There was a debate between a monarchist and a communist on /his/. Both are awful ideologies, but which is worse? Communism or monarchy?
>>>/his/1238211
>>>/his/1238252
>>76135026
/his/ is /pol/ without flags.
nothing but circlejerks and metabaits.
looks like you didnt know.
>>76135026
Communism.
There's a chance a monarch can be a good monarch.
There's no chance a communistic society will actually work.
Source:
Enlightened monarchies of Europe during XVIII, XIX centuries.
All communist countries of the world.
>Monarchy
>Bad
I hate how my fellow countryman will defend the sham that is democracy.
At the very least a monarch has an incentive not to ruin his country
>>76135026
>Monarchy
>Terrible
Wew lad... you might be retarded
>>76135466
How would you even decide who was king of America?
>>76135026
i'm a monarchist, certain culture are not made to be ruled through democratie
certain culture search for a father leader to fix all their problem and that cause socialism/syndicalism with a democratie
see latin culture current governement, see france and wallonia
>>76136359
Well at this point it would have to be whomever could get support and control. Someone would have to lead people and convince enough people that he should rule.
In the end that's true with all monarchies in a way, if the people enough you have no power, and your "divine blood" is meaningless
>>76136359
donald trump could convince the population to elect him as a king at the end of the 8 year :^)
Literally the same fucking thing
One Ruler, Some nobles and everyone else is a peasent.
>>76137089
Interesting point
>>76135466
We aren't a democracy anyways.
>>76137089
at least a monarch dont have a set ideology
in a monarchy there is a good amound of autonomy and so can help to have some economic liberty
unless you have an administrative monarchy and there you have that buraucratic bullshit
>>76137089
The difference is that the standard of living in the socialist one is much higher, see: russia before and after the revolution
>>76135026
guys, what's an 'elective' monarchy?
>>76137499
yeaahh right, thats why millions starved to death
>>76137615
i'm not sure if an elective monarchy is good since he would need to pander during the election
>>76137499
>>76137422
Well then were talking more about empires which were happy to grant autonomy to its outer regions and recent conquests. I was talking about straight up dark age rulers, say 700's to 1400's roughly.
>>76137627
Much less millions than the previous feudal regime.
>>76137728
its more about absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy(not parlementary constitutional monarchy) for me
>>76135026
equally bad
in both cases you end up with a handful of chosen few who rule over every one and anyone who isn't part of that elite is poor
>>76137797
yeah sure the tzar absolutly starved more than 20M
>>76137949
say that to the bourgoisie
>>76137615
Like how the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire worked
>>76136877
inb4 bernie sanders king and hillary clinton queen
>>76137949
>handful of chosen few who rule over every one
>Having dedicated rulers is bad
>Letting every idiot choose how a country is run is smart
>Thinking "democracy" gives him freedom
>>76138255
this, what is important is whose one give the least bureaucracy, and that is monarchy
Communism is the worst performing political ideology of all time. Not a single ideology has failed so consistently as communism. The death, destruction, decline, and despair spread by communism wherever it took root is unmatched by any political, philosophical, or religious ideology.
Communism is, as far as history goes, the darkest page in human history.
>>76135026
Just look through history. Monarchies worked for thousands of years and is what gave us what we have today.
Communism has never worked and has always lead to turning the world into a 3rd world shithole.
>>76138063
>thinking the bourgoisie is hereditary
contrary to popular belief, the face of bourgoisie is always changing
this year alone, 221 bourgois fell off the billionaire list and 198 newcomers were added, something you would never see under any other system
>source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2016/03/01/forbes-2016-worlds-billionaires-meet-the-richest-people-on-the-planet/#6f47b72c41cb
>>76138255
>poking at a strawman
I never said democracy gave me freedom
I never said letting idiots vote was smart
I never said having dedicated rulers was necessary bad (better hope they're benevolent tho)
I'm just pointing out that under monarchy, poor people stayed poor.
