Socialism better than Monarchy?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Yes, I have been silently following some of the threads here for a while and have concluded that there is a consistent anti-aristocratic/anti-monarchial sentiment prevailing here-abouts.

Needless to say, I find this behaviour grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support the monarchs of Europe.

This is most unjustifyably obscene and I am here to put a stop to it.

I would like to ask all of you a simple question.

Why do you consider your North Korean/Stalinist system to be superior to our Monarchies?

We, at least have something to be proud of.

What have you to be proud of?

A century of failure?

[razboz]

Originally posted by The Scarlet [email protected] 26, 2006 12:01 pm
Yes, I have been silently following some of the threads here for a while and have concluded that there is a consistent anti-aristocratic/anti-monarchial sentiment prevailing here-abouts.

Needless to say, I find this behaviour grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support the monarchs of Europe.

This is most unjustifyably obscene and I am here to put a stop to it.

I would like to ask all of you a simple question.

Why do you consider your North Korean/Stalinist system to be superior to our Monarchies?

We, at least have something to be proud of.

What have you to be proud of?

A century of failure?
:lol: you carck me up

Um to start off with, and im only going to say this once in this thread stalin and north korea are not socialist and socialism has never faidled because it has never been implemented full.

I find your behavious gorossly insulting to all those who support common sense through ou the world.

What gives monarchs any right to rule us? Any whatsoever? What makes them better than any one else?

And i have another question for you: what do you have to be proud of? Thousands of years of opperession, of murder and genocide? Thousands of years of incometence? Monarchies have nor ight to claim anything, let alone power or respect. All they have ever done is incompetency, and you rmemeber it king-boy.

And ill tell you what we have to be proud of that you dont have: we have a clean consioence, we have justice, freedom and really awsome parties: you have oppression, misery and the most boring balls ever.

[Whitten]

Yes, I have been silently following some of the threads here for a while and have concluded that there is a consistent anti-aristocratic/anti-monarchial sentiment prevailing here-abouts.

Needless to say, I find this behaviour grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support the monarchs of Europe.

This is most unjustifyably obscene and I am here to put a stop to it.

I would like to ask all of you a simple question.

Why do you consider your North Korean/Stalinist system to be superior to our Monarchies?

Not many people here support North Korea, although i would favour their system over an absolute monarchy (that is if NK isnt an absolute monarchy already).

There's no such thing as a Stalinist political system. What is sometimes called "Stalinist" is a governments policies regarding socialism in one country vs exported revolution.


We, at least have something to be proud of.

Care to give an example?


What have you to be proud of?

Championing freedom and democracy, beating back the Nazi Scum are some examples.


A century of failure?

As opposed to several mellenia of failure?

Why should a monarch be granted power just because they are the eldest son of teh previous ruler? Even in a corrupt dictatorship like China, they choose the most suitable next ruler, bloodline doesnt do this, unless you believe there is a "best ruler gene" floating arround in the genepool somewhere. Besides I fail to see how anyone could pledge their loyalty to any of the existing european royal families.

[KC]

I think the various revolutions to either completely remove the monarchies or severely limit their power to merely being a figurehead through reform to a constitutional "monarchy" shows that monarchy died in the 19th century.

Meanwhile, millions across the globe are fighting for proletarian revolution and communism.

I think that proves which one is "better".

You need to understand that when "your" monarch is attacked it's not an attack on you, it's an attack on a political system in which you live, and shouldn't get personally offended by it. Your "nation" has done nothing for you and will continue to do so.

[Dimentio]

Troll warning! Put on the helmets.

Monarchists are either 60 year old ladies with low education and an obsession with the royal family, or internet trolls.

[RebelDog]

Yes, I have been silently following some of the threads here for a while and have concluded that there is a consistent anti-aristocratic/anti-monarchial sentiment prevailing here-abouts.

As one would expect in a forum named 'revolutionary left'. There is quite a prevailing sentiment widespread in the working class too.


Needless to say, I find this behaviour grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support the monarchs of Europe.

Sorry about that can I get you a chair and a large brandy to help with the shock.


Why do you consider your North Korean/Stalinist system to be superior to our Monarchies?

Superior yes but nonetheless as unacceptable as any unelected, hereditary, parasites like the monarchy. NK, stalinism and monarchism all deserve to be dumped in the rubbish bin of history.


We, at least have something to be proud of.

If the monarchy makes you proud then you don't believe that the head of state should be elected? You clearly believe most people should have masters but they cannot even choose them?


What have you to be proud of?

A progressive, anti-monarchist ideology which will survive all the worlds monarchies.

