|
On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
The book Hitler by Ian Kershaw is where I got most of my information, it's a long book but definitely worth a read. Other than that Stalingrad by Anthony Beever and a lot of reading online.
On the topic of the thread, I voted slightly in favour of monarchy, I don't revere them or anything and don't know anyone who does (for instance I didn't watch the royal wedding or the jubilee or any of that) but I can see the benefit of a system where you have a head of state who is constant over decades and doesn't have to pander to public opinion and can give advice to the current Prime Minister, they can take part in ceremonial duties while the PM does the actual work
And then there's the added benefits of tourism, them being a "cultural export" and the tax money from their lands basically covers their cost of living (the final cost is about 69 pence per year for each person in the country, basically nothing) and all of the charitable work that they do.
Plus the fact that constitutional monarchies usually work out to be the most democratic form of government.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C1bc7dg.jpg)
|
I came to post something, saw that people are actually praising hitler and mussolini.
Yeah, I'll stay out.
|
On April 20 2013 01:57 Iyerbeth wrote:+ Show Spoiler [For Length] +Ok, so I was considering putting some time in to write up a decent anti-monarch reply to dismiss the common claims but early in the thread it didn't really seem worth it, but the last couple of pages have proved it might just be worth it. So here goes... Before I begin presenting the case, it's important I make a couple of points clear. The reasons I'm about to post aren't what caused me to take a republican stance they merely support the position. The reason I oppose the monarchy is simply that hereditary power and wealth by birth right to a single family is abhorrent to every sensibility I have. The reasons I will include here are primarily arguments against the monarchist position from a British perspective. Finally, whilst I may not quote www.republic.org.uk often, my early education in the subject was informed from that site so many of the arguments could probably be found in a similar form somewhere on that site, therefore it seems only fair I credit them (though I don't entirely agree with all their positions either). The Tourism ArgumentThe ClaimOne of the most often repeated claims of the benefits of having a British monarchy is that they bring in tourist cash. Were we to get rid of the monarchy the cost to the british tourist industry would be huge. ResponseReally, this claim should be dismissed without any evidence to the contrary. Even if it were true, is "well foreign people think it's kinda funny" a good way to decide on the head of state? Or maybe decisions of who gets to be the head of state should be made on which option gets most money from tourists? These are obvious preposterous positions. Fortunately, they're also based on a complete falsehood. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions tracks the number of tourists visiting attractions over time. Their figures for 2012 show (after enough scrolling) that not only do the royals not play a particularly big role in tourism, it might actually be better if they vacated their properties permanently such that we could open them as museums In case you had any concerns of the potential bias in the figures, the president of ALVA is the Duke of York. The Finances ArgumentThe ClaimIn a similar way to the tourist argument, this claim is that the royals bring in such an income to the country that it could lost billions in lost revenue if we no longer had them. Fortunately many monarchists even wouldn't go that far and simply assert that they don't cost much and perhaps even result in a slight income. ResponseThis claim should really be considered as absurd as the tourist one in terms of the pure 'money' argument in that it's absurd to make a decision about who should be head of state on the idea that we might make a bit of cash. As it is the cost of the monarchy has increased almost every year for at least the past 20 years. The civil list cost has officially been locked since 2001 at £7.9million ( source) and yet we find that the cost has increased every year between 1991 and 200 until it dropped mildly in 2009 following a £2 million rise the year before ( source). They managed to rally themselves though for 2010, dropping again in 2011 by £700,000 to a mere £13.5 million according to the official royal finances. With all this money over the £7.9m though, are they funding themselves? ..no, of course not. The lock on the civil list came after 10 years of huge over payments and the money is taken from the 'civil list reserve' to make up the difference, which is to say the money they didn't need to spend in the 90s ( source). But in 2011 the civil list reserve was running out, so rather than maintaining the "freeze" of finances which had resulted in more money every year a new system has been installed known as the sovereign grant. This grant gives the Queen 15% of the crown estates net revenue which