Monarchism

[Raj Radical]

I had the distinct pleasure of debating a Monarchist today on campus, I wasent even aware that it was an "ism" :rolleyes:

I guess there is quite the constituency here in the US according to this fellow. He made it sound like a romantisized, feudal version of fascism.

It was...fun...in a draconic kind of way. :wub:

[England Expects]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 11 2006, 06:18 AM
I had the distinct pleasure of debating a Monarchist today on campus, I wasent even aware that it was an "ism" :rolleyes:

I guess there is quite the constituency here in the US according to this fellow. He made it sound like a romantisized, feudal version of fascism.

It was...fun...in a draconic kind of way. :wub:
Does anybody know what the hell this means?

Can anybody translate this into English for me?

[apathy maybe]

Monarchists are scum. You get to rule 'cause you were the son of the previous ruler. That makes so much sense. I can't see the point in talking to people like that (about politics).

Oh, EE, you believe in the monarchy do you?

[England Expects]

No, I don't as it happens.

Don't try and shoehorn me into your outdated stereotype of a St Georges cross bearing Englishman. That would be short sighted and narrow minded.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11 2006, 09:12 AM
Monarchists are scum. You get to rule 'cause you were the son of the previous ruler. That makes so much sense. I can't see the point in talking to people like that (about politics).

Oh, EE, you believe in the monarchy do you?
Monarchy is fabulous and wonderful.

You don't know anything if you want to get rid of it. Have you no sence of continuity with the past? Don't you appreciate the manifest glory inherant in any monarchy? You communists only like to destroy things better than you like monarchy and capitalists because they have the goods and you don't. This is just jealosy.

[apathy maybe]

England Expects: I would not dream of trying to fit you into a stereotype. I was just asking. I understood what the original poster said, I thought that you were being stupid and deliberately not understanding 'cause you support the stupid queen.

Capitalist Jerk:
"Monarchy is fabulous and wonderful." - Fuck you.
"You don't know anything if you want to get rid of it." - Fuck you.
"Have you no sence of continuity with the past?" - Not really.
"Don't you appreciate the manifest glory inherant in any monarchy?" No.
"You communists only like to destroy things better than you like monarchy and capitalists because they have the goods and you don't." - Your amazing insight has disproved all my possible arguments! Except one, fuck you.
"This is just jealosy." - Fuck you.

Either you are just being a dinosaur (anyone else remember the dinosaur game? [Imagine a picture of a dinosaur playing baseball...]), or you are seriously fucked up. I can't find an argument about why monarchies are a good thing, I guess it is because they are not. Enjoy your stay, I predict with your trollish attitude it will be short (and if you are not trolling, it will still be short). This is why I support restricting trolls to the trash.

[RedAnarchist]

Monarchs used to belive that they were given the right to rule from God. Even today, just because they were born into a certain family, they are given a life of luxury. I for one won't be missing the British Royal Family when their palaces are burnt down and their bodies dumped in a ditch.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Oh great, excuse me while I just inform like, the 51% of Australians who voted to keep the monarchy that they are all trolls.

Oh, I have to draft a letter to the house of lords and all their sycophants that they are trolls too! What have they been doing all these years!

You're the real troll. So you have a different opinion to me, so I must be a troll. Great fucken logic there. And Stop saying "fuck you". It makes you look like you can string two words together.

Oh, and It's me with the dinosaur attitude! Well, monarchies are no longer absolute. They have reformed. They have little political influence. Why the jealousy?

Communism on the other hand is just about extinct.

What were you saying about dinosaurs again?

[RedAnarchist]

What would happen if we in Britain got rid of the monarchy? Would all the other 14 or so countries that the queen is the monarch of have to give it up as well?

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by thisguyisat[email protected] 11 2006, 08:51 PM
Oh great, excuse me while I just inform like, the 51% of Australians who voted to keep the monarchy that they are all trolls.

Oh, I have to draft a letter to the house of lords and all their sycophants that they are trolls too! What have they been doing all these years!

