LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[The Liberated Territories]

"B-but that wasn't REAL capitalism!"

it's only capitalism if the government owns nothing and there's no labor regulations, and if the Capitalism Fairy blessed it herself don't @ me

this but unironically

[West Leas Oros 2]

There are actually a lot of capitalists I've met who unironically believe this.

It's the same deal as "um actually it's not communism because it wasn't flawless (:".

However I will say that "state capitalism" is a nonsense concept.

Something something "cronyism" something something

[Nuroblav]

Capitalism has killed more

Over time, maybe. Between the years 1917-1989? Nope, not by a long shot.

I don't know the exact figures but I still reckon capitalism killed quite a lot. Between each country that used I reckon communism has more between each country that has used it, but in total capitalism has many deaths overtime and in this century so far, and possibly in that time span you gave. Perhaps not in exactly the same way, but there you go.

[Pacomia]

I recently made the transition from socialist to economic centrist. Socialist programs or characteristics on a capitalist framework seems feasible.

[Nuroblav]

I recently made the transition from socialist to economic centrist. Socialist programs or characteristics on a capitalist framework seems feasible.

I used to be an economic centrist myself.

[West Leas Oros 2]

I recently made the transition from socialist to economic centrist. Socialist programs or characteristics on a capitalist framework seems feasible.

I used to be an economic centrist myself.

I was a social democrat once. Of course, social democracy is pretty unsustainable in the long run, having to give way either to capitalism or socialism. The two systems are so fundamentally opposite, trying to have both just messes it up.

[Pacomia]

I used to be an economic centrist myself.

I was a social democrat once. Of course, social democracy is pretty unsustainable in the long run, having to give way either to capitalism or socialism. The two systems are so fundamentally opposite, trying to have both just messes it up.

Plenty of countries have both free enterprise and state-provided amenities (healthcare, etc.). Maybe the decision was naive and I'll have flipped to something else within a month. I don't know yet. I just think economic extremism doesn't often go well- socialism probably works fine alongside capitalism as long as you find the right balance.

[North German Realm]

Well for one, surviving for a (relatively) long time.

I mean, so has almost every other system. Monarchy lasted thousands of years, and wasn't nearly as much of a dystopian nightmare.

I mean, that's debatable at best, really.

[Pacomia]

I mean, so has almost every other system. Monarchy lasted thousands of years, and wasn't nearly as much of a dystopian nightmare.

I mean, that's debatable at best, really.

Monarchy's a pretty shit system of government. Who bases centuries of rule off of arbitrary bloodlines rather than popular support or general merit? At least regular dictators took power. That takes some competence, at least.

[Rainbowsix]

is this poll a trick question? They were supposedly a Communist nation, but they were also never communist as communism was intended.....

[Pacomia]

is this poll a trick question? They were supposedly a Communist nation, but they were also never communist as communism was intended.....

That's the point of the poll, I think.

[North German Realm]

I mean, that's debatable at best, really.

Monarchy's a pretty shit system of government. Who bases centuries of rule off of arbitrary bloodlines rather than popular support or general merit? At least regular dictators took power. That takes some competence, at least.

If you ignore the religious and cultural reasonings behind it (and there are many), on paper, it's actually a pretty smart idea in a setting where you can't have a specialized work force. Like sure, now we have people who can educate themselves into politics who also can micromanage by letting people who've studied warfare, economics, etc. do their own part of the job. But like, it wasn't always possible for people to get educated (and that's not just due to arbitrary class systems either). A monarch will -on paper- be trained for running an estate (and generally ruling) ever since birth, also skilled in keeping his wealth (economy), warfare, statesmanship, etc. etc.

[Pacomia]

Monarchy's a pretty shit system of government. Who bases centuries of rule off of arbitrary bloodlines rather than popular support or general merit? At least regular dictators took power. That takes some competence, at least.

If you ignore the religious and cultural reasonings behind it (and there are many), on paper, it's actually a pretty smart idea in a setting where you can't have a specialized work force. Like sure, now we have people who can educate themselves into politics who also can micromanage by letting people who've studied warfare, economics, etc. do their own part of the job. But like, it wasn't always possible for people to get educated (and that's not just due to arbitrary class systems either). A monarch will -on paper- be trained for running an estate (and generally ruling) ever since birth, also skilled in keeping his wealth (economy), warfare, statesmanship, etc. etc.

A lot of the time, though, monarchs end up being incompetent. Some are good leaders, but a significant portion don't seem to really know what they're doing.

[North German Realm]

If you ignore the religious and cultural reasonings behind it (and there are many), on paper, it's actually a pretty smart idea in a setting where you can't have a specialized work force. Like sure, now we have people who can educate themselves into politics who also can micromanage by letting people who've studied warfare, economics, etc. do their own part of the job. But like, it wasn't always possible for people to get educated (and that's not just due to arbitrary class systems either). A monarch will -on paper- be trained for running an estate (and generally ruling) ever since birth, also skilled in keeping his wealth (economy), warfare, statesmanship, etc. etc.

A lot of the time, though, monarchs end up being incompetent. Some are good leaders, but a significant portion don't seem to really know what they're doing.

No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force. Reality is a hostile force, if we were going to go by "What actually happens", we could argue the same for every political system.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you ignore the religious and cultural reasonings behind it (and there are many), on paper, it's actually a pretty smart idea in a setting where you can't have a specialized work force. Like sure, now we have people who can educate themselves into politics who also can micromanage by letting people who've studied warfare, economics, etc. do their own part of the job. But like, it wasn't always possible for people to get educated (and that's not just due to arbitrary class systems either). A monarch will -on paper- be trained for running an estate (and generally ruling) ever since birth, also skilled in keeping his wealth (economy), warfare, statesmanship, etc. etc.

