Very well, I'm trash at historical dates. Though I still remember Marx getting pretty disappointed with the first Napoleon but don't quote me on that.
Though all that just shows that monarchy never fucking worked, putting retards like Napoleon III in power.
I'm sorry, my friend, you are not a pseud, I was too brash, I apologize.
I guess I was the real pseud after all.
It's OK, you are a monarchist for me!
As far as the State exists, it has the potential to change its form.
& we reckon three forms. Simple forms. Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy.
It's not like the progressive narrative: where there shall be only democracy forever and we're stuck there due to this entropy effect locking us in place.
As far as the modes of production are concerned, I'm not sure why Monarchy has to be only feudal: for instance, you might concede Monarchy can for slave society as well as feudal, but even industrial capitalist countries might have monarchies: you could say, how does that reflect the political structure? but monarchy is not only lord of the land, but also money and facilitates this.
Aristotle also phrased it in a sense that Monarchies would become obsolete as societies grew, but that was way back c. 300 BC and there had been plenty of monarchies since then.
I obviously don't subscribe to this view that Monarchy is now done for and perpetually lost henceforth. Only recently has there been a decline thanks to the world wars and cold war era. It might be wondered that now it's really dead and buried because of secularization and so and so – but like I said earlier, I don't think that necessarily forbids monarchy either.
>>477898>As far as the State exists, it has the potential to change its form.
I mean, that's the exact problem.<Up to the present day, the revolutionary principle has gone no further than to fight against this or that existent, to be reformative. As much as is improved, as strongly as “reflective progress” may be held to, there is always a new master set up in the old one’s place, and the overthrow is a reconstruction. It remains at the distinction of the young philistine from the old one. The revolution began in a bourgeois way, with the uprising of the third estate, the middle class; in a bourgeois way it dries up. The individual human being—and this alone is the human being—does not become free, but the bourgeois, the citoyen, the political human being, who for that very reason is not the human being, but a specimen of the human species, and more particularly a specimen of the bourgeois species, a free bourgeois citizen.
I don't think Marxism has much to do with our politics or really considers it per say.
It's more about class than forms of state, I reckon.
Albeit for one time–
In the archived royal colony thread, I brought up how Engels contested Homer's monarchist maxim and talked about bronze age kings. Engels said those kings weren't modern princes and it was military democracy. And to support my case, I brought up Caligula referencing Homer's Illiad for Monarchy & how Jean Bodin believed ancient sovereign monarchies worked by commissions. It's complicated that we can agree with Engels, that generals called kings commissioned by the people or nobles for war aren't sovereign monarchs. & we acknowledge that that it would be military democracy. Not only for bronze age kings, but this debate extended to indigenous native american states – which we considered monarchies, but again, Engels -I think- asserted were military democracies. I thought this whole discussion was pretty relevant to North Korea and how our views interact.
My point is that the ideology does not matter since revolutions merely change one ruler for another. And since the proles rely on the state for their survival they can't become self-reliant and thus a stateless, classless society is impossible.
When Marx does engage absolute monarchy, for him it's "semi-feudal" or associated with the petty bourgeois. Yet his view is basically Alexis de Tocqueville's view imo.
Us absolute monarchists don't advocate rule by the few or the nobility.
That's a form of Oligarchy.
Jean Bodin / Lacedemonians & Cities of Gauls – Oligarchies, not Monarchies.
>"So also might we say of the state of Lacedemonians, which was a pure Oligarchy, wherein were two kings, without any sovereignty at all, being indeed nothing but Captains and Generals for the managing of their wars: and for that cause were by the other magistrates of the state, sometimes for their faults condemned to fines… And such were in ancient times the kings of the cities of the Gauls, whom Caesar for this cause oftentimes called Regulos, that is to say little kings: being themselves subjects, and justiciable unto the Nobility, who had all the sovereignty."
The same goes for Venice, the Holy Roman Empire, and Poland – all these we considered Oligarchies.
Yet we're not anti-nobility so much as we are pro-monarchy.
Imo Alexis de Tocqueville is the quintessential Oligarchyfag & simply rebuffed Aristotle's constitutional freemen (or independent heads of households as freemen and equals) as opposed to our view of the State being like a household in itself.
I consider Alexis de Tocqueville the political ancestor to modern-day Hoppeans and right libertarians who make that appeal: they've got their Alexis de Tocqueville & Bastiat -→ De Jouvenel -→ Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -→ Hans-Hermann Hoppe – and lately those types are flirting with Von Haller (patrimonialism) which again, it's the same fundamental problem we have – we consider the state or commonwealth to be like a well ordered household and no different from it… but Von Hallerism laments civil society and the confounding of the household with the political… in the end following that trend of Aristotle who says that Monarchy is inapporpriate for political rule and ideal rather for economical rule – absolute monarchists sidestep this by stating how a city-state or political body is much like a household… Moldbug and his Neocamerialism is somewhat closer to our view.
It's interesting b/c BAP for instance might agree w/ Engels analysis of bronze age kings – that they were and always should have been generals only & not involved in administration – but again, our ideal of monarchy stems from the well ordered household to the state itself. We embrace Monarchy as a political administration and as a form of republic or commonwealth on political grounds.
Imagining as if a monarch can ever not be accountable to the nobility or the military. The absolute power of a monarch is an illusion that has no basis in reality. Might makes right, therefore the power of the monarch is nothing without a strong military/oligarchy on their side, the only people the absolute monarch is not accountable to are the serfs, the peasants, i.e. the lower classes. And this relationship doesn't change, even if you write some made-up laws to "restrict" the king. The constitution is a joke, modern states are not that different from monarchies in practice, if they need some privileges they'll make up an excuse to pass the law that enforces them (the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act).
