Treasonous goblins demanding enclosure

>treasonous goblins demanding enclosure
>the murder of Strafford
>closing theatres because Shakespeare is naughty
Roundheads are the worst

Other urls found in this thread:

bilderberg.org/land/tenure.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
anglicanhistory.org/charles/eikon/2.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Remember, Oliver Cromwell did nothing wrong :^)

If you're a moral nihilist, maybe

>tfw the only good side didn't win

They eventually won, unfortunately.

The Levellers did nothing wrong.

Plus their second album was absolutely sick.

>treason
>nothing wrong

Treason against monarchists and insane dictators is nothing short of righteous.

Dammit, do you see loyalty as oppressive?

That depends if you're being loyal to an oppressive regime. I mean North Koreans are pretty fucking loyal but the state is also very oppressive.

"Loyalty" is the biggest meme in history. If you cannot justify continued allegience for any reason other than "muh loyalty" then a state deserves all the revolutions it has coming.

Loyalty alone absolutely counts for something (if it doesn't, then it counts for nothing). and you need something significant to balance against it if you intend to disregard it..

Loyalty towards a government is pointless, especially a monarchy

These systems never show loyalty towards the people they are expected to receive it from, so why would it be given in return?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, the king is bred and raised to administrate, and dedicates a lot of his life to doing that. How is that now showing loyalty?

*not showing

Yes, loyalty does count for nothing. It's literally a meme endorsed by various ruling powers to try (and fail) to bully people into supporting the status quo so that they can remain in power.

Need something to balance against it? Try pragmatic benefit, that actually counts for something. Supporting change or status quo because it would be beneficial to your life and ambitions. Which just so happens to seem remarkably similar to what elites are doing when shilling about loyalty.

Being loyal just for the sake of being loyal is literally football-logic applied to politics.

Charles I dedicated more of his life to scratching his arse and posing for paintings than he did expending any effort into actually ruling for the good of anyone.

>Yes, loyalty does count for nothing.
>Try pragmatic benefit
See, now we're at an impasse regarding values. Imagine if you applied this logic to a marriage.

That's not only incorrect, it's not even funny hyperbole.

You should. If your marriage is not mutually beneficial then it is shitty marriage.

Do mind that I'm not talking just about material benefit, this also can apply to the more idealistic aspects of personal living. Just as an absence of emotional investment will mark a bad marriage, an absence of ideological investment in continued loyalty marks a state not being worth loyal to.

Case in point, there is a massive conflict between the Islam and imperialism of the Ottoman Empire and the Christianity and nationalism of the Greeks. On the count that they have no material or ideological investment in the status quo it is only righteous that the Greeks rebelled against the Ottomans.

It's true, the revolution happened for a good reason. He was an terrible ruler.

>eventually won
For a short while but then they lost again and that's when everything was going to shit once again.

There has to a be an awful lot to forego a loyalty as foundational and lasting as a monarch. It is a very serious thing and nothing to be taken lightly, and "lack of emotional fulfillment" clearly wouldn't cut it here, because we're talking about a loyalty that lasts many, many generations.

The Greeks rebelled against the Ottomans because of loyalty to God, pretty much the only loyalty higher than loyalty to the monarch.

bilderberg.org/land/tenure.htm

Yes, monarchs should be taken lightly because it's a stupid form of government. Much more so back then when monarchs held formidable amounts of power, but responsibility was optional.

A lack of ideological investment is a very valid reason to rebel against a system of government. Just as the Greeks weren't invested in Islam, the Levellers weren't invested in monarchy. Because fundamentally religion is not that much different from modern ideology, where with the advent of revolutions like this it is appreciated that power may come from the people upwards rather than from god downwards.

But equally you leave out that I suggest ideological and material investment should be paid equal consideration. Just as if you have ideological grievances with a state making loyalty seem less appealing, it is also true that if a state has you at a material disadvantage loyalty is no longer appealing. If a state neither respects your ideological considerations, or has you living in acceptable material conditions it is simply not worth being loyal to.

The marriage analogy is very apt here. If a marriage does not leave you with any emotional fulfillment, or material benefit then it is simply a pointless marriage.

>tfw the only good side didn't win

Loyalty has to be earned.

Religion is very different, because it centers around a being. Just like monarchism does. Just like marriage does. Monotheism, monarchism, monogamy,all pillars of loyalty. Loyalty is about being devoted to something with subjectivity, as opposed to being devoted to an object; being devoted to an ideology is like being devoted to a car.

The English Civil War hardly benefited the people. It brought about the rapid acceleration of enclosure, forced peasants off their land, and paved the way for mass poverty in urbanization and the latter worker lifestyle of the industrial revolution.

>If a marriage does not leave you with any emotional fulfillment, or material benefit then it is simply a pointless marriage.
No, this is a narcissistic philosophy. If you are not emotionally fulfilled in a marriage, the proper thing to do is to try to make the marriage work better and try to be more loving to your spouse, not to dissolve the marriage. If bonds of loyalty can switched on and off like lights, then loyalty is nonexistent. And without loyalty, there can't be trust, and without trust, society could not possibly function.

