Is the fall of the aristocracy one of the most tragic event in modern history?

>If they were Gods, why did they fall?

The gods did not fall - mankind did - at least those of the formerly Roman states.

youtube.com/watch?v=2DZbXf0Fyn0

>this level of damage control

Ah goddamnit! all of the government's power was exchanged from greedy slimeball aristocrats to greedy slimeball merchants and capitalists. Man those capitalists really fucked up our great system!

Off yourself retard

>Is the fall of the aristocracy one of the most tragic event in modern history?
More or less, the death of aristocracy has led directly to the fall of Western Civilization.

>Democracy: "If I can't get the citizens to vote for my policies, I'll just import people who will."

>Aristocratics literally fight each other forever while the population is poor
>Democratic times come
>the population lives better
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

t. zhid

Living the life of a Russian Peasant is just....

FANTASTIC

>>Is the fall of the aristocracy one of the most tragic event in modern history?
More or less, the death of aristocracy has led directly to the fall of Western Civilization.

Are reactionaries retarded? I know you think civilization is defined by empire building and keeping the "lower races" in their place but in terms that actually matter like material progress we are better than ever.

>aristocrats
>truly holding any higher values at heart

The only reason aristocrats could act like they actually represented those values was the fact that they were spoiled to no end and never experienced what it is lile to set those values to trial in harsh times. Nobles always turned into savages when faced with harsh reallity of life. The only ones amongst them worth a damn were the ones living amongst peasants.

At least when the aristocrats ran things power was exercised openly and you could point out the people who rule, rather than the current system where power is obfuscated behind layers of bureaucracy and filtered through countless financial institutions, think tanks and "charity" foundations. When things were bad you could point at the castle and say "THERE is the man behind this! Let's try and fuck his shit up!". You would fail of course but at least the castle was there in the open.

It's not that I'm agreeing to have capitalists over aristocrats, its the just funny having someone trying to justify the era of aristocrats and kings over what we have now. Like most of the aristocrats being shiny examples of helping the people and being "honourable".

Material "progress" is a spook.
We live "better" because of the devil's bargain we've made with technology that allows us to consume resources at a faster rate, not because of political nonsense like "democracy".

>Power and wealth transferred from those who believed in honour, duty, and dignity

You mean the class of hedonistic, lazy, leeching, spoiled, obstinate and frequently monarchy-usurping nobles? You dumb fuck. Nobles were obsolete as early as in the time of absolute monarchies. By the time of the end of the absolute monarchy, they were an anachronism at best.

Aristocrats were very concerned with material wealth, they were speculating on land long before the modern economy came into vogue, and were consumers of luxury goods.

> not because of political nonsense like "democracy".

Capitalism cant exist without a political order that supports it, at the time of its inception it was intimately tied with political liberalism

the argument agaist democracy can be summed up as thus: chickens cannot be trusted to take care of the hen house, so lets give that authority to a fox instead.

I just resent being told that I should be grateful for the "right" to vote in a system that I have no actual power over. When most people don't even vote, and my paper rights get violated without consequence, how exactly is republicanism an improvement over aristocracy?

>Aristocrats were very concerned with material wealth,
I never said other wise.

>Capitalism cant exist without a political order that supports it, at the time of its inception it was intimately tied with political liberalism

"Capitalism" is the default human condition, and doesn't need political permission or support to exist, the existence of black market is testament to this fact.

That's because all your options are neo aristrocrats of picked by them. There's no point in crying over the loss of aristocracy, because by the end of the day there's no real difference. You're still being shit on by people with too much wealth to have to fear for the consequences of their actions.

Its more stable for one, and while there is still great deal of inequality its not encoded into law.

Look at how acual aristocratic countries were structured. Even if you were born rich, if you didn't have the right blood line your options were still limited unless you bought your way into nobility.

Farmers were not allowed to kill animals eating their crops because game laws reserved hunting right for nobles.

It was hard to get a military commission without a noble background.

The upper levels of the clergy were controlled by the nobility, making them one in the same.

