Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

(Page 1 of 2)

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Which would you rather live under: a Monarchy or a Communist Dictatorship?

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 1 to 30 of 39


Monarchies because they restrict privileges to fewer perfumed imbeciles....


my grandmother was born outside of Cardiff.
I love Queen Elizabeth and I love the younger generation of princes, but I do sometimes wish that Andrew would piss off, if only because I find him a bit creepy.


How about a system where those at the top are held accountable for their misdeeds? From politicians to bankers to TSA agents?
I'll live under that system anytime.


I always found him fun not such a stuff shirt as Charles, there again I liked Fergus too.
I was born not far from Cardiff.


the last French "empire" was technically a Republic.
had a Republican government and they were electing Presidents, but they still had control over other countries such as Algeria and Morocco.


No it wasn't, and certainly not ''directly''.


I found you through your well remarked criticism of  Moderator's behavior on the News Views channel that you well characterized as  Tyrannical . It's basically a propaganda channel  for  intolerant no-nothings.  Eventually after similar experiences with a tyrannical abusive moderator there, I came across statements, that had I known before posting would have prevented my being misled by the deceptive name of "News Views" that at best should be called "Liberal News Views" since basically none other are allowed, certainly none of consequence.


The UK, Spain, the Netherlands and Monaco etc. are not absolute monarchies.


What about a constitutional representative republic?


possibly, but then you have the fun and games of getting a new head of state in every 4-8 years.
with Elizabeth and others like her, they do absolutely jack-shit instead leaving that up to ministers, but there is a sense of stability and continuity with the crown staying on her for 60+ years and then passing to someone else.
we also haven't had a mad king in centuries although it could still happen.


Tough call.
I'd favor monarchy of the French Bourbon model slightly over the post-Stalin
"reformed" Communism variety because there is more hope for a random great monarch than there is for a great dogmatic bureaucrat, where random isn't supposed to rise to the top. But then Gorbachof, sic, kina sank that theory so really, IDK.
Both are pretty terrible, though.


I disagree only in that communism IS a religion. It is a faith based belief system that requires it's adherents to blindly and unquestioningly follow a set of holy scriptures in spite of abundant real-world evidence to the contrary.


That depends on your definition of Communism.
If it was true Socialism with workers' Soviets forming a representative parliament, I wold choose that system of Government.
If it was just an autocracy like that of Stalin or Mao, I would still pick that; as under an absolute monarchy, where peasants were essentially forced to undergo subsistance farming for their entire life.


What is a ''great monarch'' supposed to do though?
March you off to war, become the patron of a few colleges?
At least you know where you stand with a bureaucratic machine.


Yes, we would have a new head of state, but that would just be a symbol, not an expression of formal policy.


so basically a German-style Republic where the President sort of just sits there, while the Chancellor does all the hard work.


Are you in one of those Gulf States where they'll kick your teeth in if you don't say that?


There's a reason they picked that system after they had to rebuild it in 1945.


I know.


What do you mean? I'm from England


Who knows what a monarch is going to do?
In either case, liberty is not promoted as a human right for the average person.
Not options I'd argue about.
Just saying I'd prefer the less orderly system to hide out in.


''Kings and Queens have created a great country''.
No, it was engineers, financiers and imperialists, not the crown.


You say that, but order does have a greater chance of putting food on the table and maintaining a technical college (if the leadership isn't grossly incompetant).
Hiding in bureaucracy is far tidier for all involved than hiding in reality.


Communism isn't a form of Government, it is an economic system.


Someone respectable made an irrefutable case that the seeds of societal devastation are imbedded in the very idea or philosophy of communism. In short, all the failure and all the horrors of our experiences of that system are its inescapable and inevitable fruit.
I can't give a reference but, if i recall correctly, it boils down to that philosophy being basically in conflict with human nature because, in the end, the best of the honest citizens (most capable and productive) are materially under-rewarded and the worst (least capable and productive) are materially over-rewarded. Skinner's classic research proves this guarantees a society of ever diminishing returns. This, in turn, incentivizes the most capable and productive to become less honest and ever less willingly exploited for others and to eventually become tyrannical, self-serving, control freaks able to exploit everyone else.
It is hard to conceive a better way to guarantee the worst outcome for a citizenry than to put in place a political system whereby the most capable and productive among them are  incentivized to take the wrong moral direction and to gain control over the lives and destinies of a nation's citizenry.


I think that sense of stability and continuity is critical, if that's all the Queen does that is more than enough. The "fun and games of getting a new head of state in every 4-8 years" with the coincident ever-changing and unstable administration,  is killing us over here. .


You give me too much credit, madame.
I may well be boring, but to be considered dull as well is high praise indeed.


You could say,Gun powder kicked everyone into high gear.  Killing became much easier.


I'd prefer a Monarchy. But the thing is, on paper, communism is actually not bad. Everyone gets equal pay, people work for the good of the state etc. But it is open to corruption. That's something I don't think Marx and Engels contemplated.


The whole idea of colonialism or imperialism can be germinated by a monarchy, not by democracy.
Yes in last days of colonialism we started to have democracy to enter deep in our societies that's why colonialism came to end.
And yes Enlightenment is also a cause of successful Europe and moreover  Enlightenment was opposition to monarchy because church had the influence on state at that times, but here we're comparing monarchy, dictatorship and democracy.
The resources from former colonies of European powers has much impact on the foundations of modern industrial Europe. That was only possible through monarchy because a true democracy can't support it due to its humanistic values.
In case of colonies of America, I think America had more an oligarchy rather than a simple democracy throughout its history.

Posts: 1 to 30 of 39

Pages 1 2 Next

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Which would you rather live under: a Monarchy or a Communist Dictatorship?

Similar topics in this forum