No gods no kings no slaves you royalist bootlicker.

He does earn it be administrating the kingdom

>I would rather choose to wear a crown of thorns with my Saviour, than to exchange that of gold, which is due to me, for one of lead, whose embased flexibleness shall be forced to bend and comply to the various and oft contrary dictates of any factions, when instead of reason and public concernments they obtrude nothing but what makes for the interest of parties, and flows from the partialities of private wills and passions. I know no resolutions more worthy a Christian king, than to prefer his conscience before his kingdoms.

And to administrate the kingdom is his right

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."--Romans 13:1-2

Just mediocrity.

On the contrary being devoted to a single object is more akin to being devoted to a car. Ideologies of the modern era appeal more so to lofty ideals of egalitarianism, or freedom or romantic nationhood or some such. You do not find yourself being devoted to a thing but so much to an idea. However more dated ideologies like monarchism, political religion and such also appeal to ideas, it's just that the ultimate realization of those ideas lies in an individual thing.

I do however agree that the immediate result of the English civil war was bad, it's inescapable that Cromwell was a bad guy. However I do strongly agree with the ideas of the Levellers in opposition to both this and the cavalier monarchism. Additionally the introduction of capitalism to Britain was inevitable, not just inevitable but also ultimately a good thing as we can see today.

>No, this is a narcissistic philosophy. If you are not emotionally fulfilled in a marriage, the proper thing to do is to try to make the marriage work better and try to be more loving to your spouse, not to dissolve the marriage.
Sometimes a marriage simply cannot work, if there is no emotional or material investment to one or both parties then it is simply a marriage that should never have been. You cannot will emotions into existence anymore than through your own effort can you change another person.

> If bonds of loyalty can switched on and off like lights, then loyalty is nonexistent. And without loyalty, there can't be trust,
Yes, loyalty is non-existent. Loyalty is something that (like trust) must be earned through mutual fulfillment and respect.

Loyalty is nothing simply thrust upon you by being born in a certain state or recognized as married, it is something that's cultivated and nurtured through the effort of both parties. And by living in a state you feel no compulsion to be loyal to, or being in a marriage that you have no investment in it is only right to end it.

Saying
>But then it'll be mediocre
Is an appeal to ego of the highest order.

>Just like marriage does.
No, marriage does not revolve around your partner. Marriage is about the union of two people who show loyalty and devotion to each other, whereas (absolute) monarchy is about a despot demanding exploitative tribute.

Winstanley is mah boi.

The idea is an "object" though, not a "subject". It's something you objectify. Ideologies are the toys of people devoted to them, they can modify them like lego blocks.

>However I do strongly agree with the ideas of the Levellers in opposition to both this and the cavalier monarchism.
Why? They supported right to enclosure.

>Additionally the introduction of capitalism to Britain was inevitable, not just inevitable but also ultimately a good thing as we can see today.
No, Britain would have been better if the land remained mostly common. Enclosure caused greater food shortages and did nothing to help anyone except allow the big landowners to squeeze out the little guy

>if there is no emotional or material investment to one or both parties

Not a comparable situation since there was investment here, and certainly not acceptable when there is a family involved.

>Loyalty is nothing simply thrust upon you
Yeah, in that case it is called "duty". Like, for instance, paying your taxes. You don't have to live in the country or gain any benefits, but you still have to pay your taxes.

No, it's an appeal to believe that some people are the cream of the crop, and we should look up to those people and see them as our betters, instead of resenting them for their superiority.

Ideas centred around a single thing like monarchism, and monotheism fundamentally focus on an object. As they are the object of loyalty.
Ideas centred around more populist rhetoric do not focus on a single thing that can be quantified. It is the pinnacle of lofty ideals as the realization of their idea is just as intangible as the idea itself.

>Why? They supported right to enclosure.
Because I like democracy and equal rights, but I also like religious freedom so I'm not too fussed on the diggers.

>No, Britain would have been better if the land remained mostly common. Enclosure caused greater food shortages and did nothing to help anyone except allow the big landowners to squeeze out the little guy
It wouldn't, the lifestyle we have right now is owed to the capitalist mode of production. It is the necessary end to feudalism just as a return to common ownership with socialism is the necessary end to capitalism.

>Not a comparable situation since there was investment here, and certainly not acceptable when there is a family involved.
1. I'm not sure what you mean "since there was investment here".
2. I agree, family is emotional investment in itself and a perfectly valid reason to remain in an otherwise bad marriage.

>Yeah, in that case it is called "duty". Like, for instance, paying your taxes. You don't have to live in the country or gain any benefits, but you still have to pay your taxes.
Duty isn't exactly a good thing either.

>Kings, slavemasters and so forth are our betters and we should look up to them.