It wasn't just that the nobility was in charge, they had legal and traditional rights and privileges denied to everyone else

>the population lives better
???
The world is not USA, retard

>"Capitalism" is the default human condition

The old nobility certainly did not accept this as fact. They believed the main forms of capital should be in the hands of the elite and trade, if not penalized, should be controlled by a central authority.

Charlie is a good lad, and the only true aristrocrat desu.

By your logic there is no difference, thus making your complaint utterly pointless. It is in fact easier to become a modern aristrocrat than it was before, so what is the advantage of having an obsolete nobility again?

>There's no point in crying over the loss of aristocracy, because by the end of the day there's no real difference.
The fact that they lacked anonymity is a very real difference, as it was easier to for them to lose prestige by being linked to corrupt and indecent behavior.

>It is in fact easier to become a modern aristrocrat than it was before,

This is literally the illusion upon which the whole system is built upon. No it is not any easier to become an "aristocrat" now, because just like then you still need the approval of others higher in the hierarchy to advance.

And they raised armies and developed systems artificially designed to suppress it. Very distant in scale from 2 people exchanging goods.

> They believed the main forms of capital should be in the hands of the elite and trade, if not penalized, should be controlled by a central authority.
So?
Free-market capitalism is not the same thing as capitalism.

You can find similar issues today, for instance the complaint of farmers being legally restricted from killing pests still exists today through environmental regulations.

your definition of capitalism seems to be the same as "trade" which is absurd

Any economic concept that strays beyond trade ceases to be economics and becomes ideology.

Capitalism is an ideology on how trade should work

Free trade over tariffs

free enterprise over guilds

minimal regulations on producers, merchants, and bankers,

This is pointless semantics.
Let's get back to the original point of contention, I say that our current level of comfort has nothing to do with republicanism and everything to do with technology allowing us to burn through resources at a quicker rate. We are more comfortable not because we can vote or because we can own property but because the table-scraps from the economic elite has (or had) increased to the point they can be confused with a meal.

Consider this thought experiment.
Imagine two possible dystopic futures.
A). Technology collapses but our Republican institutions and free trade principles endure.
B). Republicanism collapses and free-trade is restricted but technology continues to advance.
Which do you see having the higher average standard of living?

>implying the US is the only demcoracy that is well off
Wow....

non-aristocrats lived through shit all their lives

after the fall of the aristocracy, everyone lived through shit in their lives

except jews

i would say it's a fair deal

warrior nobles are the only nobles, everything else is a sham

>No it is not any easier to become an "aristocrat" now, because just like then you still need the approval of others higher in the hierarchy to advance.

Whereas in the past, it was 100% impossible to advance because such things were determined by birth and marriage (and marriages are pre-arranged).

You ungrateful shit. You have no idea what you're lamenting.
Who do you think are?

why do you fucking /pol/tards have to bring this shit in every discussion even when it has nothing to do with it? do you spend all day thinking about them ebil invaders destroyers of da white race?

if becoming a noble was impossible how could people be nobles to begin with?

Here's a secret: [spoiler]the aristocracy never fell, it just changed appearances[/spoiler]

It wasn't unheard of. Wealthy lowborn Venetians could purchase titles of nobility. It helped fund venice's massive state fleets

If anything, they have it better now, because now they can blend in with everybody else while still being fucking loaded.

Modern aristocracy are the political dynasties, bankers, billionaires, artists, world-class athletes, media personalities and so on.

In common with the old aristocracy, they continue to treat the common people as mere pawns for their global politics games. Every global trend is instigated and influenced by them.

Meritocracy is a superior system than Aristocracy. European knights learned that the hard way when the Mongols rampaged their way from the steppes of Central Asia to the Baltics.

They didn't learn enough until 18th or 19th century when the British finally switched to a meritiocratic system.

>lamenting the death of the aristocracy
t.someone who would probably be stuck as a poor farmer, common laborer, or a lowly monk

>Currency is ideology
>Property is ideology
>Taxation is ideology
My Gott

>t. Enlightenmeme fag

>monk
>lowly

Nah.
Confucian bookworm NEET life>Inbred retardation

Not an argument. If you want to defend monarchism as an institution you cannot defend aristocracy at the same time - they were opponents. Aristocracy's main function was to depose and replace the monarchy,