18th/19th century enlightened despotism >>> literally every dogshit combination of systems and ideologies the 20th century could come up with

18th/19th century enlightened despotism >>> literally every dogshit combination of systems and ideologies the 20th century could come up with

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolute monarchies sucked, but I am a fan of the semi-constitutional monarchies of the late 19th century

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sun King disagrees

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i always wondered who shills neo-reactionism
    either you think you would be an aristocrat, in which case you're a deranged idiot
    or you know you'd be a serf, in which case you're a literal cuck

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >being a serf is le bad

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Free peasants owned their land, serfs (non-free peasants) did not.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >be peasant out in field plowing
        >accidentally brush leg hard against plow, draws blood
        >you wipe it off and wrap it with a dirty rag because you're a dumb peasant that doesn't know any better
        >couple days later it starts to fester and really hurt
        >slowly getting weaker
        >take a valuable day off to walk 5 miles into town to visit the alchemist
        >alchemist gives you a tincture of st john's wort and horse urine and wishes you luck
        >continue to get weaker, eventually become bedridden
        >wife and 3 kids can only look on in horror
        >die a day later
        >wife and children starve to death a couple weeks later
        but hey at least he wasn't a wagie!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you're dying from a small cut you had a weak immune system and your death improves the gene pool.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you're this dumb you should self select yourself from the gene pool right now.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            greater people have died from lesser things, anon. the point is you posted a fricking meme. you would not survive a week working as a medieval peasant

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ackshually tetanus isn't dat bad guys, look at me and my heckin strong immune system
            You would have died within the month if you went back in time lol

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >be modern wagie
          >do the same thing
          >get $300,000 medical debt
          >get addicted to the opiods the doctor prescribed you
          >end up on the streets
          >at least you don't have a family that starves in your absence because you could never afford one in the first place

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >be modern wagie
            >do the same thing
            >get $300,000 medical debt
            >don't take opiods because it's a scrape
            >Declare bankrupcy because debts are a spook

            Also even if somehow surviving your injury is worse than dying outright from it, there's social safety nets so whether or not you have a family they won't starve.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Worked 20 hours a week
        >Urban middle class American children on IQfy unironically believe you only do 20 hours of work on a farm
        >Urban middle class American children on IQfy unironically believe serfs owned land
        IQfy might actually be one of the lowest IQ boards on this website nowadays.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Serf
        >Own land
        Learn to use a dictionary and look up what a serf is

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My great-grandparents in Iran were like the guy on the left in that pic, and they were fricking extatic to frick off to the city. All those "advantages" don't matter much if you're dirt poor and being physically abused by your superiors.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Worked 20 hours a week
        t. has never worked any form of agriculture in his life

        Not even going to bother reading the rest.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >there's nothing between aristocrats and serfs
      >especially in a time where serfdom was being abolished
      >me so smart

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        's nothing between aristocrats and serfs
        in an idealized reactionary society, yes, absolutely
        wealthy merchants brought about by trading isn't supposed to happen, much less the industrial revolution

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Strawman

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't though. The Ancien regime is supposed to be nobles and peasants, there's not supposed to be a middle class.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Every enlightened despot monarch had to wrangle moronic aristocrats and eventually the aristocrats would get their way by subverting their heirs

