Do monarchists have any other other argument other than posting classical paintings of royals and their families or an...

Should I really have to explain this to socialist?

The fiercest, most fit warlords won the battles. Then their descendants inherited it until someone had the balls to battle them, and the strongest would inherit the throne.

The argument wasn't that they did not.

yes but at much lower rates and lower level of severity

What about it?

I never said wars didn't happen.
Any one of the "wars for democracy" is worse than the 30 years war
literally caused by anarchists retard

that doesn't invalidate absolutism

not an argument.

Anarchists started ww1

That's just a consequence of modernity, technology, interconnectedness and the generally larger scale of everything. If monarchy were retained nothing about the operation of states would actually change. That the matriarchal tribal form of organising society had gone out of fashion around the world by the time world wars and genocides were happening does not mean it was somehow any better at preventing them.

W E W
E
W

Monarchists believe that putting an old man in throne will magically defend traditionalist values from capitalism's erosion of culture, commodification of culture, globalization, and so on. Not that any of them realize that capitalism does these things, they all think its the lefty boogeyman that be keeping da whitey down.

Nice hypothesis but you have no control variable to prove this.
Also monarchs didn't engage in "wars for monarchies" the same way we are now frantically spreading democracy

this is a retarded over simplification

Monarchism is the result of an infantile infatuation with the aesthetics of 16th century propaganda which a child decides is proper and shallow justifications are looked for after the fact.
At its core its a quirk taken up by pop 'history' nerds with a superiority complex and contempt for their peers.

Its also accurate. Capital isn't loyal to any nation, only to profit. Putting a daddy as the head of state won't change that.

That argument can apply to the personality cults of Stalin and Mao

Its on you to prove any causation existing between monarchy and lack of genocides and world wars, or between democracy and their occurrence.
1. there's no such thing as 'spreading democracy' you rube, its just a way of justifying imperialism, the constant drive for new markets and natural resources
2. that's a feature of capitalism in general and existed under monarchies as well.

“For the educated thousands there is the 'efficient' aspect, the whole system of Parliaments, Cabinets, Party Government, and the rest. For the unintelligent millions there is the 'dignified' aspect (described also as 'theatrical', 'mystical', 'religious', or 'semi-religious'), which delights the eye, stirs the imagination, supplies motive power to the whole political system, and yet never strains the intellectual resources of the most ignorant or the most stupid. It is, of course, bound up with the Monarchy; indeed to all intents and purposes it is the Monarchy.” (Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, p. xviii.)

How? No one argues that Stalin or Mao's position of power was the the good thing about their regimes, rather the policies and economic models which existed under them (notably non-capitalist ones where production was not for profit) so no 'that argument' very distinctly does not apply.

What are you talking about? I just pointed out what sort of wars were started by monarchies compared to democracies and the latter is much more brutal

No the US and NATO engages in wars for democracy all the time.
The USSR also did this to spread communism.

It was not as nearly as brutal

aside from the stalinists and maoists

Thailand is a kingdom, and they're one of the happiest countries on earth according to the UN happiness index.

Attached: B3863sSCUAEp4mg.png (443x395, 135.97K)

Thailand is also plagued but poor living standards, prostitution, and crime. not exactly something to be proud of.

I heard it was the Jews

It's like Disney land

Living standards are relative

What about the despotic butchers they supported in order to quell Communist movements? That seems a little antithetical to the whole "spread democracy" nonsense.
After the Khrushchev era it became more social imperialism then honest proletarian internationalism.
Brutality has nothing to do with it. The world under capitalist liberal democratic hellscape still has lest violence in it then the medieval, or prehistoric times. This is down to the (as prior mentioned by an user in this thread), the growing complexity of our society, and it's tendency to decentralize. Your point is ahistorical.

Very well, you should surely then argue for pre-agricultural primitive communism as the ideal model of governance, afterall there were zero world wars and genocides that occurred in those prelapsarian days. Monarchies were infinitely more brutal, warmongering and genocidal than that.
Give one(1) example when this happened rather than a blatant imperialist expedition?
Same thing again.
The belgian congo was pretty brutal and purely monarchist capitalism

you have no idea what stalinists or maoists think

Finland is the happiest and is a republic.

On a relative scale the Thirty Years war was one of the most brutal conflicts in world history. Mongol Conquests and Leopold's Belgium were also incredibly brutal. You're factually wrong here. Monarchies are just as if not more brutal than liberal Democracies.

What about them?

Yes

That was my whole point but ok.
The last century had more violence then any one before it.
You're incorrect though

By this logic Monarchy is to blame for the most terrible and vast famines and plagues that prevailed through most of human history and democracy must be superior since its famines and plagues have been on a much smaller and limited scale.

the appearance of "brutality" is irreverent. It was just better documented recently, giving it more emotional kick in peoples minds.
Factually inaccurate
Nice argument

A single atomic bomb did more damage than the whole 30 years war
Asian despotism isn't what is being discussed here

Please explain what was wrong here

You're 0/3

No we're talking about monarchies

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive

Finland (failed lol)
Afghanistan

The holocaust and holodomoor we're incredibly more so

That's not how logic works

That's you're opinion

It's not

I lel'd
Ah yes, only monarchies that fit your aesthetic preferences count as monarchies.

I can't tell if this is a bait thread.

Attached: 1552146960218.gif (600x450, 88.61K)

no it's not, it's very well documented
slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/1
See above

no, reactionaries are this dim

go start a thread about khannates if you want we're talking about european style monarchies here

Let me guess, you are new and think USSR was state capitalism? I've been there. Stay on leftypol for a bit longer or read Is the red flag flying.