>>76136359
Mandate of Heaven
>>76138954
thats the reason i said that
i want a capitalistic economy, an economy that will never go to the left
>>76135026
Philosopher-kings are the most just form of government. Communism is the near opposite; it is rule by the masses.
>>76135026
>implying communism has or could EVER be implemented.
No, seriously, communism exists as much as Santa Claus. No matter how much you want it to be real, its impossible to implement.
Thus, Monarchy isn't better per se, but it sure helps that it exists
>>76138543
Right, look, I agree and all but it turned Russia from a 3ed world shithole into a decent place kinda.
>>76138014
Durring the Czar Russia was a backwards 3rd rate power. Durring the Commies and Stalin they turned it into a world super power who was able to compete with the United States. Yeah the Commies were better than the Czars. Only idiotic NEETS on the internet think otherwise. Here is a hint you are more likely to be a dirty peasant than being a noble.
>>76139538
At first, sure.
But it went right back to shit as the wealth went away, which will always inevitably happen.
The only reason it lasted so long in Russia is because of the war.
I think the fact that it's called /his/ is offensive, why not call it /hers/?? Fucking sexists
>>76135026
Communism without a doubt.
>>76135210
>Enlightened monarchies of Europe during XVIII, XIX centuries.
That was the time in which monarchies were failing as systems. The existence of the aristocracy as the ruling class is predicated on their military service.
>>76139787
Because men have always ran things and been in charge. We've always had the patriarchy. Our nip overlord was just being historically accurate.
>>76139719
>Here is a hint you are more likely to be a dirty peasant than being a noble.
replace "noble" with "КПCC member" and the same principle applies to your great USSR
>>76140522
Difference is it's actually much more possible to join the communist party and rise up the ranks. After all how high you rise to power is not determined out of which cunt you popped out of.
>>76136359
Our true sovereign would be the legitimate ruler of Britain (that would be the Jacobite Francis II, not the heretic German usurper Elizabeth).
>>76140901
>he thinks peasants didn't stay peasants in the USSR
quite kidding yourself kid
>>76136359
Will will fall apart into many warring states and God will allow one man to bring us all together once more and he will be king
>>76135026
>Monarchy
>Awful
fuck off peasant go back to your lord's manor
>>76141119
Dude my parents lived in a communist country. You could rise above your station. By every metric quality of life was higher in the Soviet Union than it was in the Russian Empire. I know a maple moose fucker like you canucks like to suck the queen off. But monarchy isn't that great, history is full of idiot kings.
>>76136359
Hey I'm a representative of the Anglican Church, I wondered if you had a moment to talk about accepting QEII into your heart?
>>76141315
>poking at a strawman
I never said the russian empire was better
I never said monarchy was better
I'm saying communism is equally bad
>>76141315
From
>gulag toilet cleaner
To
>gulag sink scraper
SUCH AN IMPROVEMENT
Dont forget secret police snatching your friends and loved ones for being enemies of the state
Dont forget millions dying due to seizure of grain and crop
Dont forget that the """means of production""" eventually ended up in the hands of party members (wow fucking surpising) before the coup
>>76138954
>bourgeoisie
>billionaires
/pol/ needs to have mandatory history and philosophy classes.
>>76141718
Indeed, we have a joke over here. You know you're a UCL student when you use the term 'bourgeoisie' unironically.
>>76141718
>>76141858
anyone with more than half a brain can see why I used that word by looking at the post I was replying to you condescending twats
>>76141488
And I'm not saying communism was great. It sucked. But it's better than serfdom where you can't leave your farm and are a slave in all but name for one asshole and his family for all time.
>>76141520
Funny, but no you can rise from humble beginnings all the way to being in charge of everything, if you are smart and ruthless enough. Stalin wasen't some rich spoiled noble. In monarchy if you aren't a noble there is no chance of you rising up and becoming king some day. You are a peasant.
Also monarchies had police that would snatch your friends and loved ones for being enemies of the king.
Millions died to plauge and famine during the watch of kings.
Also wealth was mostly concentrated to the kings and nobles as well. So tell me how the fuck is monarchy better than communism?
