[Potemkin]

Did not the Romans say: the First King is a genious, his son average, and his grand son a copmlete moron.

Let's see... Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula.... you know, I think those Romans were onto something!

[Tainari88]

Monarchies are outdated but obviously many societies still hold on to the obsolete concept.

I think it just perpetuates a system that is not reflective of what most humans should strive for in governance. Efficiency and getting rid of those who are born into positions instead of having to do some kind of work to get there. But, the current crop of politicians all need huge boatloads of money for campaigning in Western democracies and as such they might as well be monarchs or the minions of monarchs. They really are not independent entities serving the working class anyway. So what is the difference between an inherited pendejo Monarch, and a commoner who rose through the ranks but made a business deal with the plutocracy to get there? Not much.

[Preston Cole]

So what is the difference between an inherited pendejo Monarch, and a commoner who rose through the ranks but made a business deal with the plutocracy to get there? Not much.

The difference is that a business man is only concerned with his business and making money in a more or less "clean" fashion, essentially a dressed up merchant, while the Monarch embodies the history of the nation. That's a pretty big difference.

[Tainari88]

Embodies the history of a nation? More like reflects an old system of class. While a politician who represents business interests but only the business interests of the powerful and the wealthy is not much of an improvement over inherited position.

Doesn't convince me your argument Preston Cole.

[Potemkin]

Embodies the history of a nation? More like reflects an old system of class. While a politician who represents business interests but only the business interests of the powerful and the wealthy is not much of an improvement over inherited position.

Doesn't convince me your argument Preston Cole.

I believe Preston is claiming that the particular class interests of the monarch (who constitutes a class containing only one individual) would coincide with the interests of society as a whole. This, in fact, is the only real justification for a ruling class being a ruling class.

[Tainari88]

I believe Preston is claiming that the particular class interests of the monarch (who constitutes a class containing only one individual) would coincide with the interests of society as a whole. This, in fact, is the only real justification for a ruling class being a ruling class.

Ay mi querido Potemkin, when the interests of one individual coincides with the interests of society as a whole--that is when Jesus comes back from the dead and judgment day is here.

It is like the old civilizations of old. Moctezuma, Ramses II, etc. etc. they all were Gods on Earth....brought to their societies to guide them into glory. Their lives were immortal and other such bullshit of the worst sort. It is all about naked power and classism. It is an old system with proven defects for millenia. Why keep it in place? For the good of the whole? Or to control the whole? That is the question mi bellisimo Potemkin.

[Potemkin]

Ay mi querido Potemkin, when the interests of one individual coincides with the interests of society as a whole--that is when Jesus comes back from the dead and judgment day is here.

It is like the old civilizations of old. Moctezuma, Ramses II, etc. etc. they all were Gods on Earth....brought to their societies to guide them into glory. Their lives were immortal and other such bullshit of the worst sort. It is all about naked power and classism. It is an old system with proven defects for millenia. Why keep it in place? For the good of the whole? Or to control the whole? That is the question mi bellisimo Potemkin.

Something can be in the interests of society as a whole, yet cause misery for the majority of the population of that society. For example, the industrial capitalists of early 19th century Britain were effectively the new ruling class of British society, and their exploitation of the working masses caused catastrophic misery for millions of people and left a legacy of bitter class hatred which still exists to this day. However, their rule also led to a massive expansion of the forces of production in British society, an expansion unprecedented in human history in its scope and its effects, and gave Britain the largest empire in history. The narrow class interests of the ruling bourgeois class, selfishly and ruthlessly pursued, coincided with the interests of British society as a whole. This is the ultimate justification for their existence as a ruling class.

[Tainari88]

Well Potemkin, since the interests of the ruling class I don't think ever are the interests of the majority as a whole....I don't give them much credit. When a system that comes along that is really and truly good for the majority then I would agree that all that misery was worth something. So far---NADA.

