a different kind of redistribution. The Incas were quite rational about it, they didn't redistribute property to satisfy temporary wishes. This argument of Hoppe works perfectly in the context of European history, but when it comes to foreign societies, the lack of individual rights and other factors distort it.
The third point that Hoppe makes, that of the monarch owning the capital value of the nation while a democratic leader only owns usufruct, suffers from a similar fault, but I think it still holds up. The Incas really did treat their realm like you'd treat your own garden, whereas democratic treaders treat it like someone else's garden during a party they know will be over tomorrow.
>I kind of wonder what his response to the Incas is. Anyone know?
Not sure he's aware of that book. It's on mises.org, but so are a hundred other books.
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.1141
>liking the aesthetics of something
That's the worst reason to attach onto a movement. It makes you be what people mean when they say LARPer, just like /pol/ naziboos and, well, /leftypol/ commieboos. Liking inverted Es and Rs doesn't make anyone a commie. In the same manner, liking crowns and regality doesn't make you a monarchist. If you like the aesthetics, just acknowledge it and keep on with your socialism.
There's also the point that liking something for its aesthetics doesn't make sense: imagine you have a completely communist society, however it'd work. You have party officials, which are called "local CEOs", you have committees that are called "shareholder meetings", etc. if you truly like communism, you'd be okay with that. In the same manner, you could have the titles be "noblemen", etc. Don't be a LARPer.
There's also the fact that monarchy is more about how the society is organized politically, not economically. You could have some "socialist" kingdom. You don't get to bring your egalitarian rethoric, though, since the whole idea of a monarchy is that it's hereditary, i.e., that some people are born different than others, but economically it could be sound.
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.1149
Try killing yourself, traitorous sub-human.
>https://imgur.com/a/HYmrA
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.1166
>>954
Cercle Proudhon came close
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.1197
>>950
It's called Juche you retard
alternatively European Human Rights Charter
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.1221
>>954
>If we think about, Napoleon didn't uphold the Revolution
How so?
Bonapartism was heavily ideology-driven, and in the spreading of this ideology it found its main objective and the reason of its expansionistic wars
It was not very distant from that devolvement into dictatorship without limits that you complain about in the first half of your post
In fact, Napoleon's military regime resembled more an embrional stage of 20th century's totalitarianisms than a proper per-revolutionary monarchy
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.1222
…Anyway, to address OP's concerns, if he is still reading
If the only thing you value about the monarchic system is the "aesthetics" then i don't think it represents a contradiction in your worldview to look with admiration at architectural styles and symbolicisms commonly associated with other ideologies, nor even to use them yourself for that matters
Take a look at Moscow's metropolitan subway, for example: built by Stalin, it implements some sort of a pseduo-baroque architectural design, the idea behind it being to take that which once decorated the possessions of the nobilty and transfer it to the place where the proletariate gathered to get to work as much as i despise the soviet regime and communism in general, i have to say that's pretty dope
Does this make Stalin any less of a bloodthirsty commie, does it represent "monarchist tendencies" in his policies? Definitely not
So, OP, i suggest you relax and realize you actually have no monarchist tendency at all, thus you have nothing to reconcile
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.1469
>>950
This is my political ideology flag.
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.1524
>>950
Disregard all the idiots ITT OP, Left-leaning monarchism was first imagined in 20's Spain and later saw a revival in 70's France and Spain and continues to this day. I'll attach some interesting pdfs.
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.1530
>Nobody can list a single example of a Socialist society that isn't a garbage dump
>>958
>Bronze Age to early Medieval examples with the second one ending in bloodshed
Both of those empires would be 3rd World countries by current standards.
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.1532
Monarchy exists outside of the left/right paradigm. It's the way out of that doomspiral.
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.1540
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.1628
>I like the aesthetics of it
Spoken like a true commie, politics isn't about what seems cool or has the nicest looking flag, it's about creating the most functional society possible.
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.1632
>>1524
>Orleanism
Trash.jpg
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.3212
>>1628
Aesthetics matter.