>Ideas centred around a single thing like monarchism, and monotheism fundamentally focus on an object. As they are the object of loyalty.
An object with subjectivity, a being who acts and has agency and whose heart is a mystery. Not an object in the sense of "what is merely acted upon", but an actor.

>Because I like democracy and equal rights
Do you like these as ideas in themselves, or for their utility?

>It wouldn't, the lifestyle we have right now is owed to the capitalist mode of production. It is the necessary end to feudalism just as a return to common ownership with socialism is the necessary end to capitalism.
This is all enlightenment philosophy which presupposes a a steady progress, and is unable to comprehend fluctuations of for or away from the good, but must justify all that has transpired as progress toward the good. It makes no sense to say chopping up the land was more beneficial than keeping it common. How is it beneficial? How did it improve things? Do you think for a moment that technology would not have advanced otherwise? Do you think patronizing invention wouldn't have occurred without capitalism? Marx, liberalism, the enlightenment, all very foolish when you think for a moment about how absurd the idea is of revolving one's entire philosophy around "current year".

>1. I'm not sure what you mean "since there was investment here".
I mean the king was absolutely invested in his subjects and did give considerable thought to why it was better for than for him to be king, than for there to be parliamentary rule. He wasn't a spoiled brat, he was a deeply religious, responsible and thoughtful individual who had the foresight of the country's long term interests at heart, and saw a bunch of petty factions squabbling with each other for personal gains.

>2. I agree, family is emotional investment in itself and a perfectly valid reason to remain in an otherwise bad marriage.
And we're not talking of mere family, we're talking about a nation

>Duty isn't exactly a good thing either.
Why not? Duty is loyalty that is beyond whim. Without duty, "loyalty" is all the same sort of loyalty you have to a brand.

Kings are you betters, in probably every conceivable way you measure human quality, if you do at all.

God isn't real.

Fucking tripfag tranny

>kings are your betters

Regardless of your beliefs, the Bible is the cornerstone of post-ancient Western morality. Do you have another volume you think would be preferable for such a position?

Well you clearly don't measure or believe in human quality, so this is pointless

You're quite the cuck aren't you?

I don't understand, are you suggesting the monarch is "cheating" by being secretly king of another country or something? Because otherwise, loyalty and devotion are not cuckoldry, they're the exact opposite.

>An object with subjectivity, a being who acts and has agency and whose heart is a mystery. Not an object in the sense of "what is merely acted upon", but an actor.
There is nothing subjective about god or kings.

>Do you like these as ideas in themselves, or for their utility?
On the count that I am an ethnic minority at a relative economic disadvantage I have a natural vested interest in equal rights. Democracy however is something I would uphold as a good idea in itself, as it is the means by which legitimacy is earned through consent rather being simply entrusted to an individual.

>This is all enlightenment philosophy which presupposes a a steady progress, and is unable to comprehend fluctuations of for or away from the good, but must justify all that has transpired as progress toward the good
The thing is the advance towards socialism, or capitalism, or even feudalism is not inherently good for all. It's good for the second to most powerful class of society as they gain power, however it is terrible for the present elite class as they are annihilated in the change of power. Just as Roman patricians fell to make way for kings, then kings fell to make way for the bourgeoisie, the progress of history in this way is not an absolute good but rather one class losing power and becoming oppressed in favour of their once subordinates.

How is it beneficial?
Now rulership is earned with popular consent, economic upward mobility has soard to unprecedented levels because now basically every profession has been made available to people with the right qualifications and experience.

1/2

>Kings are you betters, in probably every conceivable way you measure human quality, if you do at all.
kek Constantine you're such a faggot

Do I think invention wouldn't have occured without capitalism?
No, not on this level anyway. The absurd amounts of wealth capitalism allows to be accumulated allows for patronage on a scale totally alien to that of noble patrons centries ago. The resources exist to fund art, discovery and innovation to absolutely unheard of levels thanks to the economic mode of capitalist urbanization and industrialism. Not to mention these factors themselves often become the incentives of innovation with cities and industrial production demanding more efficient ways to live and work.

Even in the days of feudalism we can see this with trade-oriented merchant republics absolutely exploding with art and science because there was simply so much money.

>current year
It's not based on le current year memes. It's based on an a posteriori analysis of historical trends which overwhelmingly suggests this kind progress is very real because advances in technology make it necessary.

>give considerable thought to why it was better for than for him to be king
And I'm sure Kim Jong Un has given considerable thought as to why he deserves to rule North Korea and the USA is the devil.

But the thing is good rulers do not come from privilege, every remarkable ruler either came from the most unlikely of backgrounds or faced considerable adversity in their claim to power which moulded them into virtuous individuals. This kind of osmosis is what makes them great. Whereas kings are a forced imitation of this greatness, where virtue rather than being something that must be gained naturally from hardship becomes something that can be synthetically trained and instilled into the descendents of truly great individuals.