even according to conservative sources bemoaning it isn't more is an increase of £5 million for this year. But wait, there's more! When you take a lot of the costs in to account we get the official cost of the royals at 62p per head in 2010 ( source). This number has obviously increased, but since I can't find more recent data we'll stick with 62p for now. It's important to notice that the official figures refuse to include security which is likely another £100m according to even pro monarch papers in the Briain ( source). The estimated costs in total end up being around £202million in 2010 ( source) which makes it roughly 100 times more expensive to maintain than the salary of the Irish president ( source) for example. Maintaining an entire family of wealthy elite isn't cheap, and it certainly doesn't bring money in to the country. The Stability ArgumentThe ClaimMany of the most developed countries in the world have monarchies. Indeed, many of the most stable in the world too. Without a monarchy, we would lose that stability. ResponseTo this claim there is the obvious retort that many countries, including the US, are able to be stable and developed without a monarchy, and the fact that many monarchs around the world are anything but (for example, Saudi Arabia and Thailand). The point is that, it's more likely that stable countries keep their monarchs than that monarchs produce stable countries, not least because of the examples throughout history of countries after the removal of monarchs. Britain won't fall apart if the Windsors are removed from power. The "They Don't Really Do Anything" ArgumentThe ClaimThey're relatively benign, and they don't really do anything or cause any harm so we don't really have any reason to get rid of them. ResponseIt is certainly true that the current monarch doesn't really do that much, but that's no reason at all to leave an unaccountable, unelected head of state. Especially when that unaccountable head of state provides all the authority for parliament. Even more so when that power includes a royal veto which is still used and which has been offered 39 times ( source). On top of that, we're still left with the position of a head of state which is not only undemocratic, but is also the very definition of anti-democratic nepotism!
Unfortunately I don't have time to finish this right now, but I'll cover topics such as 'Tradition' 'Hard Working and Charitable' and 'International Diplomacy' and the laughable 'Trained from Birth' (which I wasn't going to until it actually came up in this thread) tomorrow.
Before I start part 2, I just need to correct a slight error in my post. I had written that the civil list had been frozen at £7.9m since 2010. This was a typo, the civil list had been officially frozen since 2001 but the explanation that it wasn't a real pay freeze, with year on year rises (save for the two exceptions explained), remains accurate.
The Crown Estates Argument
The Claim
This claim typically refers to the idea that taking the lands (and the revenues they generate) from the monarchy is either wrong and/or will be an expensive and protracted process. Sometimes this also includes the idea that taking their property and wealth in general has similar problems.
Response
So, my response to this might be a bit coarse, as it'd be 'why not?'. They've leeched from us for long enough and been well compensated, there's no reason at all the country shouldn't just sieze their stuff and kick them out of their homes and let them live like everyone else. I appreciate though that not everyone is going to share that view, so I'll include a more reasonable reply which is more typical of a republican position.
So in a less terse response, the most important point that needs to be made is that the royal estates are not the property of the queen, and certainly not of the Windsor family. The crown estate was established for the state at a time when the monarch actually funded the affairs of state. At the time this was exchanged from one state branch to another (the government) the funding of the state passed over aswell. This estate belongs to the British state, not to the monarch and absolutely not to one family. The fact that they're now getting 15% of the income from it in a move of political spin from the 'benign' palace shows simply how important it is to get rid of them. There is literally no claim to be made by the Windsor family to the money, so it is in no way theft to not give them all that land and property when they leave.
Now, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it so how about we use the explanation by the Crown Estate itself to judge:
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.
To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.
-source
This position is affirmed elsewhere on the site with the explicit statement that "No, this [claim that the estate is the queen's property] is misleading." Getting rid of the monarch merely means the Crown Estate continues paying its income to the treasury, and the Windors lose nothing - by virtue of never having it. And yes, that also means the crown jewels belong to the people of Britain, and not the Windsors.