Ask the Greeks, the Romans, and more recently, the Fascists
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.3215
>>3212
>Aesthetics matter.
That doesn't explain much.
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.3224
>>950
I've recently moved on from my Maistrean Reactionary phase to a more Third Position, almost National Bolshevist ideology.
But since I'm still an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I still have a great reverence for monarchy, the martyred royal family, and for all the other great counter-revolutionary martyrs. So I'm currently having a similar struggle to fit Russian-style absolute monarchy and symphonia with revolutionary nationalism and socialism.
The best I can think of is to have the state be referred to as a Republic; have the leader referred to as the "Grand Leader" or "Caeser" or something similar; have a ceremony similar to a coronation without it actually being called a coronation; and have the leader appoint his own successor (thus implicitly allowing for hereditary dynasties). I haven't quite worked out how the economy/industry of the nation would look yet, but I have ideas (potentially a guild system or something similar, anything that would destroy the parasitic bourgeois class while maintaining hierarchy).
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.3225
>>3224
>>3224
>with revolutionary nationalism and socialism.
lel kys cuck fam tbqh
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.3246
>>3224
You either think that a family has been appointed by God to rule, or you don't.
Third Positionism? Totallay compatible. You want the economy strong to brace the nation, not overtake the nation like a parasite. Third Positionism is a set of ideas on economic regulatin, and the position of commericalism in society. If you hold that the fighting aristocracy, should rule them,with the monarchy on top, that's Third-Positionist Monarchy
Republicanism, tho? That's not gonna fly. Sorry bucko. You need to clean your room of all that whig propaganda.
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.3630
>>958
Guild socialism seems like it would pair well with monarchy.
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.3643
>>953
That's peak monarchism.
Why does everyone assume monarchs are the high class decadent sort? They can rule any way they like.
Authoritarian-socialism is a shit contradiction because it is a return of an absolutist ruling class. It even has its personality cult tendencies to fill in for the absence of a god.
>Posts from 2017
Polite sage
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.6357
Marx himself wrote about the Incan empire. It was so successful that rooms full of silver and gold meant nothing to them - in fact, they even dealt with the problem of currency by giving cloth to those who put forth exemplary effort, meanwhile everyone usually worked to survive and thus would generally always be entitled to the fruits of their labor, with excess that was not necessary going to redistribution efforts.
It was a fascinating centrally planned economy.
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.6358
I suppose a monarch could enact whatever economic policies he pleased, but I find it difficult to justify a monarch's rule with a leftist value system. In the right wing, of course, there is divine right to rule, that the monarchs are chosen by God to guide the people. But with a leftist worldview that values equality of any/every kind, it's hard to justify having a monarch who is and will always be higher than all other men. Which is funny because socialism/communism, the ideologies of equality, gave rise to so many absolute rulers.
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.6360
>>3643
Who invited butterfly?
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.6361
>>6358
>Which is funny because socialism/communism, the ideologies of equality, gave rise to so many absolute rulers.
Not necessarily because of egalitarianism. This point of view is not egalitarian, but the view that the People, or the General Will, is the government. Ideologies elevate their leader to represent the Proletariat and because that person is the proletariat. Now, no more boomer-tier comparisons of absolute monarchs like the Tsars and Stalin. It's also debatable how you feel about the abolition of serfdom.
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.6363
>>6361
So now the proletariat is some kind of spiritual concept that can choose a champion to guide it's people?
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.6364
>>6363
Go look at the Cult of Personality posters. That is usually the case. The communist leaders are usually seem as the arm of the Proletariat, leading them on the right path. It's not necessarily choosing, but the unified will of the Proletariat.
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.6365
>>6363
No matter how much leftists label the French Revolution as the "Bourgeois" revolution, their ideological roots are still tied there. The influence of the Proletariat and generally all left-leaning ideas, take a big step from Rousseau. This animosity towards social order and this democratic urge takes roots. Rousseau, like Hobbes, sees the government "as the People", but unlike Hobbes, Rousseau takes an opposite direction and calls for emancipation. I feel that there is something orthodox from this pov, as Hobbes is heavily influenced by Aristotle's politics… but it's reformed and modern, with social contract theory. Being a democracy, an aristocracy, or a monarchy was like a state of being for the whole polity, but I wouldn't stretch that it was like Hobbes' view of Commonwealth. It was bent on hierarchy and land ownership.