>we're not talking of mere family, we're talking about a nation
There is nothing mere about family, nationhood pales in comparison to the loyalty that is owed to your children and that which is cultivated with your siblings and elders.

But I'm not sure what your argument is.

>Why not? Duty is loyalty that is beyond whim. Without duty, "loyalty" is all the same sort of loyalty you have to a brand.
Because it's just a romantic way of saying you're forced to do something on pain of going to prison or possibly death.

There's nothing nice about "duty".

>Kings are you betters, in probably every conceivable way you measure human quality, if you do at all.
No they aren't, and they aren't because I say so.

If you want to kow-tow and grovel that bad then I suppose they are indeed /your/ betters.

>There is nothing subjective about god or kings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

>On the count that I am an ethnic minority at a relative economic disadvantage I have a natural vested interest in equal rights. Democracy however is something I would uphold as a good idea in itself, as it is the means by which legitimacy is earned through consent rather being simply entrusted to an individual.
What actual benefits do you see from the Levelers having these?

>. It's good for the second to most powerful class of society as they gain power, however it is terrible for the present elite class
Or the people at the bottom. Furthermore the number of classes have multiplied today, they haven't shrunk. There are countless shades.

>Now rulership is earned with popular consent,
No, it's vetted through money and connections, and then becomes a source of what is becoming popular entertainment à la American Idol.

>economic upward mobility has soard to unprecedented levels because now basically every profession has been made available to people with the right qualifications and experience.
That's because of a multiplication of the number of technical skills and subsequent greater array of demand. All of those could easily have happened without parceling out the common land.

>The absurd amounts of wealth capitalism allows to be accumulated allows for patronage on a scale totally alien to that of noble patrons centries ago.
Capitalism doesn't allow for any higher production of wealth, you think industrialization wouldn't have been heavily invested in without capitalism? And you think it wouldn't have created considerable wealth regardless of capitalism?

>Even in the days of feudalism we can see this with trade-oriented merchant republics absolutely exploding with art and science because there was simply so much money.
You don't need capitalism for trade, you just need large surplus.

>It's based on an a posteriori analysis of historical trends which overwhelmingly suggests this kind progress is very real because advances in technology make it necessary.
Why does technology make capitalism necessary? Furthermore, how is capitalist technology breakthrough (better advertising, more addictive artificial flavors) helping progress? You can say, "well, some technology is." Okay, well do you admit there can also be technology with *hampers* progress as it becomes more advanced?

>And I'm sure Kim Jong Un has given considerable thought as to why he deserves to rule North Korea and the USA is the devil.
Mm, no. We're talking about very different characters. King Charles, when being put to death, saw it as divine punishment for signed Safford's death warrant (after being pressured by Parliament). Kim Jong Un doesn't think like that, don't compare a populist dictator to a monarch.

>But the thing is good rulers do not come from privilege, every remarkable ruler either came from the most unlikely of backgrounds or faced considerable adversity in their claim to power which moulded them into virtuous individuals
Pretty much all the worst dictators came from unlikely backgrounds.

>There is nothing mere about family, nationhood pales in comparison to the loyalty that is owed to your children and that which is cultivated with your siblings and elders.
A nation is a lot bigger and breaking up its linchpin causes much more upheaval.

>Because it's just a romantic way of saying you're forced to do something on pain of going to prison or possibly death.
No, duty is very frequently a source of immense pride, and something cherished more than anything else in the world. That you trivialize to merely the same as being mugged shows that the conception is difficult for you to grasp.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
That is not an argument.

>What actual benefits do you see from the Levelers having these?
With democracy I get to vote.
With equal rights I get to not be discriminated against for coming from a Catholic background.

>Or the people at the bottom. Furthermore the number of classes have multiplied today, they haven't shrunk. There are countless shades.
You're right, generally in the waning days of a system of government there comes an alliance between the elites and the underclass both of which have to lose in the transitory period. As seen in the 1800s with the nobility in Britain having a strong alliance with the working class in face of the bourgeois Whigs.

However the number of classes, in material terms at least, has shrunk. As now all that remains in bourgeoisie and proletariat, as internally divided as the proletariat may be.

>No, it's vetted through money and connections,
This is true, democracy as we now know it is basically just the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However it still legitimizes itself on popular consent which is what I've been saying, legitimacy.

>All of those could easily have happened without parceling out the common land.
No they couldn't have, as privitization is what spurred the industrial revolution thus spurring industrial booms in technology and subsequently technical professions and bourgeoisie demand.

>industrialization wouldn't have been heavily invested in without capitalism?
First I must say industrialization is not caused by capitalism but rather capitalism is caused by industrialization empowering the bourgeoisie. It is simply inevitable for this reason.
Second of all if society somehow managed to stay feudal industrialization for sure would not have happened for that very reason.

>you just need large surplus.
Which is created by the bourgeois manipulation of trade and money in the instance of merchant republics, in opposition to the nobility's agrarian wealth.