Khannates were pretty based.

Millions of people died in the Thirty Years war, anywhere from 25-40% of Germany's population died as a result. Both atomic bombs combined accounted for less a million deaths and less than 1% of Japan's population. So completely inaccurate.

So Asian Monarchies don't count as Monarchies?

Sorry I meant Leopold's Congo not Belgium.

you're arguing against a point no one is making

What are you talking about

How does one go about appointing a monarch in the modern day though? Do you democratically elect one? Have a battle royale to decide who's king? Randomly pluck one from birth?

How does a monarch go about justifying his/her right to rule in this secular age?

The atomic bomb wiped out as many people as the entire military force in the thirty years war,
WW2 (started by democratic powers) had more damage in 4 years than the 30 years war did multiple times over

Who ever has the ability to will themselves to power

By destroying secularism

No you see, when 90% of the tiny diseased population of your 8th century monarchy dies that's pretty good, if 0.01% of the population of your modern republic dies its awful because the population is larger.

...

this thread is a joke.

Attached: pinhead.jpg (588x823, 33.57K)

So only Military deaths count? Civilians causalities are for the birds?

Ah yes the famous Democratic power known as Nazi Germany.

And here we have the essence of reactionary thinking. Pure politicized shallowness with no material base. That's why people don't take "neo"-reaction, or reaction seriously.

...

most reactionaries today are just larpers in it for the AEstHetIc. The only reactionaries I respect are Nick Land and Silicon valley techno-feudalists, since the trajectory of contemporary capitalism is much more likely to end up in something like that.

I have no idea what this thread is about, i see some people talking about the nukes in Japan. I don't want to know.

When I first came here I was shocked at "tankies" and how they could support Mao and Stalin. After all they killed millions, didn't they? Socialism is also about workers owning means of production and that didn't happen, right? Both those things are for most part bullshit. I'm not a ☭TANKIE☭ or even a Marxist Leninist but now I don't say dumb shit like USSR was "state capitalism". I just thought you are new and are shocked by how someone could approve of someone like Mao.

What do you mean by this? Can you elaborate?

But divine right and other religious/mystical aspects associated with it aren't true though and don't conform to the modern scientific worldview. I'm sure you agree with this. Do you happen to be a theist?

No worries, i'll explain anyway.

I mean, the argument it'self was shallow and pretty pathetic. That's what I was trying to get at. Your fixation on the structuring of the given monarchic government ignores economic reality, and the power relations that spring from that. The Marxist perspective on the contradictions of feudal economic society (and by chronological extension, the contradictions in liberal capitalism) offer a thoroughly more succinct theory as to it's improbability today, and errors then, then just pointing fingers at the "Asiatic barbarity" of Kahnates.

The next socialist republic will be started by one of the descendants of the Great Khan himself, Ghengis(PBUH).

Men who are able to seize power and rule correctly became monarchs

this may or may not be true but you can't prove this.

Also only Kings and emperors far in the past ruled of off this thinking. Most monarchs of the last 1000 years or so included private property into the mix

praise be

Attached: 1455976857803.jpg (176x232, 9.14K)

Damn, the German general staff was pretty radical :^)

I don't want to sound nosy, but I think I might know you. What country are you in currently?

No reason to risk it with monarchy then tbh, seems fucky. Thread's over.

...

what relevance is this?

don't do it user, don't make this a WW1 blame thread, no one wins in those.

no u

It's not, I was just being nosy

I was more looking into the thinking in the argument, if you cant keep up, then lrn 2 theory bby. Also, the argument was stupid in an of it's self
Forgive my possible lack of medieval history, but from my knowledge, both where indeed feudal

Lol @ monarchism. the only balanced society is one with divine autocratic rulers like in Ancient Egypt, Akkad, Sumeria, and Babylon.

Just make a profile on a BDSM forum you dumb faggot

lol

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2048x1218, 2.78M)

Did he deserve it? Did the children?

yes.
In a political institution like monarchy where children inherent power, wealth, and land. Yes, they also inherent his father's punishment.

Yes, i'm glad the children got skinned alive by Stalin's metal teeth.

But you weren't

ok well you're bringing up non topical systems

But what does it mean in terms of instituting it in the modern day? Do you just wait until some guy pops up and proclaims himself king?

I'll just take it that you're an agnostic. I can't really prove or disprove mysticism but what I can say is that they are incompatible with the modern scientific worldview.

But is it compatible with modern worldview? Somehow I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't have said to destroy secularism.

They would've been propped up by the capitalists as opposition, so yes

Attached: db5.jpg (680x429, 22.94K)

One day the Arabs will rise above the Saudis, it will be the biggest slaughter of monarchs and nobles the world will ever see.

t. Sandnigger

Care to explain why
Where they feudal?
I would also like to ask, how would your economy be structured under your sublime monarchy?

Yes.
Even little Anastasia.

inshallah

It really could be anything there doesn't have to be set parameters.

No. but what does this have to do with anything?
ok but thats your opinion and it can't really be proven incompatible.

what is the obsession with "compatibility"

I don't see what you're getting at here. Secularism isn't any sort of universal good.

because you were just shitposting

mix market capitalism

Are you saudi or just house-of-saud-hating?

If you didn't understand my point thats okay, but trying to deflect like this is not honerable for a cavalier of your stature ;^)
So the same economic forces that lead to the collapse of "European style" monarchies

And this capitalism won't need to expand, grow and find new markets through imperialist conquest and brutal wars and genocides like capitalism does in liberal democracies?

you're deflecting here.

economics didn't cause a collapse of monarchy

economics causes everything bucko, including the collapse of your precious monarchies.