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.7687
It can work it you're not specifically wedded to Marxism and it's autistic hatred of virtually all inequality (and you shouldn't be, because it's track record it terrible). Obviously, there's some types of monarchism that are incompatible, but a monarch and nobility aligned with the working poor and small business owners against the psuedo-aristocratic mercentile elite should generally be comparable with the left wing.
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.7697
>>6365
ever heard of Ferdinand Tonnies? he seemed to merge Rousseau with Hobbes.
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.7738
WORLD SOCIALIST MONARCHY?
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.7741
Economically left-wing monarchism? Maybe
Marxist monarchy? Hell no
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.7757
>>7687
>Obviously, there's some types of monarchism that are incompatible, but a monarch and nobility aligned with the working poor and small business owners against the psuedo-aristocratic mercentile elite should generally be comparable with the left wing.
That's already setting one foot in territory you don't want to step in as a monarchist. You shouldn't feel the need to apologize for inequality, not even for unearned wealth. All the wealth of a king is initially unearned, and in many cases, it remains so. Comparatively few kings live up to the dignity of their position. If you accept the proposition that unearned wealth should be returned to the have-nots, you set yourself on a slippery slope, and at the end of the slope, there's a guillotine.
Guys like Rawls, who exemplify this mindset, could never take an effective stance against leftism. Never get in the habit of apologizing for inequalities. Instead, say outright that inequality is nothing to apologize for. There are guys who are born with truly superior genetics, who could benchpress two hundred pounds at sixteen, but no one without an inferiority complex would begrudge their gains. Why, then, do we begrudge people who are born wealthier than us, or who luckily stumbled into wealth?
The problem isn't wealth. It can be political power being linked with wealth. It can be an unhealthy obsession with material things. It can be dishonest work being rewarding, although we shouldn't judge too harshly what's dishonest. Producing luxury items isn't dishonest, but enabling adultery and fornication is (think Ashley Maddison). Wealth itself isn't a problem and shouldn't be treated as such.
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.7760
>>7757
The psuedo-aristocratic mercentile elite generally undermine the authority of the government. The issue isn't about unearned wealth or thinking that inequality is internally bad just because.
>The problem isn't wealth. It can be political power being linked with wealth. It can be an unhealthy obsession with material things. It can be dishonest work being rewarding, although we shouldn't judge too harshly what's dishonest.
This is pretty much my position. I use the term psuedo-aristocratic to refer to the political power afforded them by their wealth. This power is difficult to regulate since it's not an official part of the political process, which is why you would set an ACTUAL aristocracy against it as a counterbalance. I agree that we shouldn't be hugely judgemental about business practices, but international corporations undercutting native workers by outsourcing production isn't a good thing.
TL;DR it's not about fuck rich people, it's about mitigating the undue political power they have from being rich
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.8143
>>6364
There was an Anarchist who talked about how Moses was the first Marxist-Leninist.
Moses was Pharaoh's son (adopted).
So that's kinda why I think it turned out that way with Cults of Personality.
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.8144
>>8143
It's also worth noting that Lenin was sent to Russia via the German Empire.
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.8145
>>8144
That was obviously a mistake made in the desperation of WW1.
>>951
A monarch isn’t just a dictator. A dictator like Stalin had no legitimacy. Communism furthermore had no legitimacy. Life was far better under Nicholas II for the lower classes of Russia than it was under Soviet rule.
>>7757
A monarchs main enemies historically have been powerful, scheming nobles and plutocrats. The lower classes supported the monarch in Russian history because he could stand up to the power of nobles and oligarchy. Therefore we could say the crown and the lower classes are aligned in their interests in many cases.