>Why does technology make capitalism necessary?
Because industrialization is an outgrowth of technological advancement that massively empowers the urban bourgeoisie over the agrarian nobility thus causing capitalism.

>Furthermore, how is capitalist technology breakthrough (better advertising, more addictive artificial flavors) helping progress?
Because as with further automatization power becomes more and more concentrated in the bourgeoisie leaving the proletariat more and more disenfranchised it is inevitable that either a revolution happens, or the bourgeoisie are forced to make more and more concessions until they are pretty much just a vestigial remnant of past times as the nobility are in Britain now.

> We're talking about very different characters. King Charles, when being put to death, saw it as divine punishment for signed Safford's death warran
Believing in god does not make someone a better person.

>Pretty much all the worst dictators came from unlikely backgrounds.
Of course you as a monarchist think everyone who usurps power coming from relative powerlessness is evil, and people who rule from privilege are great.

It would not surprise me if you rank Napoleon among these "worst dictators".

>A nation is a lot bigger and breaking up its linchpin causes much more upheaval.
It is irrelevant how big it is, it simply less important.
And sometimes breaking up the lynchpin and causing upheaval is a good thing. Especially if a state is so weak that it is tied together by one individual.

>No, duty is very frequently a source of immense pride, and something cherished more than anything else in the world. That you trivialize to merely the same as being mugged shows that the conception is difficult for you to grasp.
Yes, and that pride is nothing but pure ideology.

Otherwise known as a spook.

>That is not an argument.
It's meant to show you that monarchs and God have subjectivity, since you don't seem to understand the breadth of the word.

>With democracy I get to vote.
Considering your ratio to the rest of the populace, this privilege hardly empowers you

>With equal rights I get to not be discriminated against for coming from a Catholic background.
Too bad fighting against the king made that much, much worse, not better.

>However the number of classes, in material terms at least, has shrunk.
No, it hasn't at all, it's multiplied, because the number of roles from owner to worker has become extremely distorted and nuanced, and when you look at things like retirement accounts, most workers are involved in the processes of the appropriation and rely on it.

> However it still legitimizes itself on popular consent which is what I've been saying, legitimacy.
Could you explain what you mean by that word?

>privitization is what spurred the industrial revolution
>rather capitalism is caused by industrialization
These two statements are in conflict

>Which is created by the bourgeois manipulation of trade and money in the instance of merchant republics, in opposition to the nobility's agrarian wealth.
Those are just different forms of capital for different sorts of production. You can just as well say media and shoe factories are different classes because they produce distinct products.

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>Because industrialization is an outgrowth of technological advancement that massively empowers the urban bourgeoisie over the agrarian nobility thus causing capitalism.
You don't need industrialization for capitalism, you just need credit and wage labor. Similarly, you don't need capitalism for industrialization, you just heavy investment in industry.

>
Because as with further automatization power becomes more and more concentrated in the bourgeoisie leaving the proletariat more and more disenfranchised it is inevitable that either a revolution happens, or the bourgeoisie are forced to make more and more concessions until they are pretty much just a vestigial remnant of past times as the nobility are in Britain now.
Or they just introduce negative income tax which keeps most people poor but complacent

>Believing in god does not make someone a better person.
When God is a basis for morals and you see murder as very wrong, it might not make him any better of a person (in your eyes), but it certainly makes him a very different person and not appropriate to compare.

>It would not surprise me if you rank Napoleon among these "worst dictators".
Well, let's see, he brought back slavery when the rest of Europe was moving against it, treated the anti-slavery Pope like garbage though the Pope asked for Napoleon to be treated well by his captors and sheltered his mother. He launched completely pointless invasions of Russia, Spain and Egypt, which Louis wouldn't have dreamed of. He made Fouché, a psychopath, the chief of his secret police, he executed the duc d'Enghien for basically no other reason than teh lulz even though it was bound to permanently ruin his relations with the rest of Europe.

>Especially if a state is so weak that it is tied together by one individual.
That's actually a source of strength. If you have a load of individuals as the nucleus, there can be no devotion, because your loyalty can shift from one to another as they compete

Ideology (I'm presuming you mean it is Zizek's rather than Marx's sense, judging by your use of "pure") is unconscious, spooks are conscious. Significant difference

>It's meant to show you that monarchs and God have subjectivity.
A wikipedia page is not an argument.

I already know what subjectivity means, if your argument is so solid you should be able to explain how it fits to monarchs and god in your view.

> this privilege hardly empowers you
Having a vote of 1, to the thousands living in my constituency is more empowering than having no vote at all and just having to put up with the kings whims.

>much worse, not better.
I know it did, I already said earlier that Cromwell was worse than Charles I. My point is that the Levellers are the actual good guys as opposed to the less-bad guys.

>No, it hasn't at all, it's multiplied, because the number of roles from owner to worker has become extremely distorted and nuanced
But it hasn't, everyone below the owner is simply another part of the proletariat.