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Have you ever heard the tragedy of the Russian German and Austro-Hungarian empires?
    At the turn of the century they were at the height of their power, by the early 20th century they had achieved great progress in economic, scientific and technological feats (the latter two moreso than the former).
    But ultimately they evaporated, wiped off the map by war and revolution.
    Why was this so?
    Ultimately my friend it's because you cannot have economic, scientific and technological progress without social and political progress.
    By 1914 all three still had downright ancient political systems (imperialism) and archaic social structures dating back to the Middle Ages (feudalism had only been recently abolished in Russia at the time).
    This is the lesson we can extract from their story, a lesson that is especially relevant to us in the 21st century.
    We've made great advances in medical science and computer technology but we're still running an economic system first put in place in the late 18th century and a stratified social structure going back to ancient times.
    If we don't adapt our primitive social, economic and political systems no amount of scientific and technological progress is going to stave off the collapse of our societies.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >no amount of scientific and technological progress is going to stave off the collapse of our societies
      Could have just ended it right here, no system will ever save us. Utopian thinking always gets shattered in the end. By 2037 industrial output will be half of what it is today, by 2050 food output will be half of what it is today according to the updated Limits to Growth model. Nothing will stave out a collapse that is that sudden and with declining resources to deal with it. It's also a best case scenario. The only truth of political systems and forwardness is that liberal democratic systems got lucky with technological progress and resources. That's it, really. It has nothing to do with the system itself and in fact many technological advances have happened in autocratic countries run by despots.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What a pseudointellectual post. Germany and Austria-Hungary did not have "ancient" political systems, they had democratically elected parliaments with full legislative powers. Not the power to appoint the government though, but the government had to work with parliament to get anything done and it was the government, not the monarch, that held most of the executive power. And in terms of social progress, there was hardly a single nation in the world that had more extensive labour rights and a larger welfare state than Germany had at the time. They weren't that different from the western powers, and its likely that the western powers would have faced similair political uppheavel had they lost as they had their fair share of social unrest even as victors, like the French mutinies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And in terms of social progress, there was hardly a single nation in the world that had more extensive labour rights and a larger welfare state than Germany had at the time.
        It's really disingenuous to present Bismarck's welfare state as "social progress", it was a cynical measure to stymie revolution and make the workers loyal to the kaiser, much ike the Prussian education system.
        The Duma and Franz Ferdinand and Wilhelm's reforms were too little too late, if they hadn't been so adamantantly anti-liberal the tectonic societal postwar upheaval wouldn't have been so catastrophic, especially in Russia.
        England and France were better but they still were victims of the Concert of Europe moroning social and political Progress for a hundred years.
        The point still stands doe, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, social and political progress MUST accompany economic, technological and scientific progress or else your society is doomed.
        There's an interesting bit in the book Survival of the Richest where the author interviews billionaires building apocalypse bunkers in secluded locations like Hawaii and New Zealand.
        All of them asked him on advice to better prepare for when SHTF, when he suggested being nicer to their subordinates they all laughed him off.
        It's that kind of attitude amongst the elites, the refusal to accept that their time is up and that they can somehow benefit from advances in science and technology without a fundamental rearrangement in social and political structure taking place, that will do them in.
        Progress is like a wheel eternally turning, you can slow it down but never fully stop it.
        There are only two possible outcomes, you either roll with it or get crushed underneath and get relegated to the dustbin of history.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Progress is like a wheel eternally turning, you can slow it down but never fully stop it.
          I assume you equate progress with egalitarian social values. Plenty of cultures have become less egalitarian as time went on. It doesnt go in one direction at all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's baffling to me how elites are still a thing in 2024. They're an anachronism, a relic from another time that somehow still hasn't been retired already.
            The high inequality we are experiencing today is an atavism, a feature of ancient civilization that has reappeared in modern specimens.
            Truth is we're living in a new dark age where ignorance, superstition and barbarism are the order of the day. If you wonder why it seems like space colonization is farther away today than it was back in 1969 it's because it's as you fear: Western civilization is in full regression.
            The techno optimist Silicon Vallry technocrats are delusional in thinking we can think of some professional managerial way out of this, it will take ditching the musty 300 year old capitalism and stratified society we have today for something new, the only alternative is death.

            >It's really disingenuous to present Bismarck's welfare state as "social progress", it was a cynical measure to stymie revolution and make the workers loyal to the kaiser, much ike the Prussian education system.
            Social progress is social progress no matter the motivation, and those motivations are infact good. Preventing a revolution is not just something that is in the interest of the ruling class, it is in the interest of society as a whole, as revolutions have an inherent tendency to bring about chaos and misery, and the new ruling class will often be alot more tyrannical than the one it overthrew.
            >social and political progress MUST accompany economic, technological and scientific progress
            And it did. That society was not at all doomed, it just could not handle a total defeat in a total war, but no society can handle that no matter how much it has "progressed".