Having said that, I agree this idea of a leftist monarch is utterly ridiculous. There were a few left leaning monarchs like Peter ‘the Great’, Catherine ‘the Great’, Napoleon to name a few, but they were terrible not to be emulated. The whole point of a monarch is that he is to be impartial and against revolutionary ideologies. Napoleon was too influenced by the French Revolution and now the monarchy in France is gone. Catherine was a harlot who murdered her husband and hated the Russian Orthodox Church. Peter was an occultist who tried to “modernise” Russia.
The left has made their peace with capitalism anyway. Most of these leftypol people aren’t even working class, it’s just trolling or larping. They care about legalising sodomy and wamens rights and the miscegenation agenda. Just felt like ranting.
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.8157
>>8145
How was Napoleon bad?
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.8160
>>8145
>A dictator like Stalin had no legitimacy.
Forgive my question since I'm a bit of a newfag (I browse from time-to-time but not much), but how is legitimacy established, through God or something? How is it known when a monarch has been made legitimate? How do they become legitimized in the first place? I favor a sort of meritocratic monarchy personal where the most qualified person in the nation (in terms of intelligence, virtue, public service, leadership abilities, etc) is selected through some sort of screening process, where he then rules for life. A monarchy of sorts, but not hereditary. Could this ever be legitimate?
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.8168
>>8157
Monarchists who hate Napoleon are generally massive autistists with no understanding of the fact that all monarchies where ultimately established through action, as Napoleon did.
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.8170
>>8157
>>8168
I don't dislike Napoleon for not being a Bourbon or something. The issue is deeper. He was too influenced by the French Revolution and sought to impose this ideology on the rest of Europe.
>>8160
Seeking power is a character flaw and that is why monarchy is superior. The very man who doesn't want power is the one who is right to rule.
A republic is basically the oligarchs collaborating together and because they have no right to rule they must control through deception. When the Medici banking clan took over Italy, they kept all the trappings of republicanism but ran everything themselves as a tyrannical oligarchy. Oligarchy fears being exposed as oligarchy because it has no legitimacy. A king is not afraid of being seen as a king and he does not hide it. He is adorned with the symbols of the nation or nations he rules.
Stalin was a political opportunist who worked his way up the communist criminal ladder to the top by deception and murder. A schemer has no legitimacy.
Yes, that legitimacy comes from God, from being an enforcer of natural law (God's law).
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.8171
>>8170
>Yes, that legitimacy comes from God, from being an enforcer of natural law (God's law).
Interestingly enough, the ancient Aryans in India had an extremely similar conception of kingship. They must be onto something. Thanks for answering my question, you cleared some things up.
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.8174
>>8170
>Seeking power is a character flaw and that is why monarchy is superior. The very man who doesn't want power is the one who is right to rule.
By that logic, kings who advocated absolute monarchy shouldn't have been trusted.
>Yes, that legitimacy comes from God, from being an enforcer of natural law (God's law).
You can't enforce morality, and it's generally counterproductive to try.
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.8175
>>8174
>You can't enforce morality, and it's generally counterproductive to try.
I guess we shouldn't have any laws then since we can't stop people from breaking the law. Read the Laws of Manu and see that punishment and force are the ways that Natural Law is enforced on Earth
<Punishment alone governs all created beings, punishment alone protects them, punishment watches over them while they sleep; the wise declare punishment (to be identical with) the law.
<If (punishment) is properly inflicted after (due) consideration, it makes all people happy; but inflicted without consideration, it destroys everything.
<[…]The whole world is kept in order by punishment, for a guiltless man is hard to find; through fear of punishment the whole world yields the enjoyments (which it owes).
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.8176
>>8175
You can stop attacking that strawman. There's a difference between a set of laws designed to protect people and a set of laws designed for blanket enforcement of morality. Also, order is not morality. People not doing bad things because they're afraid isn't morality. Moral people don't do immoral things regardless of any punishment or lack thereof. The only way to make people moral is to convince them.
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.8179
>>8176
>Moral people don't do immoral things regardless of any punishment or lack thereof.
