Le human nature

>le human nature
Why don't we bring back Monarchy then? Since it's le hyman nature who wants absolute control

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=e-BZylziBKI
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Why don't we bring back Monarchy then?

we can't, 99% of population believe they have the right to vote

why don't we bring back tribalism and cast off all technology? roaming the plains hunting and grazing is what we were built for, it's our nature

What a silly way of arguing.
Communism is not in a human nature because no man would give away his hard-earned riches unless he can profit from that.

Okay.

People like stability. Monarchies are always being overthrown, or the empress is baren, or the king is infertile, or the king family kills him, or the king doesn't want to be king an rules terribly.

>Communism is not in a human nature because no man would give away his hard-earned riches unless he can profit from that
One point for communism is that it is extremely racist because no one wants to support people who aren't like them.

Or some territory doesn't want a king and revolts.

Actually yes, let's do that!

>Why don't we bring back Monarchy then?

This is exactly what commies are asking for.... but they don't know it.

>Why don't we bring back Monarchy then?
I want to though

Authoritarianism is actually preferable in early stages of development. When corruption is a huge problem like it was in Singapore/Hong Kong/South Korea, a strong authoritarian leader with a positive vision can actually help fix the institutions so its transition into a more modern system can happen without the elites plundering it.

Monarchy was only bad because it was hereditary and didn't lead to more complex systems of governance. A command economy is terrible for a country that relies on innovation like America, a boon for a country that doesn't even have basic industrialism and suffers from rampant corruption.

Monarchy is divinely ordained how else can there be a King of Kings with monarchies

We should.

LEt's do it

>Communism wants absolute wealth being controlled by one family

>what is a "central planner"

Seized wealth being retributed to the needy

by a single entity who controls all the wealth.
It's his to take, and his to give.
If you're lucky, he will distribute some to you.

>What is state council?

monarchy doesn't mean absolute control leftypol brainlet you're thinking of a dictator which incidentally is one of the only effective form of government for third worlders

>what is privy council

Every stable system is monarchy or autocracy, it's just how human social dynamics work. Thing is that monarch is not always in sight. For example, America is monarchy where current owned of Fed is supreme ruler, his children inherit his rule, and in case "president" dares to go against him, he is eliminated.

Charlie :(

If only.

As the brit pointed out: The existence of a council doesn't negate the fact that there is a monarch.

Either the central planner has the power to redistribute wealth, or he doesn't. If he does, he owns everything--- he is the monarch.

Actually I reckon the US is closer to early middle ages. Fed is equivalent to Vatican, feudal lords elect a king/are granted lands by a king, voting replaces warfare.

>The central planner wouldn't face live firing squad if he dares to pocket the whole damn thing
Privy council can't exist if the worker council weeds them in the beginning of their formation

>mercy and charity is not in human nature

>Why don't we bring back Monarchy then?
We shall. One way or another. And all shall benefit from it.

>>The central planner wouldn't face live firing squad if he dares to pocket the whole damn thing

As would a tyrant king. You can try to kill him, but he can bribe the soldiers with more money than you can offer.... since he owns all the wealth.

...

It can be. You just can't operate a whole country on "mercy and charity". You know that, too. That's why you will eventually force people to "give charity".

yeeeeey it would be so cool if the whole world would be like north korea

That's a junta.
Hell, going by your flag, why wouldn't you want a monarchy?

>facebook

>The workers/soldiers who worked hard to overthrow the Monarchy would accept petty bribes to destroy what they've worked for

>why don't we bring back monarchy then?
I don't consider monarchy an ideal system, but it's preferable to democracy, that inevitably brings socialism.

I'm an unironic pan-monarchist so that does actually sound like a perfectly good option to me.

>>The workers/soldiers who worked hard to overthrow the Monarchy would accept petty bribes to destroy what they've worked for

>He thinks people won't accept money and treasure as a reward for working hard

hahahahahahah

>implying republics are more politically stable than monarchies

>Why don't we bring back Monarchy then?

Gladly!

>Revolutionaries totally want un-do their effect of overthrowing Monarchy after a bloody revolution

Not gonna lie, former Tsar supporter here. It is fucking hilarious watching Nicholas crash and burn but in all seriousness we can't let peasants get the food.

If they would be given preferential treatment over others, yes.
Humans aren't equal, nor do they strive for equality. Everyone is looking for their own gain.
Even when communist says that he wants equality, he's lying. He's only for equality as long as it benefits him.
Tell me, if there's one communist that willingly distributed his wealth among those who needed it more? Or are all communists, ones who would benefit from communism, because (in their minds) it would grant them more wealth?

>implying that hasn't happened numerous times after revolutions
>implying the allure of personal gain isn't sometimes stronger than ideological convictions

It's happened over and over and over again in history.

Yep. Plenty of historical examples.

A stable system is alwais preferrable to a chaotic, "equality" based one.
Empires last for centuries.

They did it to gain more wealth, not for an idea itself. If first commissar offers them even more wealth to betray the idea, they will gladly do so.

Well, actually they do, most of the time.
It's not about destroying a system, it's about replacing the rulers.
Idealistic revolutionnaires are nothing but useful idiots

Nobody likes what others think, but to go as far to people wanting the monarchies back, it only happens in cucked european countries.

The Americas haven't been a thing long enough for anything interesting to happen.

I only support bringing back monarchies in countries that have a historical connection to monarchy. Which means that the US and most Latin American countries (except Mexico, Haiti and Brazil) are excluded. You can keep your republics if you so wish.

>Why don't we bring back Monarchy then?
It would be more efficient to have an AI be the monarch than a human.

Trouble is that it's the domino effect. If you let (((republics))) stay around, they'll try and infect the rest.

Agreed, but until then.

>le human nature
hol up, meme arrows don't refute need to eat

This. Rights are a spook, but they believe it, all right.
If not, I'd unironically do it. Monarchy makes for the best policies.

>Why don't we bring back monarchy?
Right in the feels

I'm pretty sure the only way to make a democracy work in the long term is to scrap 1 man = 1 vote and replace it with 1 intact family unit with at least 1 child = 1 vote. You'd get much better results if a couple had to discuss the decision with an eye on 20 years down the line.

Finally someone who gets it. Monarchy is the true redpill

who said human nature is to want absolute control by someone else?

are you a literal retard? were you dropped on your head? like how can you be this retarded?

>human nature
>communist flag
youtube.com/watch?v=e-BZylziBKI

>absolute control by someone else?
Are you retarded? Even in an absolute monarchy the monarch only has singular governing power.

We have been a thing more than long enough.

Some people liked their monarchy, but european monarchies were always seen as self important despots.

Mapuches in particular said many mean things about them and it spread into our republic.

>more than long enough
And yet still nothing new or interesting.

>I'm pretty sure the only way to make a democracy work in the long term is to scrap 1 man = 1 vote and replace it with 1 intact family unit with at least 1 child = 1 vote.
It is not in the interest of liberal democracy. Democracy is simply the political weapon of money.