It's also worth noting therefore that the myth that this income makes up for the cost of the monarch and should be considered as a surplus to the taxpayer on behalf of having a monarchy, it outright shattered. It's unsurprisingly believed by some people since Charles especially has spent the past 20 years trying to convince the public otherwise (source), but it is an outright fabrication and a money grab.
Unfortunately though, this claim is far from done. Were I to leave it here, the claims 'What of the duchies!?' would inevitably follow from the more informed monarchists on the site who I imagine would never let me get away so easily. Fortunately I can refer to The Official Site of the British Monarchy which explains with regard to Cornwall at least:
Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).
He is in effect a trustee, and is not entitled to the proceeds of disposals of assets. The Prince must pass on the estate intact, so that it continues to provide an income from its assets for future Dukes of Cornwall.
It's also worth noting that in court the Duchy has also been recognised as a public body. (Source).
There is no legitimate claim by the Windsor's to any of these lands, except those few homes which belong to their personal private estates. The crown lands belong to the state, as they always have, and there would be no theft of property needed to remove them from their current position.
The International Diplomacy Argument
The Claim
According to this claim, the work that the royals put in to international diplomacy is invaluable, securing trade and diplomatic ties.
Response
The first and most obvious point to bring up here is that the vast majority of diplomatic work is done, unsurprisingly, by trained diplomats. Especially unsurprising since the queen actually appoints diplomats to do that work (there were around 2000 diplomats last year -source). Between 1952 and May 2011 the Queen has undertaken 108 state visits (source). That's less than 2 a year! She must be rushed off her feet with all this diplomacy; being given gifts, seeing children dance and shaking people's hands once or twice a year.
Of course though, it isn't just the Queen. According to the official monarch website they do perform 2000 "official engagements" a year total for everything (diplomatic or otherwise, including all UK events) when you take the whole royal family in to account . They're pretty good at partying though, with 70,000 guests a year attending their parties. (Sources).
In addition to their lack of diplomatic work, the work they do actually do could quite easily be done by other people without any particular worry. The head of the state being sent to give a readied and choreographed talk and meeting is going to be regarded as highly whoever that head of state is, provided they don't screw it up (say, by dressing up as a nazi [source] or being generally offensive... [source]) or anything. Can you image the complaints if this claim were true "Oh, the US is only sending their president to shake hands, not a monarch. Obviously they don't care about diplomacy"?
The idea that a royal family is needed for diplomacy is kinda silly, and we're all fortunate they don't do much of it.
The Tradition Argument
The Claim
Britain has traditionally been a monarchy and it would be a great heritage loss. This claim sometimes includes the loss of traditional ceremony associated with the monarchy.
Response
Even at the best of time "it's tradition!" is a bad reason to keep doing something. There's also no reason to chuck out all the traditional ceremony of the guard or the head of state sending letters to people. It's actually hard to think of anything important that would be lost in terms of "tradition", and it's certainly not a reason to keep an undemocratic system in place.
The Hard Working/Charitable Argument
The Claim
Somewhat tied to the diplomats claim, the royals are said to be very hard working individuals. They have hundreds of appointments a year, and also raise considerable money for charity.
Response
Ideally I'd just quote former deputy private secretary to the prince of Wales, Mark Bolland from the documentary "Janet Saves the Monarchy":
"the Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard"
and with the sources from the diplomat question be done with this one, but for the sake of completion I'll keep to the same standard as other questions.
So, first, if we're going to judge who should be head of state by how hard someone works, then probably most politicians and certainly every manual labourer in the country is a better choice than any of the royal family. Presumably though, the argument goes that the monarch are also hard working, so deserve their unquestioned, hereditary and anti-democratic position at the top of class society. It's worth noting that an alternative without the baggage would be quite capable (and expected) to work hard.
As I have already somewhat shown though, the work of the royal family on the whole is minimal and even by their own most exaggerated definition, catch all of anything they did definition used by their own sources, at best the entire royal family contributes 5 undefined engagements a day to the UK, which do include parties and attending dinners. Not exactly what I'd call hard working.