[LuXe]

Monarchy has failed in the past, and will continue to fail because man does not like beeing ruled without even having the slightest illusion of controlling who has the power. (Like capitalism, where an illusion of controlling the power is present)

[Independent Socialist Party]

Manarchy has nothing going for it, no justification whatsowever. It is based upon the unscientific and anti-democratic principle that some people are inherently granted the right to power, whether by devine right, or by some sort of genetic superiority. (a joke when you see the inbreds who dominate most of the world's surviving monarchies)

In Britain, our joke of a monarchy weilds no real power and the queen carfully maintains the illusion that she is somhow above and beyond the political system by ensuring she never makes a statement which it is possible to dissagree with. (Something her son and husband cannot seem to manage) Yet the monarchy is also regarded as somehow essential to our constiution. Charles is treated as a serrious comentator on architecture and the environment, despite having no expertise whatsowever, while the whole miserable crowd of perisites soak up more taxpayers money than is spent on reserch into renewable technologies. The masses, blinded by propoaganda, meekly accept this oxymoronic farce.

Such a situation is intoloerable. Away with monarchs, icons and privalege for the undeserving!

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by The Scarlet [email protected] 26, 2006 07:01 am
Yes, I have been silently following some of the threads here for a while and have concluded that there is a consistent anti-aristocratic/anti-monarchial sentiment prevailing here-abouts.

Needless to say, I find this behaviour grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support the monarchs of Europe.
I'm sure you would also find anti-racist sentiments grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support apartheid!

If you are moronic enough to support monarchism, based on the belief that inbreed descendants of German robber-barons are somehow born graced and fit to rule, you deserve to be insulted and demeaned.

Now go shine my shoes.*



*reference to a question put to Marx. "Under socialism, who will shine the shoes?" "You will!"

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 12:47 pm
Monarchy has failed in the past, and will continue to fail because man does not like beeing ruled without even having the slightest illusion of controlling who has the power. (Like capitalism, where an illusion of controlling the power is present)
Monarchy has actually been a very strong and stable system in agricultural societies, due to the fact that legitimacy is aquired through the blood. We must remember that medieval societies had long supply lines, bad transport systems and an uncertainty of loyalty.

The church and the kingdom actually provided some form of stability.

People did not so much dislike the king as their local lord. During the 17th century revolutions in Russia [Razin], France [the Frondé] and other places, revolutions were actually taking place in the regent's name, even though the regent himself did not approve them.

The name of the king was not so important, since it had a little impact on the daily life of people during that time period.

I will argue that Sweden for example was about as democratic as the 1950;s during the 18th century, since there were village councils and a strong regional solidarity which in some ways were more imminent than the national unity.

[MrDoom]

Monarchy toppled because productive capability developed too much to justify monarchal rule. The same will happen to bourgeois society.

And for that reason, monarchy will never return, unless you plan on destroying thousands of years of human society and progress. You'll have to go through, you know, THE WORLD for that to happen, though.

In all probability, though, you're just a troll.

[Dimentio]

The monarchical regimes with a form of restrained monarchy is actually better than a despotic regime where the ruler has absolute power, or by a plutocratic republic. Most monarchs in medieval Europe were actually not able to implement their policies in such a way they would like.

The king of France in year 1206 had probably less influence upon the life of his subjects than president Chirac have today.

[Forward Union]

I find it really interesting that you have the same IP as a load of previously banned members.

kimjongil
imperialist
fitzcarraldo
overlord
Empire

Get a job, a haircut, and some friends.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 26, 2006 04:01 pm
I find it really interesting that you have the same IP as a load of previously banned members.

kimjongil
imperialist
fitzcarraldo
overlord
Empire

Get a job, a haircut, and some friends.
You mean to say...this feind has...?

This is an outrage :o !!!!!!

[loveme4whoiam]

My hat goes off to you Love Underground :D

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Patton, I'm curious. You never miss an oppurtunity to join in the idiot bashing with us, and with some relish, I must say. This is most unusual for a capitalist on these forums. :o

-Alex

[blueeyedboy]

Basically, a silly and uneducated thread. 'Nuff said.

[*PRC*Kensei]

mahaha... monarchy..

out-dated since the frensh revolution dude..

i mean... are you serious you want to convince us to take a MONARCH ? :P

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yes, yes it does. Respeck.

Ever consider batting for the other side? (In the political, not sexual sense.) :)

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well, let's think. So you're just a straight capitalist, I'm assuming. Are you the variety that says communism would be a horrible to live in, or that communism would be nice but doesn't work outside of theory?

-Alex

[razboz]

Originally posted by patton+October 26, 2006 07:23 pm--> (patton @ October 26, 2006 07:23 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2006 07:09 pm
Yes, yes it does. Respeck.

Ever consider batting for the other side? (In the political, not sexual sense.) :)

-Alex
I have never really gave it any thought. [/b]
Carefull patton, it starts off like this, then they get you into some kind of pyramid scheme.

[razboz]

Originally posted by patton+October 26, 2006 08:14 pm--> (patton @ October 26, 2006 08:14 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 08:03 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 07:23 pm

[email protected] 26, 2006 07:09 pm
Yes, yes it does. Respeck.