The jobs have become more administrative, but this is simply a symptom of the bourgeoisie becoming more powerful as opposed to class becoming more distorted.

>you mean by that word
I mean it in the same sense that monarchists use it. The right to rule.

Whereas bourgeois presidents get their legitimacy from (heavily manipulated) popular consent, kings get their legitimacy from being the descendent of the previous king most in line with the laws of succession (at least in the later stages of feudalism). Or alternatively divine right which is even sillier.

Bourgeois demoracy is a marginal step forward.

>are in conflict
They are not, inclosure happened before industrialization and subsequently modern capitalism become dominant in Britain. And I'm arguing capitalism is a consequence of industrialisation, which is a consequence of inclosure.

>Those are just different forms of capital for different sorts of production.
If you sincerely believe that the bourgeoisie and the nobility are the same class you are dumbass who knows nothing about economics or history.

>spooks are conscious.

>And to administrate the kingdom is his right

Why, though? Why is that his right any more than any other person of the kingdom's?

>
>No, Britain would have been better if the land remained mostly common. Enclosure caused greater food shortages and did nothing to help anyone except allow the big landowners to squeeze out the little guy

I, too, like living in a pre-industrial society. (Wait, what do you mean odds are I won't be a member of the aristocracy?)

Fucking define "human quality" then. It's clearly not administrative ability, intelligence, or leadership ability if these are the exemplars who have this "human quality".

>Falling for monarchist shitposting this hard

>You don't need industrialization for capitalism, you just need credit and wage labor.
Capitalism depends on the total domination by the bourgeoisie over all other facets of society. Industrialization is what allows them to do this as their native cities become the hubs of nations sucking power and men out of the countryside like a vacuum.

Credit and wage labour alone, as happened in cities prior to industrial capitalism is a very incomplete kind of capitalism that poses no real threat to the powers of the nobility.

>Similarly, you don't need capitalism for industrialization, you just heavy investment in industry.
You see capitalism depends on incentive. The nobility simply have no incentive to be interested in urban industry as they are more than comfortable living off of their agrarian estates. The city dwelling bourgeoisie have a natural interest in expanding the work done by city-dwelling artisans into mass-producing factories and work-shops that can produce more efficiently than ever.

What you appear to be doing is retroactively examining how the nobility could have maintained their economic dominance, which wouldn't occur to nobles at the time until it was too late.

>Or they just introduce negative income tax which keeps most people poor but complacent
You cannot get negative income tax if you have no income. This is the point.

>but it certainly makes him a very different person and not appropriate to compare.
It doesn't, his belief in god is largely irrelevant in this instance.

>Well, let's see
That was not a challenge for you to prove my point.

>That's actually a source of strength. If you have a load of individuals as the nucleus, there can be no devotion, because your loyalty can shift from one to another as they compete
Competition and pragmatic application of loyalty is good.
Having a single nucleus that can be deposed causing society to collapse is bad.

Likewise mass devotion to that nucleus is a bad thing if anything.

Loyalty for the sake of loyalty is fucking idiotic, Constantine.

>No, this is a narcissistic philosophy. If you are not emotionally fulfilled in a marriage, the proper thing to do is to try to make the marriage work better and try to be more loving to your spouse, not to dissolve the marriage.

Oh wow, the unmarried virgin is going to tell us how to maintain a marriage.

>If bonds of loyalty can switched on and off like lights, then loyalty is nonexistent. And without loyalty, there can't be trust, and without trust, society could not possibly function.

This is demonstrably false, you fucking retard. Society continues to function despite having tossed away several monarchs.

too right

Constantine, what do you think of these 3 words?

Protestant Work Ethic

Oh shit. I've never seen a namefag get own'd so hard in real time.

Enclosure is the biggest thing imo. You guys are really fighting the good fight, demolishing towns and shit for more farmland.

Fun fact: when you hear about "freedoms" and "liberties" in regards to 17th century England, it literally only refers to land ownership.

You underestimate the practical benefit of loyalty.

>I already know what subjectivity means, if your argument is so solid you should be able to explain how it fits to monarchs and god in your view.
Monarchs and God perceive, think and act. By those standards, they are subjects, not mere objects.

>Having a vote of 1, to the thousands living in my constituency is more empowering than having no vote at all
But only very marginally

>I know it did, I already said earlier that Cromwell was worse than Charles I. My point is that the Levellers are the actual good guys as opposed to the less-bad guys.
Considering they fought against the king, I wouldn't call them good guys. They share the responsibility for what took the place of the king.

>But it hasn't, everyone below the owner is simply another part of the proletariat.
Ownership is very, very widely distributed, often among workers, especially for their retirement funds. It's not the 19th Century anymore.