As to the charity claim it is true that, of the millions of pounds they're unduly given on behalf of the British tax payers to a single family rather than to helping they people of Britain, they do give some to charity. But what of the work they do? Well, even their own website struggles to come up with anything but lending their name and celebrity status to a charity - something we hardly need the monarchy for.
The Trained From Birth Argument
The Claim
The monarch has been trained from birth to be the head of state and so is the best trained for the job.
Response
I need to start this response with a quick preface. Fortunately, in my experience, this is a position that most monarchists don't actually hold. I wouldn't have even brought it up here if it wasn't used as a reason earlier in this thread and I hadn't heard it before as I think it would have been unfair to suggest this is a common argument of the opposition. It's not a common reason and I'm not trying to strawman the majority of the opposition who will generally attempt more sensible issues, like the others I've addressed in these posts.
Ok, so...yeah. First, and most obviously, we could train anyone from birth to be the head of state if that's really what you value as a job qualification (Britain's Next Tot Monarch?). The idea that someone must be trained from birth, or that it's somehow advantageous is laughable, especially when you consider how many people have been trained for jobs since they were old enough to understand the concept and do remarkably well. For examples see every single other job on the planet. Inventors and decent politicians for instance don't need to be trained from birth to fill the role. Many other countries in fact do quite well with a head of state who is someone who has actually been judged to be a good fit for the position, rather than just hoping that telling them from birth to be good at it is sufficient. There is no other job in the world this argument would be accepted for, it is utterly ridiculous.
And of course, you still have to explain Philip.
The President Blair/Cameron Argument
The Claim
If we get rid of the monarchy we'll have a US style president who runs the country and it'll be political and short sighted. A neutral monarch who doesn't have to worry about being held accountable at elections can focus on being the head of state to a far greater capacity than an elected president.
Response
There is no reason (nor suggestion that I'm aware of) that the replacement head of state need be a political figure. We already have the speaker of the house as a neutral political figure, there is no reason at all that we shouldn't be able to establish something similar. Additionally there's no reason that the president needs to be head of parliament or to expand the powers of the head of state beyond a ceremonial role, ensuring that parliament acts only within constitutional boundaries and representing the UK when necessary.
Well, that's all of the ones I can think of. If you think I've misrepresented the monarchist position anywhere, or missed an argument which somehow makes up this terrible and anti-democratic system then let me know and I'll do my best to cover that one too. As I'm sure you can imagine, this has taken hours to research, write up and source correctly so if I've missed something obvious it's not intentional.
|
On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
|
On April 20 2013 23:15 Steveling wrote:
I came to post something, saw that people are actually praising hitler and mussolini.
Yeah, I'll stay out.
Really? I'll definitely enjoy reading those posts. Even so there are probably only a small minority of people who do that, you don't need to stay out on account of a few people!
I think the most interesting part of this thread, is that nearly a quarter of people think the ideal government is one where there is *no* government. Anarchists unite!! Maybe not now, but in the future, I hope that vision becomes a reality, unless its horribly unpractical and leads to lots of destruction/chaos. Also thank you Lyerbeth for that crazy informative post. I hope it gets reposted so no one forgets your hard work!
|
On April 20 2013 20:39 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 06:02 mcc wrote:On April 20 2013 05:07 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote:
I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'. The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land. And it was Polish before Germany, Russia and Austria destroyed Poland. And what about Czechoslovakia it was also German ? No it wasn't. Prussia wasnt a part of Poland since the 16th century when german nobles inherited the remaining lands of the Teutonic Order in eastern Prussia. these discussions lead nowhwere. Poland was reshaped so often and didnt exists for such long times that you can argue any way you want depending on how far back in time you want to go. And Czechoslowakia was for the longest time a very important part of the Holy Roman Empire and later it was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That doesnt mean that it was predominantly german but minorities existed and they were abused to make silly claims on land. However you want to spin it, millions of people lost their homes or lives in WW2 all over europe
Germany did not only take Eastern Prussia. So no, what Germany took was not "stolen" land. And my point was that the history of the region is so complex that going back in time and pointing "this was ours" is useless, which is what the poster I responded to was doing. As I can just respond that even what Germany lost after WW2 to Poland was just a land that Germans stole from Poland as it was Polish in 10th-11th century.