Moral people are hard to come by, especially nowadays. I didn't quote it, but the text I quoted from says the same thing. You can try your 'morality by persuasion' method, but it won't get you anywhere. Morality and right standards are exemplified to the people by virtuous rulers and codified into law. As Mo Tzu said, rulers should punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.
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.8182
>>8174
>absolute monarchy
"Absolute monarchy" is another misleading label liberals like to apply to strong monarchs. No monarch has ever been all powerful like this term implies.
>You can't enforce morality, and it's generally counterproductive to try.
*sigh* smh… lolbergs
Of course you can and must enforce morality. A good parent for example must. Perhaps it won't work, but it is the parent's duty in the eyes of God to try. That is also a Christian monarch's job: to be an example of piety and morality for his subjects. To be a sort of father figure for everyone.
Modern society is not in decline from having too many moralists but from having too few. Even some atheists are coming to understand this.
Widespread subjugation of man to his passions leads to tyranny every single time. It's tyranny of the passions.
The first classical liberal was the devil and the first monarchist was God.
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.8200
>>8179
People who aren't free to do some wrong can't grow. A nation of infants is weak.
>>8182
I've seen plenty of monarchists who fully support the idea of absolute monarchy.
I'm not a libertarian, and a king's relationship to his people should not be that of a father to his son. Men must grow up and leave their father's house. To have that kind of relationship with the king for your entire life is infantilising. Yes, kings should lead by example. That does not mean, however, that it should be illegal to ever do something immoral. The state's role is to protect its people. Morality goes far beyond that. That must be addressed through means other than force. A man with no agency cannot be moral, cannot experience moral growth. It is not moral to do no evil simply out of fear of punishment.
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.8204
>>8200
>People who aren't free to do some wrong can't grow. A nation of infants is weak.
Creating a nation of infants is what happens when you don't discipline and punish them. Trying raising children and never punishing them
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.8205
>>8204
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any laws.
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.8206
>>8200
>>8182
>I've seen plenty of monarchists who fully support the idea of absolute monarchy.
Between you two, I openly embrace the term. It's always the people who dislike the absolutism in general that want to drop the word.
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.8207
>>8200
>I'm not a libertarian, and a king's relationship to his people should not be that of a father to his son. Men must grow up and leave their father's house.
Like father, like son; it is a great way to view the relationship between a monarch and his people. Tsar Nicholas II was called a 'father' to his people and it has always been an honorable title. What is royal is bound up in the nature of a father/son relationship.
>at kind of relationship with the king for your entire life is infantilising. Yes, kings should lead by example. That does not mean, however, that it should be illegal to ever do something immoral. The state's role is to protect its people. Morality goes far beyond that.
I'm not a huge moralfag, so don't look at me.
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.8210
>>8200
>absolute monarchy
This is a whole other thread in itself, but “absolute monarchy” is a deceptive term that gives the impression a monarch could ever be all powerful in the way liberals are always squealing about. It is a liberal false term and I reject it completely.
I personally am for the style of monarchy practiced by Ivan IV of Russia.
>not comparable to father/children relationship
The nuclear family is a gross,
DECADENT
imitation of the patriarchal clan. The idea that you should cut your mother and father off from giving you advice or assistance after age 18 or 21 because muh Murican dream is
MORONIC
and not how families lived before the modern era.
The very fact that “you must live in your parents basement” is a popular American insult shows how retarded social conditioning makes the NPC. In the past ALMOST EVERYONE lived with their parents and extended family, often under one roof. But ya can’t have that goyim, gotta feed our real estate industry. Gotta keep the American economy afloat somehow. Gotta get these stupid kids on a subprime mortgage.
A child has to grow up and become an adult, but you should never stop going to your family for counsel.
What you seem to want is a world in which everyone is born alone, somehow magically survives alone, and becomes a fully rational and moral adult. I’m sorry friend, that world isn’t ours.
We don’t live in a world of atomised individuals. To say the individual is the foundation of anything is self contradicting. You’re using language you do don’t create. Terms and phrases you didn’t invent. Ideas you didn’t invent.