The problem with absolute monarchies is that their oppression is too obvious, too easy to trace. You absolutists have a terrible opsec, you'll piss off the proles more than you'll satisfy them.
I must mention that the Church can also be considered an oligarchy so you literally cannot extend your power on those who put you in power in the first place unless you backstab them and try to appeal to another power-hungry group so they'll purge them.
>>478187>therefore the power of the monarch is nothing without a strong military/oligarchy on their side
I don't think leftists have any obligation to acknowledge Monarchy as a reality.
Sure, they could say there really is no such thing as Monarchy (i.e. no man rules alone).
You could say that for the oligarchy themselves.
What are these people (nobles / bourgeois) rule without their lower classes?
Jean Bodin basically said, that just because a master has slaves/servants, doesn't mean that he doesn't rule.
But Marx does say that the bourgeois are the cornerstone for these monarchies. And yet also talks about feudal absolutism also. So it's in this limbo – semi-feudal.
Like I said, there's overlap between Marxists and those traditionalists / right libertarians (who both have that Tocquevillist view in this regard). For instance, the video >>472574
in this post references Marx.
>>478194>Jean Bodin basically said, that just because a master has slaves/servants, doesn't mean that he doesn't rule
The master has their slaves because they are able to overpower and fool them. It doesn't work that way with the ruling classes, they do it themselves. So the monarch will have to fulfill their interests either way. With the slaves, the only interests the master has to fulfill is food but they don't want their slaves to die either. On the contrary, the monarch would rather do whatever they want but they can't, there is a conflict of interests. Sure, the serfs have some limited power. If
and only if
they are able to fight back but that rarely ever happens, only when they're driven to despair. The influence of the masters and the slaves is drastically unequal, otherwise there wouldn't be any masters, there wouldn't be any monarchies.
Again, it's falling into that outlook of freemen:>you cannot rule the state or political itself like you would a household
Or>a master cannot rule other masters like a master
Leftists won't see it the way absolute monarchists do b/c they believe class rules the state and an absolute monarchist appeals to an individual power and independence of the State. The way leftists view monarchy again is basically on par with the medievalists b/c they see it as a relic of a time period – which to Marxists is now past – the feudal mode of production – and another stage of history… which I'm possibly butchering it since there's probably more to it than that (we still can have societies in different modes of production in the same time period).
Again, how are they wrong? You seem to conflate "rule" and "influence" since by your logic we all rule over each other and are all monarchists. This analysis is no less of an oversimplification than that of right-libertarians, it only confuses people of where the political power actually is and gives it almost an ephemeral, transcendental meaning, although unsurprisingly since you equate the will of the king with that of the people. My will is not that of the king, I defy his authority and I don't care about the made-up social contract whatsoever.
This is a hallmark of absolute monarchist ideology.
I've had the debate with right libertarians in our circles: they strongly try to contest that a father doesn't rule other fathers like a father – so that a monarch cannot meddle in their estates like a house father does his own.
This I find subversive about right libertarianism within our group.
>If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King, we find them all one, without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them: as the Father over one Family, so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve, feed, cloth, instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth. His War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father, and to their Children, their Rights and Privileges; so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People.
So as you can see, it's not one among equals: it's not that our sovereign monarchy is merely one head of estate among many other estates general, merely of high esteem among them – no, this sovereign monarch is a superior and absolute power, they are limited in capacity by his Sovereignty.
Right libertarians among us try to argue otherwise: but they misinterpret Filmer and absolutism.
The Sovereign Monarch -does- govern them like they were a well ordered family, but they would maintain that there's a difference… but every one of the authors I bring up states that there's no fundamental difference and that to govern the State is to govern all them like a family itself.
Again, the sovereignty adds the limits and draws the lines in the sand.
>I have said "limited," since this fact chiefly distinguishes the family from the state – that the latter [the state] has the final and public authority.
This conversation gets really complicated when you zoom out / zoom in.
For instance, what about other sovereigns?
To which it's been said that the world itself is like a commonwealth without anyone to rule.
Then what about universal monarchy? Is the Pope the universal monarch?
Or the Orthodox Church.
Then you swap between variables of universal monarchy: the emperor of japan, the kings of egypt, mesopotamian rulers, the roman emperors, and the pope.
It all gets tiresome that I say anyone claiming universal monarchy better do it by the right of conquest (but even that complicates things).
For a monarch, you're very subby.
>>478218>a king rulesover oligarchs like like he rules over fathers
False equivalence again, patriarchy is subservient to the oligarchy as well. I'm starting to think that monarchists are no different than lolberts in their mental gymnastics.
grace is condescending to the plebeians
I love her so much!
Would you ever make a cartoon of your OC?
Same, I'll only be a reactionary for grace
I would never say anything that makes Grace-chan cry!
>>478411>dogs arent better than humans
white woman disagree
Reactionary or not, to me you'll always be a spooked counter-revolutionary anti-individualist.
As much as I like the DPRK and KJU, they can be a bit weird–which is good enough to genocide them with nuclear hellfire according to your average burger. However, but what if the opposite is true *schniff* and they are one of the few honest humans on Earth.
heh, gotta go fast!
So heckin' kewt!!
We peasants don't deserve to be Grace'd by Her majesties presence
Unique IPs: 9