Bohemia was part of Holy Roman Empire (which is not the same as Germany so don't see your point), Slovakia was not. Austro-Hungary was also not part of Germany so again what is there to contradict my statement ? German minorities were abused after WW2, which is not surprising, not really before so please.
The only person spinning anything is the guy I respond to. And maybe you if you want to imply anything of the sort that Germany was not responsible for those millions of people losing their lives and homes.
|
On April 20 2013 23:05 jello_biafra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. The book Hitler by Ian Kershaw is where I got most of my information, it's a long book but definitely worth a read. Other than that Stalingrad by Anthony Beever and a lot of reading online. On the topic of the thread, I voted slightly in favour of monarchy, I don't revere them or anything and don't know anyone who does (for instance I didn't watch the royal wedding or the jubilee or any of that) but I can see the benefit of a system where you have a head of state who is constant over decades and doesn't have to pander to public opinion and can give advice to the current Prime Minister, they can take part in ceremonial duties while the PM does the actual work And then there's the added benefits of tourism, them being a "cultural export" and the tax money from their lands basically covers their cost of living (the final cost is about 69 pence per year for each person in the country, basically nothing) and all of the charitable work that they do. Plus the fact that constitutional monarchies usually work out to be the most democratic form of government.
I think I saw that list sometime ago on wiki, can you post a link ? Anyway that list seems strange when France is below SK or Japan, or US for that matter. Would be interested to see what they actually measure.
|
On April 20 2013 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte?
Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
|
On April 21 2013 00:01 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 23:15 Steveling wrote:
I came to post something, saw that people are actually praising hitler and mussolini.
Yeah, I'll stay out. Really? I'll definitely enjoy reading those posts. Even so there are probably only a small minority of people who do that, you don't need to stay out on account of a few people! I think the most interesting part of this thread, is that nearly a quarter of people think the ideal government is one where there is *no* government. Anarchists unite!! Maybe not now, but in the future, I hope that vision becomes a reality, unless its horribly unpractical and leads to lots of destruction/chaos. Also thank you Lyerbeth for that crazy informative post. I hope it gets reposted so no one forgets your hard work!
Consider age profile of this site, then consider that most of those people will change their views between 18-30 and no, it will not happen. However young people deny that their views will change, they will, happened for last few thousand years, will happen again.
|
On April 21 2013 01:36 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 23:05 jello_biafra wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. The book Hitler by Ian Kershaw is where I got most of my information, it's a long book but definitely worth a read. Other than that Stalingrad by Anthony Beever and a lot of reading online. On the topic of the thread, I voted slightly in favour of monarchy, I don't revere them or anything and don't know anyone who does (for instance I didn't watch the royal wedding or the jubilee or any of that) but I can see the benefit of a system where you have a head of state who is constant over decades and doesn't have to pander to public opinion and can give advice to the current Prime Minister, they can take part in ceremonial duties while the PM does the actual work And then there's the added benefits of tourism, them being a "cultural export" and the tax money from their lands basically covers their cost of living (the final cost is about 69 pence per year for each person in the country, basically nothing) and all of the charitable work that they do. Plus the fact that constitutional monarchies usually work out to be the most democratic form of government. I think I saw that list sometime ago on wiki, can you post a link ? Anyway that list seems strange when France is below SK or Japan, or US for that matter. Would be interested to see what they actually measure.
This list is just some amusing fiddling, like "the top 50 guitarists of all time" that pop all the time. Here is the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#cite_note-index2012-1
[B]
As described in the report,[1] the democracy index is a weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.
|
Why don't you tell us where you really stand OP? It's totally unclear. I felt you didn't put enough personal opinion into this thread.