A monarch is like the patriarch of an extended family - his subjects. In the Bible, God is compared to a father and a king. Ideally speaking he shouldn’t be commanding them what to do but simply reminding them of their duty to their conscience.
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.8211
>>8200
I’m sick of this pedantic liberal argument “having law and order infantilises everyone”. That is a classical liberal argument.
If your father treats you as a physical adult like a toddler still then there’s something fucked up about your family and I have no desire to know what.
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.8579
>>8145
>Life was far better under Nicholas II for the lower classes of Russia than it was under Soviet rule.
Extremely hot take. It's objectively wrong though, especially looking at the entire post-WW2 era of the USSR which saw the best living conditions Russia has ever known, although many progressive developments were already enacted under Lenin and Stalin as well. The economy of the USSR was also the 2nd fastest growing one of the 20th century.
> I agree this idea of a leftist monarch is utterly ridiculous. […] The whole point of a monarch is that he is to be impartial and against revolutionary ideologies.
With this I agree 100% (apart from the "impartial"), it's the main reason why monarchs and aristocrats always fulfill a reactionary role and should be overthrown.
>The left has made their peace with capitalism anyway. Most of these leftypol people aren’t even working class
Yes the state of the left is far from optimal, but do you honestly think /leftypol/ is representative for "the left" lol?
>>8170
>that legitimacy comes from God, from being an enforcer of natural law (God's law).
There is no scientific base for "natural law" or "God's law" and hence it has no legitimacy. Historically, monarchs were not somehow appointed by God, but simply rose to the economic top class by amassing wealth on the back of the laboring classes. This is true from the pharaohs to the European royal houses to the modern-day Saudi or Thai king. Without his economic power the monarch also loses his political legitimacy.
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.8583
>>8579
>Yes the state of the left is far from optimal, but do you honestly think /leftypol/ is representative for "the left" lol?
Yes, you have to go back.
>>>/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.8584
>>8579
bruh you're not welcome here
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.8586
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.8587
>>8586
RRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
GET THEE OUT OF MY BOARD, DIALECTICAL MATERIALIST
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.8588
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.8589
>>8588
NO, YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP, ANTI-IMPERIALIST
YOU WILL BE HANGED, DRAWN, AND QUARTERED
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.8590
Much wrong with the world as it is is thanks to the idealogical plague unleashed by the French Revolution, which in turn was basis for the nightmare loosed by Red October. Why on Earth would we look on any of you charitably? Especially when you have no desire to admit your guilt in these events beyond "W-well it's not perfect," and go on insisting that your flimsy ways are those of the future. They're not even new: every half-bit peasant revolt wanted to seize wealth and property that wasn't theirs ad nauseum. It's also a hideous bastardization of Christianity, especially when you get into the Cosmist beliefs of governmental responsibility to resurrect everyone.
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.8621
>>8588
>One type of globalist accusing others of being a different type of globalist
Begone.
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.8625
>>8588
>a Belgian worshipping African communists.
Shut the fudge up modernist. The Belgian crown should jail you for such insolence.
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.8640
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.8641
>>8579
If you don’t believe in God, you have nihilism and absurdism.
Like capitalism, socialism reduces a man to an animal - a disposable cog in the machine of society with no dignity.
Your knowledge of Russian history is beyond pathetic. Yes, the economy advanced by leaps and bounds but only by rivers of blood. Ever heard of the Holomodor? The Soviet Union banned workers unions so it’s a complete fraud anyways. Tsarist Russia was feeding the world. The Soviet Union was starving and required constant western food aid. It’s just another banker Jew empire.
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.8647
>>950
By necking yourself you communist scumbag
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.8650
>>8579
>muh scientific basis
Science is not incompatible with religion and thinking so is the pinnacle of bluepilldom. I will never be able to understand why atheist retards think the universe just exists or doesn't need to be explained.
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.8657
>>950
OP's post is proof a majority of extreme leftists are LARPers and not to be feared
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.