[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.27 MB, 1701x2219, Kaiser-wilhelm-I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17363560 No.17363560 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw the best way to serve justice to the people, racial unity to those states that already have it, and to achieve high levels of economic prosperity under capitalism without consequently ceding power to oligarchs is under the monarch/aristocracy
I wonder why the publicized extremums are national socialism and communism---both populist and thereby liberal ideologies---and the moderate center is democracy, a populist liberal ideology.

>> No.17363914

>>17363560
because people is retarded, if the majority of people weren't retards, there would've been not need for caste system in societies of the past.

>> No.17364032

Only the king and the nobility can hope to break the unruly stallion of capitalism and greed. All other systems are subsumed by it and from this observation we see what the original position of mankind receives not even passing recognition in mainstream discussion

>> No.17364290

>>17363560
>populist and therefore liberal
what the fuck? lmao retard

>> No.17364335

>>17364290
The conservative original position---the only thing that can be called conservative in truth---explicitly rejects populism. Any strain of populism is liberal insofar as it is antithetical to the conservative original position

>> No.17364416

The fundamental driving force of democracy, national socialism, and communism relative to the conservative original position is populist. Much like the Trojan horse, every one of the aforementioned systems used an appeal to the people---that which is QUINTESSENTIALLY LIBERAL---to break into the old order and propagate internally. Your modern conceptualization of populism masks the all-too-painful fact that all the aforementioned are systemically liberal; that is, from the perspective of Wilhelm I, for example, they all look the same.

>> No.17364643

Centralialization of power through technologicsl capitalism will return the reigns to a group of individuals that will become monarchs in thier own way.

>> No.17364650

>>17364335
are we just making things up now?

>> No.17364987

>>17364643
>in thier own way
Yes precisely, but "in their own way" is not monarchy---it is Plutarchy or oligarchy. It is incontrovertible to state that we live in a neo-feudal society where the landed nobility are the business elite and the estates are entire countries. These are, however, not monarchs in their own way.

>> No.17365048

>establish a monarchy
>things go well for a few decades
>king dies
>his son is an incompetent loser who watches anime all day
>entire country falls apart
Monarchists please resolve this. btw this has happened countless times historically so it is a very real flaw in your ideology. Not even mentioning wars of succession which are also very real.

>> No.17365084

> and to achieve high levels of economic prosperity under capitalism without consequently ceding power to oligarchs

Anon, do you have no idea of how capitalism developed in england?

>> No.17365143

>>17365084
Greed is wealth's bedfellow, no doubt, and as no monarchy is immune to this. It can also be said that the monarchy, through the prosperity is historically generated, inevitably cede power to the democracy. My riposte would be that the English monarchy had no truly embedded aristocracy to check the power of those made immensely wealthy by capitalism. Contrasting this with Germany, for example, whose aristocracy held on and checked the growth and power of the business elites to the best of their ability and to the bitter end. Truly, the biggest flaw in a potential monarchical revival would be that it might inevitably beget democracy just as it did in the 19th century.

17365048
Your "fatal flaw" is more a scrape upon the shin. If you knew history and were familiar with the evolution of the monarchy during the industrial age, you would see how utterly trite and nonsensical this "post" is

>> No.17365166

Perhaps I was too harsh. On the off chance that you're not an ideologue, I'll clarify in a moment

>> No.17365616

>>17365143
what about the russian monarchy, and the spanish monarchy, and the french monarchy, and the greek monarchy, and the portuguese monarchy, and the austrian monarchy, and the Italian monarchy, and the Chinese monarchy, and the Japanese monarchy? They all at some point and in some way collapsed due to their own greed and subservience to the wealthy elites of their era, most being capitalists with the partial exception of the French.

>> No.17365645

>>17364650
no it's you, you have no idea wtf you are talking about.

>> No.17365654

>>17364987
>this bullshit I just vomited out is incontrovertible

>> No.17365687

>>17365048
genetic engineering/Eugenics
kings sons sent abroad to study and pratiche in the military academy
Adoption (the Roman imperial solution)
The King is an immortal AI
Divine Right to rule, pope declares loser son has lost the mandate, selects another noble.
These are the first solutions that came to me in 30 seconds.

>> No.17365820

>>17365687
Op here, you're getting a bit ahead of yourself there. The ideal monarchy would not be absolut. The evolution of monarchical societies vis-a-vis the industrial revolution and the exponential growth in population made it such that the state must grow with it. The myth of the indolent son is a relic of a truly bygone era wherein the monarchy could afford to be absolut. Quite simply, if they monarchy is to be successful at all, it must delegate power to some degree as history proves. The indolent son, as a result of growth of the government, is inconsequential as in all his laze all he can do is stagnate the advancement of social matters(which is the default state of being in democracy)---absuses of power or regression in other categories is a systemic impossibility for the nobility and the parliament (and to a lesser degree the business elites) will uphold the spirit of the state. Wars of succession are delimited completely when succession laws are obvious.

Your conception of the king is simply archaic: he is more akin to a permanent president whose well being is intrinsically tied to the well being of the state and his responsibility includes educated his progeny. To say nothing of the ease of education, when ones life is dependent on it, when ones raison d'etre is tied to it, the result is obvious and the alternative---the democratic regime---already presupposes an adequately educated, disinterested executive except, unlike the democratic regime, the monarch's position is not underpinned by money and therein greed. His goal is to, like the skeletal structure, hold up and thereby guide the body as it moves through time. It is incomprehensible easier to educated philosophically one individual than it is to educate the masses. You can say, dually, that it is easier to corrupt one individual than it is to corrupt the masses; however, once corrupted, one must merely wait out the reign---inversely, once the people are corrupted, democracy will never work again.

>> No.17365850

And this fact brings up another interesting fact: though the monarchs insolence is largely inconsequential, just as it is easier to corrupt one man, it is easier to kill him: something that applies even if he's just and noble.

>> No.17367266

Huh

>> No.17367691

>>17365820
your version of the monarchy is useless, as it has been proved any non absolute monarchy becomes a democracy sooner rather than later.
Even if not so, the existence of a state bureaucracy permits the presence of a (gramscian) deep state.