@mcc try and reply in 1 post, posting 4 replies in a row isn't ideal.
|
On April 21 2013 01:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte? Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution.
I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
|
On April 21 2013 02:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 01:42 mcc wrote:On April 20 2013 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte? Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution. I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
Either you literally trust every word Edmund Burke says or your perspective on the whole matter is entirely ahistorical. Which is it?
|
On April 21 2013 02:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 02:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 21 2013 01:42 mcc wrote:On April 20 2013 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte? Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution. I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist. Either you literally trust every word Edmund Burke says or your perspective on the whole matter is entirely ahistorical. Which is it?
So what exactly is historically inaccurate about what I've said?
|
On April 21 2013 02:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 02:19 farvacola wrote:On April 21 2013 02:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 21 2013 01:42 mcc wrote:On April 20 2013 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte? Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution. I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist. Either you literally trust every word Edmund Burke says or your perspective on the whole matter is entirely ahistorical. Which is it? So what exactly is historically inaccurate about what I've said?
Well, insofar as direct historical reference, you aren't wrong. It is the judgement that follows alongside it that is rooted in only one side of the story. Lines like "In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist." approach the matter as though we can excise it from the course of history and hold it aloft for all to see, when in fact, the bloody nonsense that came alongside the French Revolution *might* have been "necessary". Now, I use that word with misgiving, because I don't mean in an explicit sense that violence was unavoidable, rather that the tumult that followed alongside France's cry for revolution is perhaps justifiable in a historical sense. It is easy to look back and say "well they should have all been more level-headed about it.", when in fact, making such a judgement requires intimate and total knowledge of the zeitgeist that gave birth to the revolution, knowledge that is contemporarily almost impossible to come upon.
Furthermore, your indictment of the whole process bears a striking similarity to the writings of Edmund Burke (the OG conservative), so much so that a reader can but assume that you've basically decided to "trust" in that perspective on the French Revolution. I'm not saying that that is necessarily wrong, only that when ones' view of historical truth lines up almost perfectly with a polemic figure of the time, something is likely amiss.
|
On April 21 2013 02:02 Subversive wrote:
Why don't you tell us where you really stand OP? It's totally unclear. I felt you didn't put enough personal opinion into this thread.
@mcc try and reply in 1 post, posting 4 replies in a row isn't ideal.
I probably should, it is just hassle  Plus when the person answers he has to edit my post to remove the other answers. No good solution 
On April 21 2013 02:14 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2013 01:42 mcc wrote:On April 20 2013 23:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 20 2013 08:45 Paramo wrote:
Maybe if I tell you that 170k frenchman died fighitng for democracy during the french revolution you will see what I mean.
LOL.... yeah the French Revolution and it's aftermath were just paradigms of democracy. The Committee of Public Safety was an amazing example of democracy, as was the Directory. And who can forget that shining beacon of democratic hope: Napoleon Bonaparte? Well those guys fighting were probably fighting for democracy or at least for better living conditions without being playthings of aristocracy. That the whole revolution ended the way revolutions nearly always tend(ed) to end is different matter. And I still think French revolution, its end non-withstanding, was still a big step in getting rid of absolutist regimes everywhere on the continent or at least forcing those regimes to become much less dystopian with a threat of revolution. I don't think they were dying for democracy as much as they were using democracy as an excuse to channel their rage at historical mistreatment, ironically culminating in a far more brutal and heinous mistreatment, and ended up slaughtering the very people who were trying to help them, like Marie Antoinette. The way the Revolution ended was the only possible outcome to the way it was conducted, which was without any semblance of rationality or sober self-control. It did away with a monarch only to install an even more dystopian and dominating government, one with absolutely no controls on it's power other than violence and further revolution. In fact, the French Revolution is probably the greatest argument for monarchism that could ever exist.
