Hello everyone!

[Rogue Fox]

Originally posted by LightRider
For the love of Christ, people -

A religious Communist? :p

Shouldn't that be 'for the love of Lenin?' ;)

This guy is no 'idealist' - he is a reactionary. I'll say it again. A reactionary.

What has me perplexed is how you profess to know so much about me and my views, but are oblivious to the fact that I am female. :p

And why can't one be both a Monarchist and a Reactionary?

Probably read too much Nietzche (I'm sure I spelled that wrong)

You did.  But chicks dig Nietzsche, and I am indeed a chick!;)  I actually haven't read that much Nietzsche, though.

All of you re-read your basic Marxist theory if you want to properly rebuke reactionaries, and explain to them why no matter how hard one wishes or how nice one's scheme sounds, if it is not based on the economic/material realities of the day, it is so much nonsense that we ought not waste another second contemplating.

Wrong!  Economic power is only the most important power if you buy into the ridiculous, childish and very capitalistic "he-who-has-the-most-toys-wins" notion.  Communists, who see how much power the wealthy have, become jealous and think that money and the 'means of production' are what runs the world.

In a Monarchy one can have economic power but no true power, as unlike the American system they have loyalty, and it lies not with those who merely have the most money.  If one does not have the loyalty and faith of his subjects then he has no real power at all - and Monarchy and the code of chivalry teach loyalty and devotion to the rulers.

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

Wrong! Economic power is only the most important power if you buy into the ridiculous, childish and very capitalistic "he-who-has-the-most-toys-wins" notion. Communists, who see how much power the wealthy have, become jealous and think that money and the 'means of production' are what runs the world.

Yawn... :o
If you want to be at this site you could at least pull your head out of your a** and actually try looking into things instead of just continu8eing from your own prejudices.
So what runs the world?

In a Monarchy one can have economic power but no true power, as unlike the American system they have loyalty, and it lies not with those who merely have the most money. If one does not have the loyalty and faith of his subjects then he has no real power at all - and Monarchy and the code of chivalry teach loyalty and devotion to the rulers.

We can't have mornachy today in the form you want it in. That form of rule couldn't continue with the development of the productive forces. The bourgiousie who entered the scene wanted to also have political power, and they got it. How would it then be possible to go back?

What I don't get about you is why you chose to live in a fantasy world totally disconnected from real life. You want a form of government that will never come back and instead of realising that it will never happen you chose to come here and talk about your disllusions, what is the point in that? Also I don't think the peasants slaughtered, forced to go to war and actually living like slaves think there was any chivalry.

[Rogue Fox]

Originally posted by T.K.A.-Denmark
We can't have mornachy today in the form you want it in. That form of rule couldn't continue with the development of the productive forces. The bourgiousie who entered the scene wanted to also have political power, and they got it. How would it then be possible to go back?

LMAO.

What I don't get about you is why you chose to live in a fantasy world totally disconnected from real life. You want a form of government that will never come back and instead of realising that it will never happen you chose to come here and talk about your disllusions, what is the point in that? Also I don't think the peasants slaughtered, forced to go to war and actually living like slaves think there was any chivalry.

And why can't it come back?  The one thing that annoys me about Communists is how they see themselves as being on some kind of 'higher plane,' and believe that other systems of government are inherently inferior and those who support them are 'primitives.'

Oh, and war is the province of the Nobility. :p

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

And why can't it come back? The one thing that annoys me about Communists is how they see themselves as being on some kind of 'higher plane,' and believe that other systems of government are inherently inferior and those who support them are 'primitives.'

Why can't it come back you ask.
Because the bourgiosie won't allow it, they wan't political power. Monarchy was a form og government used in feudal times and are directly linked to that form of system. Actually in many cases the king didn't have the absolute power but was actually controlled by the big landowners (nobility I think it's called).
When capitalism evolved we saw the rise of the bourgiosie (capitalists), they controlled (and still do) the economy and obviously also wanted political power.
So how would we be able to go back? You haven't answered that (because you can't I take it?).
I would suggest you to study history and look at how the political system evolved.

Nah I don't see people who support other forms as inferior, only if they actually want to go back to systems linked to ancient modes of production because that's quite clearly insane. (even liberal economists would say that. A feudal society wouldn't be able to feed the population of the world, so are you suggesting we should kill people so we can go back?

Actually they have monarchy in Nepal (a quite feudal society) so I would suggest you to move there

[styrken]

Originally posted by Rogue Fox
The one thing that annoys me about Communists is how they see themselves as being on some kind of 'higher plane,' and believe that other systems of government are inherently inferior and those who support them are 'primitives.'

Well, what annoys me about people like you is when they use this argument because they cant answer the critic of their views put forward by the marxists. I suggest you to drop this and show how you are able to defend your point of views against TKA's critic.

A winner of a discussion will always be seen as person on a 'higher plane' than the looser. Thats life, learn to deal with it :D

[styrken]

BTW, I would like you to answer TKA's question: why dont you move to nepal?

If you say you do, its okay, but i would think you were a bit strange.

If you do not, then you must explain what the difference is between the nepal monarchy and that monarchy you want.

[turnoviseous]

Originally posted by Rogue Fox
As I have stated before I am an idealist; an ideal world, for me at least, would return to the Old Order (feudalism with a Divine Right of Kings as described by Hobbes, Royal blood, etc).  However we do not live in an ideal world; and the second option you describe is basically what I think of when asked to translate my beliefs into practicality. :)

Hello everyone...havent been here for some time. But this thread is interesting, so Im gonna make a short reply.

A lot of people see feudalism like an ideal world nowadays, especially old petty-bourgeois manufacturers where the market was somewhat equal. The situation was somewhat great indeed (compared to capitalism) and exploitation was lower,

- but the productivity was very low, people were working 16 hours a day and more just to survive.

- you can´t have high productivity based on petty-bourgeois production, you cant build railways on the petty-bourgeois basis etc.. so here is the vicious circle

- socialism, big bourgeois production with working class as the rulling class with consciously planned production, is the only answer.

comradely,