>The jobs have become more administrative
Yes, processes include an awful lot more middlemen now, and how much of that administration is proletariat, and how much is bourgeois, is very blurred

>Bourgeois demoracy is a marginal step forward.
How? Does popular consent make someone better at their job? Do you think musicians and writers who get the most marketing and popular approval, are far more competent than the musicians and writers who were supported by the old system? The only thing improved is the technology that makes it much easier to produce writing and music and their instruments, but if the technology weren't changed, it would be an absolute nightmare, because it would mean only pop would be accessible.

>And I'm arguing capitalism is a consequence of industrialisation, which is a consequence of inclosure.
Why do you think industrialization is a product of enclosure? You could argue that the workers having much, much, much worse conditions in industrialization than they did under agriculture was due to enclosure but not industrialization itself

>>I know it did, I already said earlier that Cromwell was worse than Charles I. My point is that the Levellers are the actual good guys as opposed to the less-bad guys.
>Considering they fought against the king, I wouldn't call them good guys. They share the responsibility for what took the place of the king.

The British fought against Hitler, therefore they deserve the blame for Stalin taking the place of Hitler in Eastern Europe.

>If you sincerely believe that the bourgeoisie and the nobility are the same class you are dumbass who knows nothing about economics or history.
I don't, but that's because I understand class rather differently than Marx. If the farming techniques advanced enough for the aristocracy for them to export their produce on a mass scale, how would they be distinguishable from bourgeois landowners in Marx's analysis?

It's not a matter of the rights of an individual, it's the rights of a family. You can't really understand it because you identify as an individual rather than a family, but if you lived in the past, this question would be rather, "Why should that family have the right more than any other family?" And of course that would be a silly thing to ask, it would be like asking the family who has made shoes for generations, "My family should be making the shoes and your family should do my family's job."

Enclose did not foment industrialization, investment did.

If I had a choice between being a worker in the industrial revolution, and being an agrarian peasant, I'd pick the latter without any pause for consideration

>But only very marginally

Infinitely, actually. Having zero power is infinitely less than having a very small amount of power.

>It's not a matter of the rights of an individual, it's the rights of a family. You can't really understand it because you identify as an individual rather than a family, but if you lived in the past, this question would be rather, "Why should that family have the right more than any other family?" And of course that would be a silly thing to ask, it would be like asking the family who has made shoes for generations, "My family should be making the shoes and your family should do my family's job."

The difference here is that the shoemaker wont go around brutally murdering anyone who says they can offer a better service.

Is it true that you're an orthodox nun tranny IRL?

>Credit and wage labour alone, as happened in cities prior to industrial capitalism is a very incomplete kind of capitalism that poses no real threat to the powers of the nobility.
You're kidding yourself if you don't think there was a struggle between merchant and bourgeois class, and the aristocratic class, prior to industrialization. The English Civil War was essentially about that, and was only possible because the bourgeois class had gotten fairly powerful.

>The nobility simply have no incentive to be interested in urban industry as they are more than comfortable living off of their agrarian estates.
You seem forget that cities generally fell management of nobles as well, and nobles certainly would have an interested cultivating that with industrialization.

>You cannot get negative income tax if you have no income. This is the point.
Negative income tax is highest when you have no income. It's like basic income, except scaled.

>It doesn't
It absolutely does, if you can't see the major distinction between Kim Jong Un in conscience, morality, temperament, and management strategy, this is a completely pointless discussion to continue any further.

>Competition and pragmatic application of loyalty is good.
That's not actually loyalty.

Loyalty purely as utility is not loyalty, is it?

>If I had a choice between being a worker in the industrial revolution, and being an agrarian peasant, I'd pick the latter without any pause for consideration.

I actually agree with you. The Industrial Revolution did a pretty big hit on workers living standards, and Western European (NOT Russian, Chinese, etc.) farmers had it surprisingly comfy.

But it's all relative. That "comfy" agrarian life with all the feast days, traditional pace of life, close to the land, etc., would look and feel like 3rd-world poverty if you were forced into it today. The Industrial Revolution may not have been "nice" to the majority in the sort term. But (besides my belief that it was inevitable) the mass production it enabled was utterly necessary for living standards to increase for the majority in the long run.

No, having negative infinite power is infinitely less than having a very small amount of power. Having zero power is marginally less than having marginal power.

He will if the service is by far the most critical one in the country and craved by many willing to kill the shoemaker for the job.

I'm not a tranny, not sure where this meme comes from.

>Loyalty purely as utility is not loyalty, is it?

It's still loyalty, it's just built on the expectation that it's a two way street. Loyalty without reciprocation is basically the grounds for an abusive relationship. To hear you say it, the citizens of North Korea should be happy to have dear leader at the top; that every beaten spouse should stay with their partner and be happy because they signed a piece of paper.

It's like you seriously have no attachment to the real world at all.

>That "comfy" agrarian life with all the feast days, traditional pace of life, close to the land, etc., would look and feel like 3rd-world poverty if you were forced into it today.
That's solely because our methods of production are much more advanced, we have clothing and food in much greater abundance as well as all sorts of housing utilities. It has nothing to do with a more humane system. And the truth is, this drop in humanness was not required for industrialization, if anything, the work hours should have gone *down*

Dont deny it slut.