A lot of the time, though, monarchs end up being incompetent. Some are good leaders, but a significant portion don't seem to really know what they're doing.

The fact that monarchy lasted as long as it did seems to indicate that most were pretty competent. Moreover, a lot of monarchies didn't actually collapse due to the incompetence of the monarch.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A lot of the time, though, monarchs end up being incompetent. Some are good leaders, but a significant portion don't seem to really know what they're doing.

No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force. Reality is a hostile force, if we were going to go by "What actually happens", we could argue the same for every political system.

^. There's no reason to think that monarchy is any less good at producing good leaders than democracy.

[Pacomia]

A lot of the time, though, monarchs end up being incompetent. Some are good leaders, but a significant portion don't seem to really know what they're doing.

The fact that monarchy lasted as long as it did seems to indicate that most were pretty competent. Moreover, a lot of monarchies didn't actually collapse due to the incompetence of the monarch.

That's probably why they lasted so long- much like modern nations, one incompetent leader won't singlehandedly destroy a nation. All I'm saying is there is a reason why tons of people rebelled against monarchies. They might have worked in the Middle Ages, but after the world developed a decent amount of technology, people realized how stupid monarchy is.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The fact that monarchy lasted as long as it did seems to indicate that most were pretty competent. Moreover, a lot of monarchies didn't actually collapse due to the incompetence of the monarch.

That's probably why they lasted so long- much like modern nations, one incompetent leader won't singlehandedly destroy a nation. All I'm saying is there is a reason why tons of people rebelled against monarchies. They might have worked in the Middle Ages, but after the world developed a decent amount of technology, people realized how stupid monarchy is.

It's not the monarchy was stupid, it's that it was designed for something completely different than modern governments are designed for. A modern government would fail miserably at the things that absolute or feudal monarchies were designed for and vice-versa.

[North German Realm]

The fact that monarchy lasted as long as it did seems to indicate that most were pretty competent. Moreover, a lot of monarchies didn't actually collapse due to the incompetence of the monarch.

That's probably why they lasted so long- much like modern nations, one incompetent leader won't singlehandedly destroy a nation. All I'm saying is there is a reason why tons of people rebelled against monarchies. They might have worked in the Middle Ages, but after the world developed a decent amount of technology, people realized how stupid monarchy is.

That's not actually true. Even in the most important examples for popular revolutions, not only were the actual reasons for said revolutions military, economic, and social issues largely out of the control of the monarch, there were active pro-monarchist factions on both sides of the conflict.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's probably why they lasted so long- much like modern nations, one incompetent leader won't singlehandedly destroy a nation. All I'm saying is there is a reason why tons of people rebelled against monarchies. They might have worked in the Middle Ages, but after the world developed a decent amount of technology, people realized how stupid monarchy is.

It's not the monarchy was stupid, it's that it was designed for something completely different than modern governments are designed for. A modern government would fail miserably at the things that absolute or feudal monarchies were designed for and vice-versa.

As an amendment to this, to prove my point, it's worth noting that most of the first attempts at modern democracy collapsed within a generation because they were unsuited to the political, economic, and material realities of their surroundings.

[Totenborg]

I recently made the transition from socialist to economic centrist. Socialist programs or characteristics on a capitalist framework seems feasible.

So, social democracy? Yeah, that seems to work pretty well.

[Totenborg]

That's probably why they lasted so long- much like modern nations, one incompetent leader won't singlehandedly destroy a nation. All I'm saying is there is a reason why tons of people rebelled against monarchies. They might have worked in the Middle Ages, but after the world developed a decent amount of technology, people realized how stupid monarchy is.

It's not the monarchy was stupid, it's that it was designed for something completely different than modern governments are designed for. A modern government would fail miserably at the things that absolute or feudal monarchies were designed for and vice-versa.

"Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre
Serrons le cou du dernier roi.
[And with the bowels of the last priest,
Let us strangle the last king.]"
    —Denis Diderot, Dithyrambe sur la fête des Rois

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not the monarchy was stupid, it's that it was designed for something completely different than modern governments are designed for. A modern government would fail miserably at the things that absolute or feudal monarchies were designed for and vice-versa.

"Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre
Serrons le cou du dernier roi.
[And with the bowels of the last priest,
Let us strangle the last king.]"
    —Denis Diderot, Dithyrambe sur la fête des Rois

Diderot was a fool whose ideas were disproven shortly after his death by practice in France.

[North German Realm]

It's not the monarchy was stupid, it's that it was designed for something completely different than modern governments are designed for. A modern government would fail miserably at the things that absolute or feudal monarchies were designed for and vice-versa.

"Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre
Serrons le cou du dernier roi.
[And with the bowels of the last priest,
Let us strangle the last king.]"
    —Denis Diderot, Dithyrambe sur la fête des Rois

I mean really, given how utterly rabid, zealous, and/or powerhungry the morons who participated in that mess were, giving a French Revolutionary as an example is generally the worst way one can promote their anti-monarchist republicanism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

"Et des boyaux du dernier prêtre
Serrons le cou du dernier roi.
[And with the bowels of the last priest,
Let us strangle the last king.]"
    —Denis Diderot, Dithyrambe sur la fête des Rois

I mean really, given how utterly rabid, zealous, and/or powerhungry the morons who participated in that mess were, giving a French Revolutionary as an example is generally the worst way one can promote their anti-monarchist republicanism.

Yeah, there's no way to discuss the French Revolution without either lying, or acknowledging that it was an abject failure at every single one of its goals.