Ever consider batting for the other side? (In the political, not sexual sense.) :)

-Alex
I have never really gave it any thought.
Carefull patton, it starts off like this, then they get you into some kind of pyramid scheme. :lol: :lol: :lol:Then they are gonna start asking me for money. :wacko: [/b]
You wish that was all. Soon youll end up in Tupperware parties you didnt know you were invited to and selling your (ex) freinds a matress at a restaurant.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Now all I need is your credit card number. :P


Tell me your practical objections, patton.

-Alex

[Janus]

Yes, I have been silently following some of the threads here for a while and have concluded that there is a consistent anti-aristocratic/anti-monarchial sentiment prevailing here-abouts.
:lol: Great deduction skills. This has been a consistent trend for centuries.


Needless to say, I find this behaviour grossly insulting and demeaning to all who actively support the monarchs of Europe.
Basically a few individuals like you who fantasize about being absolute monarchs.


This is most unjustifyably obscene and I am here to put a stop to it.
Sorry but you can't reverse history.


We, at least have something to be proud of.
Yes: aristocratic balls and countless years of whimsical war.

[Janus]

Basically, a silly and uneducated thread. 'Nuff said.
Sadly, I think this trend will continue for a while.


Tell me your practical objections, patton.
Please start a new thread so that we can have at least one decent one here in OI.

[razboz]

Haha Janus the thread-starter hasnt posted any replies, i think tis safe to say hes either exploded from the conflicting realities or he is a Troll.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I see.

Well, Cuba seems to have worked rather well, unless you believe the U.S.A media. I don't know what your stance is on that, but I'm sure you're sensible enough to know it's all horseshit. Surprising, since it's supposed to be a free press over there... I digress. Hungary is a lesser known example of success, The Guardian recently ran an article about Hungarians pining for communism. They had it and lost it, I think it's just state capitalist now.

Both of those are still state socialism though, it's not exactly the real deal.

Of the other countries, the USSR and China stand out like sore thumbs as total disasters. Yes, they were total disasters. However, we can attribute much of the disaster to Stalin in the case of the USSR, and Mao to China. These were seemingly true efforts in the beginning, which were hijacked by individuals. However, we need not appeal to Maoism. Nor do have to resort to Leninism. Or even Marxism. The real question is, why were these revolutions, as Trotsky may have put it, betrayed? Does any attempt at communism automatically end up in a nutcase personality cult? Are these special cases? Perhaps the answer lies in rejecting Dictatorship Of The Proletariat... Or maybe not revolution at all, maybe reformism. Or a peaceful revolution. What I'm getting at patton is that we learn from past mistakes. We won't let it happen again.


Now, I know it's hard to overlook such a horrid thought that 25 countries tried it and messed it up. But remember, saying you're communist doesn't necessary make it so. I believe North Korea tries to pass itself off as some sort of leftist government. Total hogwash. They are at best a long standing dictatorship, and at worst a recently nuclear infant that might just plunge diplomatic relations into the sewer for a few decades. They might just be an anti-thesis of communism.


So you see, you needn't accept the whole package. Perhpas be a socialist, there seems little to argue against that with. Anything but an out and out capitalist. :(

Tell me you'll consider it. T'will make me smile.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Delighted to hear it. :D

I'm sure i'll talk to you again soon.

-Alex

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 03:09 pm
The monarchical regimes with a form of restrained monarchy is actually better than a despotic regime where the ruler has absolute power, or by a plutocratic republic. Most monarchs in medieval Europe were actually not able to implement their policies in such a way they would like.

The king of France in year 1206 had probably less influence upon the life of his subjects than president Chirac have today.
Louis XVI had less power over France than does Chirac today. Monarchies have always done a better job of protecting freedoms and liberties than have democracies, whether liberal, socialist or however.

[razboz]

Originally posted by ZX3+October 28, 2006 03:24 pm--> (ZX3 @ October 28, 2006 03:24 pm)
[email protected] 26, 2006 03:09 pm
The monarchical regimes with a form of restrained monarchy is actually better than a despotic regime where the ruler has absolute power, or by a plutocratic republic. Most monarchs in medieval Europe were actually not able to implement their policies in such a way they would like.

The king of France in year 1206 had probably less influence upon the life of his subjects than president Chirac have today.
Louis XVI had less power over France than does Chirac today. Monarchies have always done a better job of protecting freedoms and liberties than have democracies, whether liberal, socialist or however. [/b]
:lol:

Yes giving power to one single person on the basis of an imaginary man having told him so sounds éike a wonderfull plan.
Monarchies defending indivdual liberties? Monarchies never did sucha thing. In democracies the People decide who rules. In a monarchy the Tooth-Fairy or the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause does. Now who do i trust most?