You're the real troll. So you have a different opinion to me, so I must be a troll. Great fucken logic there. And Stop saying "fuck you". It makes you look like you can string two words together.

Oh, and It's me with the dinosaur attitude! Well, monarchies are no longer absolute. They have reformed. They have little political influence. Why the jealousy?

Communism on the other hand is just about extinct.

What were you saying about dinosaurs again?
First, 51% of Australians voted to reject the proposed republican system. I personally know plenty of people who wanted a republic, but just not the sort proposed.

Second, I said you were a troll or fucked up. Anyone supporting monarchies are fucked up. So the House of Lords is fucked up. The House of Lords is fucked up for other reasons too.

Third, fuck you ...

Fourth, it was not because you have a different opinion to me that you are a troll, rather your post seemed to be written in such a way as to provoke response. I.e. troll. It might just have been that you are fucked up.

Fifth, monarchies are fucked up 'cause someone gets power (or whatever) simply because they are the son or daughter of someone else. If a monarchy doesn't have power, what is the point of it? Jealousy doesn't come into it, simple logic does.

Sixth, I am not a communist as such. If you even just looked inside the learning forum you could see that anarchism does not automatically equate to communism.

Seventh, the dinosaur game was a game people around here used to play. A long time ago, but it is also an accurate description of monarchies and those who believe in them.


If the UK got rid of the monarchy (the sooner the better), Australia, NZ, Canada et al. would have a few choices. The most obvious one would be for them all to become republics. They could also import one or more of the royals and setup their own royal family. Or they could all keep the royals as the monarchs, but the monarchs would just stop being queen of the UK.

[Demogorgon]

How anybody could support a monarchy in the modern world is beyond me. Some people are so resistant to change it is unreal. I suspect a lot of monarcchists wouldn't be happy till we are riding about on horseback again.

[Pirate Utopian]

Monarchy is most lame idea next to capitalism

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think you meant to say Monarchy is the most lame idea next to Communism.
You know, I really doubt that's what he meant to say.

Oh and another thing, it's interesting to see the opponents of Communism split over Monarchism. Capitalists seem to argue a lot that because Capitalism appears to be working (and by "working" I mean maintaining a stable government and a society with reasonably low amounts of civil unrest), then any other economic system i.e. Communism or Monarchism, which attempts to overthrow the current working system, is simply ludicrous. However, it is important to note that for thousands of years previous to the development of Capitalism as we know it today, Monarchies were in place the world over. And they were obviously working, for if they weren't they wouldn't have lasted so long. And so in the Monarchy-ruled societies of old, Capitalism as you people defend it would have been condemned as a moronic system because it was not identical to the system of Monarchy. And look at how things have changed. Now it is Capitalism that is the working system, and both Monarchism and Communism are condemned as unworkable systems.

[LuXe]

Can Norway be called a mornarchistic country?

We have a socialist-oriented government. The only power the king has is VETO.

[LuXe]

Although he hasnt done so since the second world war?

[LuXe]

Originally posted by patton+Oct 11 2006, 04:53 PM--> (patton @ Oct 11 2006, 04:53 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 04:50 PM
Although he hasnt done so since the second world war?
Does he have to sign the laws for them to take effect? [/b]
No.

He only have the power to VETO. After 10 days the law is passed even though he disagrees.

[LuXe]

He gets paid by the government.

He acts like a "good-will ambassador" for Norway. Personally I think hes there just for show. Id prefer him not beeing king, and the Monarchy be removed.

[LuXe]

Originally posted by patton+Oct 11 2006, 05:13 PM--> (patton @ Oct 11 2006, 05:13 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:09 PM
He gets paid by the government.

For doing what, being royal what a load of poo. [/b]
Well, well. Although I agree he does some work. He Visits other countries and thats really it. But Communists like myself in my country should like him off "the throne".

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Every single country that you guys have taken power has practiced state capitalism not communism and until you guys take power some where and a real communist state exists there is no alternative. I would love to see a real alterative to capitalism.
So you can't really say that Communism wouldn't work, because even you admit that it has never been tried. So my point stands that just as Capitalism defeated Monarchism, it is quite feasible that Communism will defeat Capitalism.