>>76142006
I can't. You said a ruling class doesn't exist in capitalism while he correctly pointed out that aristocracy is alive and well. Your reply was that some billionaires became millionaires and vice versa.
It's retarded.
>>76141718
They're called haute bourgeoisie
>>76142255
>haute bourgeoisie
Not really. The newcomers to the billionaire list might be new money too. I'd guess that there are quite a few haute bourgeoisie in the hundreds of millions instead of billions. Despite the difference in wealth, they can exert a lot more control over society through existing ties.
>>76142476
Yeah, really. They're members of the class that displaced the aristocracy as the ruling class.
New money has nothing to do with whether or not you're bourgeois, just has to do with whether you were born into it.
>>76142221
>You said a ruling class doesn't exist in capitalism
no I didn't, I said it face changes
what's with the strawmans in this fucking thread?
>>76142609
>new money has nothing to do with whether or not you're bourgeois
The definition of haute bourgeois is based on that.
>The haute bourgeoisie is a social rank in the bourgeoisie that can only be acquired through time. In France, it is composed of bourgeois families that have existed since the French Revolution. They hold only honourable professions and have experienced many illustrious marriages in their family's history. They have rich cultural and historical heritages, and their financial means are more than secure.
> In France, the families of the haute bourgeoisie are also referred to as les 200 familles, a term which was coined in the first half of the 20th century. Michel Pinçon and Monique Pinçon-Charlot have studied the lifestyle of the French bourgeoisie, and how they boldly guard their world from the nouveau riche, or newly rich.
Don't be retarded.
>>76135026
>both are awful
>implying monarchism isnt god tier
Yeah mob tyranny is really a great idea isnt it? wew
>>76142698
>it faces changes
Hardly.
Bill Gates is very wealthy, but outside of his philanthropic work he has no influence on the world. He just sits on money, while Soros and the Rothschild family tug at the strings of the West.
>>76142789
You're using the term in a purely historical sense which doesn't even exist anymore, I'm using it in sociological and economic sense for a still extant phenomenon.
>>76142947
You're redefining the term. Haute bourgeois is distinguished from bourgeois and nobility by their history and established names without being ennobled.
You're stripping it of its meaning to just "really rich."
>>76142907
>hardly, look a these cherrypicked examples including /pol/'s famous conspiracy jews
billionaires have influence and are a part of the bourgoisie (although they are not it's entirety), my example was appropriate to demonstrate my point.
>>76143144
No, the meaning is someone who owns considerable capital and doesn't need to rely significantly on their own labor (not counting things like speculation). Petite bourgeois means the class that owns capital but have to put in a lot of their own labor, like small business owners, in order to get by.
>>76143428
Petite bourgeois are families that have experienced a brief ascension in social mobility for one or two generations.
Haute has always been used to distinguish new money from old that has not been ennobled.
If modern marxists want to change the definition, no one cares. You skipped two other bourgeoisie classes there. If the only difference between petite and haute is that petite put in some work, what distinguishes La Moyenne or La Grande bourgeois?
>>76143381
Except mobility between the two highest possible strata of wealth is not an example that the ruling class changes, especially when being part of the ruling class is not determined solely by absolute net worth.
>>76141488
Fucking communism is as bad as monarchy? Jesus Canadians are stupid.
>>76135026
Humanity survived for centuries under monarchy. It has yet to survive 5 generations under communism.
It's not even a contest. And if you imagine otherwise it's only because you loved Marx's meme cock up your ass.
>>76144223
>especially when being part of the ruling class is not determined solely by absolute net worth.
I was replying to a post about bourgeois, not the ruling class in general, stop mixing them up, they are not the same thing
t. a native french speaker
>>76135026
Communism because at least monarchs have the possibility of being competent
Communism has no such possibility
>>76144336
because your post is so intelligent amirite?
>>76144549
I'm not even going to bother anymore.
see>>76142698
>>76135026
Communism is worse
At least with monarchy they'll leave you alone sometimes
>>76139040
So democracy