You're conflating a deal with loyalty.

The guy in charge of North Korea is there because of populist, anti-monarchist ideology.

>It's not a matter of the rights of an individual, it's the rights of a family. You can't really understand it because you identify as an individual rather than a family, but if you lived in the past, this question would be rather, "Why should that family have the right more than any other family?" And of course that would be a silly thing to ask, it would be like asking the family who has made shoes for generations, "My family should be making the shoes and your family should do my family's job."

Well, if I can do an objectively better job than running the state than you can, is it such a silly thing to ask?

I understand that people in the past may have identified more as a member of a family than an autonomous individual, but I'm not asking why they in the past thought monarchy was justified. I'm asking why you seem to think it is justified today and/or justified in the abstract on moral principles. That "family" line may explain the justifications used in the past but doesn't really justify anything itself.

Right, I get that. I just don't know how we can go back to that sort of comfy lifestyle without also losing the material abundance we have today, which I would pick if I had to pick one. When you say work hours should have gone down, it sounds like you have a solution. Do you?

>Loyalty purely as utility is not loyalty, is it?

Not him but approaching things from a perspective of utility is pretty much the definition of master morality. You are loyal to something so long as it increases your own relative growth. When leaders become corrupt you discard them, by force if necessary.

We discarded monarchism because the emerging capitalist system was superior.

>Well, if I can do an objectively better job than running the state than you can, is it such a silly thing to ask?
You? Or your family? Because the idea of disposable rulers would seem ludicrous for so critical of a task, the idea would be a consistent ruler who lasted generations, which is not an individual, but a dynasty. Consistency and stability were vital for cohesion.

>That "family" line may explain the justifications used in the past but doesn't really justify anything itself.
It does, because your identification as an individual is less arbitrary than to identify oneself with a family. In fact, it's probably more trained and perverse than familial identiication

A great deal of our abundance is excessive and brought about through manufacturing demand. If marketing ceased, it would probably alleviate most of the problem.

>utility is pretty much the definition of master morality.
Yet I'm pretty sure Nietzsche hated modernism and capitalism, and found the older systems much more beautiful.

The Kim Jong is a royal family in all but name. They even use theology to say that God has chosen their family as the rightful ruler of the kingdom. Fuck man Kim Il-sung also united the land under one religion.

In a way Kim Il-sung is the modern day Constantine. Communism is basically the most highly evolved form of Christianity.

Nietzsche was never advocating for going back to the old ways, he was recognizing that old systems of order were long gone and so he looked to the future by drawing inspiration from and criticizing contemporary and historical matters of life.

>Consistency and stability were vital for cohesion
"Were" again, not "are"

>It does, because your identification as an individual is less arbitrary than to identify oneself with a family. In fact, it's probably more trained and perverse than familial identiication

Why is it more perverse?
I'd also argue that they are not entirely incompatible. I definitely identify as a member of a family and my wishes and goals are modified by their culture, expectations, and implications, but I also identify as an individual with inalienable rights. Merely because families with traditions and expectations are a thing doesn't mean my individual rights disappear or that you should be more equal in the eyes of the law than I am.

>murder of Stafford
Charles signed the act of attainder

Nietzsche;s ideal world is a competitive caste system and society that affirms all things, and loves war.

Capitilism has proven itself to be this embodiment. The market is one of the most brutal competitions imaginable, the bussiness man has become the new Aristocrate. In an unrestricted market all things are affirmed, all things are products to be consumed and loved. Everything is made sacred! And of course capitalism is an unstoppable war machine. It defeated both Communinism, Fascism, and a Monarchism (japan) because the system never runs out of steam and is monsterously efficient. It kept pushing until it dominates everything.

Capitilism is also the only real thing advancing art. Art innovation keeps improving every day to keep pace with the huge demands of movies and video games. It has given us the most amazing art tools in such as Maya and produced the next generation of art mediums. You gotta admit 1987 Robocop is a hell of a lot better than thing made from the med-evil period.

They don't even consider themselves a communist country anymore.

All Constantine did was legalize Christianity.

Most importantly, monarchism is authoritarian, not *totalitarian*.

He sure as hell didn't see modernism as "superior" to the old systems, though

Reading Nietzsche as an endorsement of any existing system over another is a mistake.

This includes slave v master morality.

Loyalty is a deal. All interaction is inherently transactional. Seriously, have you no place within this world at all? Do you not see it around you?

Besides, those kings come from somewhere. At one point, they were assholes (well, their ancestors were) disrupting the social norm.

No, zero is infinitely less. It is an infinity, an absolute, so any amount of power is infinitely greater than it.

Yeah, you can read his words on it here: anglicanhistory.org/charles/eikon/2.html

0 is 1 less than 1, not infinity less than one.