In all popular revolutions on such a scale, most people who fight are quite decent people whose limits were reached by mistreatment of those in power and they actually want some kind of democracy and in general just not being exploited to such degree. The lack of semblance of rationality and self-control is always the case with revolutions, that is human nature. And people who love power like it that way as that is when they can use the masses to their advantage. French revolution was "necessary" with massacre of the aristocracy. Those in power in other countries noticed and in time realized that if they do not want to be killed themselves they need to allow changes. The massacres afterwards were not, it was hijacked by people who were no different than those that just got killed. The same goes for Russian revolution. And of course that aftermaths of revolutions are worse than state beforehand, does not change their inevitability and responsibility of those that allowed them to happen. I think you imagine those revolutions in very naive way. Like it was some big planned military operation. They are what happens when you push people too far, how does rationality go into this. Especially in those times, with people living in conditions no modern revolutionary knows and level of education so low. Of course the masses will follow on misjudged motivations.
How is French revolution argument for monarchism ? French revolution shows that monarchism has oppressed the people to such degree that they thought that risking their lives in revolting against it was necessary. Any system that leads to masses of people to revolt violently is broken. It shows the value of democracy and education if anything.
Frankly my opinion on democracy is very cynical. I think one of two biggest reasons for democracy is to give those lusting for power (psychopaths most of them) arena where they can get what they want without violent coups,revolutions, .... . They can play their political election games and decent people can live in peace, just paying taxes necessary to pay for those political games to continue. That is not entirety of my view on democracy, I am not that cynical, but it is big part of it.
|
Peddling ideology is fine, but we should stick to contemporary events, when most people are in possession of some fundamental facts.
Incidentally, I'm in a rush to finish a chapter in my dissertation on the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 at the moment, so I won't be doing much historical commentary. As everyone is aware though, 1956 was perhaps the most truly 'popular uprising' in contemporary history. Yet even there it isn't as simple as oppressed people having reached a boiling point under a despotic regime.
In looking at what happened in Poland and Hungary in 1956, I am more struck by its adherence to some recognised principles of the Ancient World, rather than to any rubric of modern ideological propaganda. The more typical prognosis of revolutions still follows the patterns of Thucydides and Aristotle: Lower orders are never capable of either starting or maintaining Revolutions against the Upper Orders of their own initiative. The conditions for Revolution appear when the elite is divided against itself, in which case one faction of the elite (the Greeks called such people demagogues) appeals to the lower orders via promises and concessions, in order to mobilise them against their political opponents. This was the principle demonstrated in the Ancient World by Cleisthenes and the Gracchi, in 1956 by the 'Reform Communists' led by Nagy and Kádár, and in the French Revolution, by the Duke of Orleans and the countless lesser Aristocrats who supported it. Where the elite succeed in maintaining control of the 'revolution', you can have an orderly constitutional transition, possibly under a form of Popular Dictatorship. Where the elite loses control of the 'revolution', as happened during the French Revolution, all chaos breaks loose for a while, until a new ruling class emerges, usually by cobbling together elements drawn from both the Old and New elites.
The reign of Louis XVI was the most liberal monarchical period, perhaps in the history of France up until 1848. This is because by the late-18th century, the walls of formalism erected during le Grand Siecle, separating the social classes had to a great extent evaporated. That, and not exacerbated oppression, created the conditions which permitted the Revolution to succeed.
|
On April 21 2013 04:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Peddling ideology is fine, but we should stick to contemporary events, when most people are in possession of some fundamental facts.
Incidentally, I'm in a rush to finish a chapter in my dissertation on the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 at the moment, so I won't be doing much historical commentary. As everyone is aware though, 1956 was perhaps the most truly 'popular uprising' in contemporary history. Yet even there it isn't as simple as oppressed people having reached a boiling point under a despotic regime.