[colonelguppy]

monarchism is alright if you have a good monarch. incestous royal families don't have to many of these, though.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:35 PM
So you can't really say that Communism wouldn't work, because even you admit that it has never been tried.
sure you can, you don't need direct empirical examples to make an accurate point.

[Raj Radical]

Wow, so 3/4 of the Restricted Members on this thread think that a monarchy (which is fascism) would be just fine and dandy.

If I said I was surprised I would a liar. :huh:

[LuXe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:55 PM
I agree with you RedStar1916 its very feasible if
you guys ever take power somewhere and a real communist state exists as an alternative it could mean the end of the capatalist system.
I long so for this day.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:35 PM
So you can't really say that Communism wouldn't work, because even you admit that it has never been tried.
You also cannot say it will work for the same reason.

All we can do is make conjecture based on the evidence before us. And given that the answers to the specific questions about communism can be paraprased to read, "It will work because everyone will get along and share and be altruistic", it's safe to doubt its success.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I agree with you RedStar1916 its very feasible if
you guys ever take power somewhere and a real communist state exists as an alternative it could mean the end of the capatalist system.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's not feasible. Even before the first bourgeois revolutions took place, while the world was still ruled by monarchies, the idea of capitalism one day replacing monarchism as the ruling system was very much a feasible one, as is evident by the fact that, well... it happened.

[England Expects]

The fact that nobody has ever established a truly communist state might be because it is so unrealistic and incompatible with human society.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by England [email protected] 11 2006, 08:32 PM
The fact that nobody has ever established a truly communist state might be because it is so unrealistic and incompatible with human society.
Baseless speculation, how intelligent

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by England [email protected] 11 2006, 08:32 PM
The fact that nobody has ever established a truly communist state might be because it is so unrealistic and incompatible with human society.
Or it might be because aliens in the sky forbid it.

Ok, your turn to make another ridiculous statement.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 11 2006, 06:53 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 11 2006, 06:53 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:35 PM
So you can't really say that Communism wouldn't work, because even you admit that it has never been tried.
You also cannot say it will work for the same reason.

All we can do is make conjecture based on the evidence before us. And given that the answers to the specific questions about communism can be paraprased to read, "It will work because everyone will get along and share and be altruistic", it's safe to doubt its success. [/b]
While socialism is altruism on a large scale, seemingly selfcentered Ayn Rand clones will still exist, satisfying self-interest will just be the result of satisfying everyones needs.

Simple as that, friend.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 11 2006, 01:38 PM
Wow, so 3/4 of the Restricted Members on this thread think that a monarchy (which is fascism) would be just fine and dandy.

If I said I was surprised I would a liar. :huh:
i don't know if you were incluidng me, if you were learn to read

[England Expects]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+Oct 11 2006, 08:35 PM--> (RedStar1916 @ Oct 11 2006, 08:35 PM)
England [email protected] 11 2006, 08:32 PM
The fact that nobody has ever established a truly communist state might be because it is so unrealistic and incompatible with human society.
Baseless speculation, how intelligent [/b]
Would that be baseless speculation akin to the way which marxists baselessly speculate that we would all be better off in a communist state?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+Oct 11 2006, 04:50 PM--> (patton @ Oct 11 2006, 04:50 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 05:47 PM
monarchism is alright if you have a good monarch.
You might want to read your own post. [/b]
yeah i already did

[VonClausewitz]

Thisanarchistkillsnazis;


Monarchs used to belive that they were given the right to rule from God. Even today, just because they were born into a certain family, they are given a life of luxury. I for one won't be missing the British Royal Family when their palaces are burnt down and their bodies dumped in a ditch.

Are you out of your mind ? burn down some of the architectural treasures of the country ? reducing the Royal palaces to rubble really wouldn't do anything for your cause, it'd probably actually cost you - you'd have to clean the mess up. Why not use them for some communal use ? it worked for the Russians - made the Winter-Palace into an art gallery.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Would that be baseless speculation akin to the way which marxists baselessly speculate that we would all be better off in a communist state?
Any supposed Marxist who claims that we would all be better off in a Socialist state is a moron, and no comrade of mine.