If I am the victim of some industrial factory sweat shop exploitation coughing my lungs out a la Charles Dickens in the 19th century---the 'glory' or the 'expansion' of the British empire is not for my good is it? Just for the good of those causing the misery.

Oh, Potemkin, how I detest imperialism. It has its good qualities but by far its bad qualities outweigh it. It usually brings such problems and such a lack of respect for humanity in its most basic form...I find little use for it. In any way.

[Potemkin]

Well Potemkin, since the interests of the ruling class I don't think ever are the interests of the majority as a whole....I don't give them much credit. When a system that comes along that is really and truly good for the majority then I would agree that all that misery was worth something. So far---NADA.

That system is coming, Tainari: we call it 'Communism'. And it will have been made possible by the policies and actions of the capitalist ruling class of 19th century Britain. Without their ruthless exploitation of the working masses, the necessary expansion of the forces of production without which a Communist system cannot exist would never have happened.

If I am the victim of some industrial factory sweat shop exploitation coughing my lungs out a la Charles Dickens in the 19th century---the 'glory' or the 'expansion' of the British empire is not for my good is it? Just for the good of those causing the misery.

The historical process, just like Mother Nature, cares nothing for the fate of the individual.

[Tainari88]

And Potemkin, all these mighty Empires in history always wind up falling. Many think...if we just would have re worked the imperialism a little differently we might have won. And they never do. It is too expensive and too messy to deal with Empire building. The 'conquered' peoples wind up moving in to the UK by the boatload and planeload....the 'conquered' societies either lose their wealth and get pissed off, or they disappear from the scene and or do some damage and conspire with the enemies of the Empire, etc. etc. Eventually the mighty Empires asses get burned in history.

They lose their 'colonies' and or their former glory and the wealth is misspent and left in the hands of corrupt fools who don't do anything for the majority.

That is the sad story of those 'monarchs' by and large. And their dreams of conquering the world.

[Tainari88]

The historical process, just like Mother Nature, cares nothing for the fate of the individual.

Aha! La atinaste Potemkin. You hit the bullseye. That is where my faith lies. And my truth. Mother nature and the historical process. Yes, indeed Potemkin in those two I do trust.

[Potemkin]

Aha! La atinaste Potemkin. You hit the bullseye. That is where my faith lies. And my truth. Mother nature and the historical process. Yes, indeed Potemkin in those two I do trust.

I'll make a Marxist out of you yet, Tainari. Either that, or a Daoist mystic.

[starman2003]

And their dreams of conquering the world.

In recent times that didn't involve monarchs but modern secular authoritarians. And I wouldn't give up on the idea of global hegemonization, as a future hegemon can have all the advantages its predecessors lacked.

[Francis Drakeleigh]

There is a straight choice, Monarchy or Money Power. What Britain has at the moment is an hereditary ceremonial presidency not a monarchy. The EU doesn't even manage that much. But the United Kingdom does, or be it very imperfectly, provide some sort of model or framework on which monarchy could be placed. Monarchy returns to the United Kingdom and European states join the United Kingdom (not dominated by England) - the social order returns.

[starman2003]

...an hereditary ceremonial presidency not a monarchy.

Of course, a figurehead, a joke, long supplanted by democracy. Just because the latter is screwing up doesn't mean society should revert to the distant past. The solution is meritocratic authoritarianism.

[Francis Drakeleigh]

Some talk of "meritocratic authoritarianism" but seldom explain what that means or what the mechanism would be. Sounds good though.

[starman2003]

There have been attempts at showing how it might function since the time of Plato. At least one requirement would be access to higher education for everyone who can handle it. The soviet educational and party system might be the best modern analog for a future system--minus the soviet ideology of course.

[Potemkin]

I feel pretty sure that Plato would have approved of the Soviet Union.

[Fasces]

I approved of the Soviet Union.

[Preston Cole]

The Soviet Union brought quite a lot of burdens on my country, but there's nothing about it apart from the ideology that I disapprove of.

Kind of surprising that the fascists here approve of the USSR.