In looking at what happened in Poland and Hungary in 1956, I am more struck by its adherence to some recognised principles of the Ancient World, rather than to any rubric of modern ideological propaganda. The more typical prognosis of revolutions still follows the patterns of Thucydides and Aristotle: Lower orders are never capable of either starting or maintaining Revolutions against the Upper Orders of their own initiative. The conditions for Revolution appear when the elite is divided against itself, in which case one faction of the elite (the Greeks called such people demagogues) appeals to the lower orders via promises and concessions, in order to mobilise them against their political opponents. This was the principle demonstrated in the Ancient World by Cleisthenes and the Gracchi, in 1956 by the 'Reform Communists' led by Nagy and Kádár, and in the French Revolution, by the Duke of Orleans and the countless lesser Aristocrats who supported it. Where the elite succeed in maintaining control of the 'revolution', you can have an orderly constitutional transition, possibly under a form of Popular Dictatorship. Where the elite loses control of the 'revolution', as happened during the French Revolution, all chaos breaks loose for a while, until a new ruling class emerges, usually by cobbling together elements drawn from both the Old and New elites.
The reign of Louis XVI was the most liberal monarchical period, perhaps in the history of France up until 1848. This is because by the late-18th century, the walls of formalism erected during le Grand Siecle, separating the social classes had to a great extent evaporated. That, and not exacerbated oppression, created the conditions which permitted the Revolution to succeed.
I was of course simplifying, it is forum post, hard to write all the details. Frankly your own description is similarly missing a lot of details. I think the proper statement would be "Lower orders are never capable of either starting or maintaining Revolutions against the Upper Orders without capable leadership". If what you call "lower orders" (which gets more vague as time goes on) have potential to generate such leadership they absolutely do not need "upper orders". The more modern the times the less upper orders are necessary, but also the less is the distinction between those two groups clear. The "upper order" has better training and education to take over the leadership of such movements.
You also ignore that to be able to demagogue-away masses, you need to actually play on things that would motivate them. If people are wealthy enough, not suffering and their lives are stable, good luck finding enough to motivate them to risk their lives. You can still go the ideology route and use religion or nationalism ..., but even that gets harder and harder. So the revolutions still need the "oppressed masses". Yes, the actual detailed mechanism is much more complex than what I (and you) described.
This brings us to your point about France being at its most liberal at the time of French Revolution. Just because things are getting better does not mean that everything is great. Of course people's lives were probably better than during 100 year war, but there was plenty of local revolts all over medieval times. It is not like French Revolution was first time people in France revolted.
But yes, destruction of class differences and existence of middle class and education and technological progress make revolution more likely to succeed as they increase the abilities of revolutionaries to organize the movement better. That is why the revolts in medieval ages were not so successful.
EDIT: What I wanted to point out in the second to last paragraph was that people were at the boiling point all the time in medieval period and all the time until probably early 1900s. But revolutions start where enough people reach that point at the same time and some other conditions appear (the leadership, opportunity,..).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the french revolution was of course important, not because it actually established functional democracy in the immediate aftermath, but because of the revolutionary spirit of remaking society by the people it unleashed. it plays together with enlightenment principles of rationally organizing society for some purpose, rather than being a slave to the past.
so it's done more for the subsequent development of liberal ideas (specifically an abstract representation of the person, vs traditional hierarchy. monarchy is not a constructed ideology like liberalism is), while the material basis of future revolutions is established elsewhere.
monarchy is not a very interesting system. makes for nice drama(Game of Thrones etc), because it taps into whatever routine that makes aristocracy shiny and interesting, but at the end of the day no material difference from a pack of baboons led by the one with the biggest butt or something.
|
I have one argument for Monarchy, but I'm not exactly sure how to word it because it's more of a thought. I kind of feel that the royal family is responsible for the "moral leadership" of a country. They deal with times of crisis with speeches, visiting disaster areas, comforting the affected. During times of celebration they are there to be in the middle of the pomp and circumstance.
They essentially pull the responsibility of a father/mother figure away from the political leader, which in my opinion is something a politician should never have to do. Politicians are there to busy themselves with lawmaking and debates, not holding a nation's hand.
Furthermore, a nation's sense of pride and patriotism is better spent in a monarch than in a president in my opinion. It stops the president from using/abusing certain events for (re-)election purposes and doesn't force him/her to be an ideal citizen and role model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