Are you out of your mind ? burn down some of the architectural treasures of the country ? reducing the Royal palaces to rubble really wouldn't do anything for your cause, it'd probably actually cost you - you'd have to clean the mess up. Why not use them for some communal use ? it worked for the Russians - made the Winter-Palace into an art gallery.
I agree, I think Buckingham Palace would make a stunning art gallery.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 05:35 PM


Every single country that you guys have taken power has practiced state capitalism not communism and until you guys take power some where and a real communist state exists there is no alternative. I would love to see a real alterative to capitalism.
So you can't really say that Communism wouldn't work, because even you admit that it has never been tried. So my point stands that just as Capitalism defeated Monarchism, it is quite feasible that Communism will defeat Capitalism.
This analogy is not politically synchrous.

Capitalists replacing monarchy was merely one elite replacing another.

The masses will never be an elite. So any revolution in which they take power will only last as long as it takes for a new elite to take power - usually a couple days or weeks.

You cannot replace an elite without paving the way for a new elite to take its place.

Since elites are usually rich, they are likely to be capitalists, so it looks like you guys are going to be stuck with capitalism for pretty much eternity!

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by thisguyisatotaljerk+Oct 11 2006, 10:30 AM--> (thisguyisatotaljerk @ Oct 11 2006, 10:30 AM)
apathy [email protected] 11 2006, 09:12 AM
Monarchists are scum. You get to rule 'cause you were the son of the previous ruler. That makes so much sense. I can't see the point in talking to people like that (about politics).

Oh, EE, you believe in the monarchy do you?
Monarchy is fabulous and wonderful.

You don't know anything if you want to get rid of it. Have you no sence of continuity with the past? Don't you appreciate the manifest glory inherant in any monarchy? You communists only like to destroy things better than you like monarchy and capitalists because they have the goods and you don't. This is just jealosy. [/b]
First of all, modern Monarchism has never worked. In fact the vast majority of classical monarchist regimes never worked. Just look at the french revolution for that. The working class fucked the monarch over quite beautifully.

But I think the best example is the Royal Family in the UK. Everyone with half a brain hates them. They don't have any power over the country... If you think Monarchy is a good thing, you're clearly not looking at a monarchist regime countered to a communist or socialist, heck even rebublic society where everyone has rights. Or failing that, fly to the bahamas, proclaim yourself king, and we'll take a bunch of working class citizens and behead you. Deal?

[VonClausewitz]

But I think the best example is the Royal Family in the UK. Everyone with half a brain hates them. They don't have any power over the country... If you think Monarchy is a good thing, you're clearly not looking at a monarchist regime countered to a communist or socialist, heck even rebublic society where everyone has rights.

So who exactly, doesn't have rights in Britain at the present moment ? Britain was (comparitvely speaking) progressive socially even when it ruled a goodly chunk of the world. The monarchy might be an anachronism, but then so are childish ideals about how they're automatically a bad thing just because they have some money and a couple of big houses. It's not the nineteenth century anymore, no-one who ever wants to be taken seriously thinks that removing the monarchy would make a great deal of difference for the betterment of this country.


Or failing that, fly to the bahamas, proclaim yourself king, and we'll take a bunch of working class citizens and behead you. Deal?

The French revolution was carried out by peasants, not the working class, that was the whole point of it. They were downtrodden peasants with little to no life at all. The French monarchy by that point was indeed a sack of shit, far too stuck in the middle-ages for it's own health.


The masses will never be an elite. So any revolution in which they take power will only last as long as it takes for a new elite to take power - usually a couple days or weeks.

Aye, even the 'peoples committee' is one up on being average-joe.

[Janus]

Capitalists replacing monarchy was merely one elite replacing another.
It was one new system replacing an obsolete one. That's progress and it is simply ridiculous to not only oppose it but support regression.


Hey thisguyisatotalass do us all a favor and stop posting your nonsense on this forum. How anyone in this day and age can come out supporting monarchy amazes me.
:lol: Even his fellow restricted members hate him. Now that's a sign right there.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:30 AM
Monarchy is fabulous and wonderful.


Monarchism is a a dead system that humanity has evolved past and it basically is a glorified hoax, and has to build and build up all this mystic amd tradition in order to survive, and throws around honor and valor to fool the masses, and hides the cruelty, unfariness, and opression with gold lined trimmings, and a fancy hat.

Just because you were born from the loins of some past tyrant with a fancy hat, doesn't biologically make you a leader, nor should it be the basis of leadership, and a political system; in short monarchism is dead, just like the past lower states of the human species, we have evolved past monarchism.

[LuXe]

Thisguyisatotaljurk: Have you noticed that you only have postes statements (Like monarchy is fabolus) and no actual REAL agruments? Please come with the arguments or shut up.

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:41 PM
Thisguyisatotaljurk: Have you noticed that you only have postes statements (Like monarchy is fabolus) and no actual REAL agruments? Please come with the arguments or shut up.
It was a statement of fact. Most of the civilised world thinks monarchies are fabulous. With all their riches and power is there any other way to describe them?

[thisguyisatotaljerk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:56 PM
Hey thisguyisatotalass do us all a favor and stop posting your nonsense on this forum. How anyone in this day and age can come out supporting monarchy amazes me.
Actually I never supported monarchy in an absolute form. I personally prefer a republic of aristocrats, like Venice or the US.

I just don't see why we should dismantle say Europe's constitutional monarchies which have already lost their power. This would just be the mark of bitter jealousy.

Also consider that people are not EQUAL so therefore there will always be a monarch of some sort. A constitutional monarch with limited power checks the rise of an autocrat like Stalin.

Let's talk about France.

Note the initial Bourgoise revolution in 1798 had no desire to dismantle the monarchy from a constitutional basis; for good reason - there was no need to. They desired to maintain some continuity with the stability of the past.

Note When this DID happen, all hell broke loose because losers like you guys, epitomised by men such as Marat started thinking above their station and came out of the woodwork and started executing people. Wouldn't happen if the bourgoiseie retained control, or the constitutional monarch remained in a position of authority :cool:

Have you kiddies learned something? Or do I have to educate you some more??

Oh, you'll all work it out when you hit 15 or thereabouts.

[Herman]

Actually I never supported monarchy in an absolute form. I personally prefer a republic of aristocrats, like Venice or the US.

Stop playing World of Warcraft.


I just don't see why we should dismantle say Europe's constitutional monarchies which have already lost their power. This would just be the mark of bitter jealousy.

Nope, it's a mark of "using-all-that-money-they-have-for-better-things-namely-helping-African-kids-who-are-starving".


Also consider that people are not EQUAL so therefore there will always be a monarch of some sort. A constitutional monarch with limited power checks the rise of an autocrat like Stalin.

In what way are they not equal? No self-called socialist will ever say that every person is equal in personality or physical appearance.


Let's talk about France.

I'd rather talk about how we will achieve cloning... but... oh well...


Note the initial Bourgoise revolution in 1798 had no desire to dismantle the monarchy from a constitutional basis; for good reason - there was no need to. They desired to maintain some continuity with the stability of the past.

...this proves what exactly? (NOTE that you do not show any sources)


Note When this DID happen, all hell broke loose because losers like you guys, epitomised by men such as Marat started thinking above their station and came out of the woodwork and started executing people. Wouldn't happen if the bourgoiseie retained control, or the constitutional monarch remained in a position of authority

Oh, right. So 'people like us' were responsible for the deaths of thousands in the French revolution?

And you're saying a monarch or the bourgeoisie wouldn't execute people? You do realize that the French revolution was a BOURGEOIS revolution and not a socialist one? Something to think about, maybe?


Have you kiddies learned something? Or do I have to educate you some more??

Holy shit, did you realize that you know nothing about communism? I think it's you who needs to be educated my friend.


Oh, you'll all work it out when you hit 15 or thereabouts.

I'm far older than that, you know. And so are the majority of the people on this forum.