            The abysmal performance of the Austro-Hungarian army was because the traidtion of privileging Austrian officers over Hungarians and other nationalities hampered their effectiveness as a fighting force. The Germans made the mistake of allying with the Ottomans, an even more backwards empire than themselves, who ended up being a liability as they suffered defeat after defeat against Russia.
            Russia was ultimately doomed because the Duma was a poorly conceived compromise that badly mismanaged the war effort.
            Ultimately those societies were doomed because they couldn't adapt, and it looks like Western civilization is about to suffer the same fate.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's baffling to me how elites are still a thing in 2024. They're an anachronism, a relic from another time that somehow still hasn't been retired already.
            Funny how there literally has never been a time in history where elite havent been a thing. Do you think the concepts of mothers and fathers are also an anachronism and a relic from another time?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The abysmal performance of the Austro-Hungarian army was because the traidtion of privileging Austrian officers over Hungarians and other nationalities hampered their effectiveness as a fighting force.
            Deeply flawed strategic planning and the intelligence disaster surrounding Alfred Redl has more to do with the abysmal performance, as both of these things led to the catastrophic AH defeats at the beginning of the war which left their forces permanently crippled. The communication problem was still a major problem though, but you actually got the cause of it wrong as it was a difference in motivation, not privilege, that made some groups (not just Austrians, but also Hungarians and israelites) greatly overrepresented in the officer corps.
            >The Germans made the mistake of allying with the Ottomans, an even more backwards empire than themselves, who ended up being a liability as they suffered defeat after defeat against Russia.
            The Ottomans may have performed badly, but what did it cost the Germans? The answer is almost nothing, as they didn't have to send any large expeditionary force and the Entente couldn't threaten Germany from the new fronts. Considering the amount of resources the Entente had to put in to handle the Turks, it was clearly worth it.
            >Russia was ultimately doomed because the Duma was a poorly conceived compromise
            No, Russia was doomed because it had a Tsar that mismanaged the war effort.
            The Central Powers lost because of strategic mistakes, not because of inherent weaknesses, and to a lesser extent this is also true for Russia.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's really disingenuous to present Bismarck's welfare state as "social progress", it was a cynical measure to stymie revolution and make the workers loyal to the kaiser, much ike the Prussian education system.
          Social progress is social progress no matter the motivation, and those motivations are infact good. Preventing a revolution is not just something that is in the interest of the ruling class, it is in the interest of society as a whole, as revolutions have an inherent tendency to bring about chaos and misery, and the new ruling class will often be alot more tyrannical than the one it overthrew.
          >social and political progress MUST accompany economic, technological and scientific progress
          And it did. That society was not at all doomed, it just could not handle a total defeat in a total war, but no society can handle that no matter how much it has "progressed".

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >What a pseudointellectual post. Germany and Austria-Hungary did not have "ancient" political systems, they had democratically elected parliaments with full legislative powers
        It wouldn't have mattered because the Prussian Junkers still held a lot of power and they were dead-set on living in 1300 except with modern weaponry, population sizes, and industrial capacity that was capable of a lot more destructiveness than had been possible in 1300.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and they were dead-set on living in 1300 except with modern weaponry, population sizes, and industrial capacity that was capable of a lot more destructiveness than had been possible in 1300

          idk the Mongols were pretty capable of motorvating back then. vast areas never recovered from the devastation they caused.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Prussian officer corps sure was bellicose, but so were the officer corps of other countries, and the Prussian officer corps did infact not hold greater political power than their foreign colleagues. The people who did hold political power were also Junkers though, however, they were of a completely different mindset and repeatedly rejected the general staffs requests to go to war in the years before 1914.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Almost 130 years before that, Thomas Jefferson was saying that Europe was 200 years behind America in science, politics, and religion.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      representative democracy is older than feudalism
      imperialism is not a political system, its a mode of foreign policy, the most powerful countries in the world still practice it today by the way
      unlike technological and scientific progress social organization and basic political organization really dont change much at all, they just oscillate between different modes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Why was this so?
      They were defeated and carved up in the largest war of human history up to that point in time.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What a moronic lie.

      In WW1, the central powers did not fail for their institutions, on the contrary, the only nation to fail and collapse due to its backward instituions for the time was the Ententes' Russia. All others had to be dismantled following their defeat.

      The Central powers were defeated for having not acquired the mass of manpower and resources that the entente had. As in all other matters, the central powers, though granted it was primarily Germany, was able to do far more with the lower amount men and resources available.
      All the global empires and America were fully gunned against them, and even that probably wouldn't have been enough the Russians weren't in the picture.

      And how were the British and French empires so successful in acquiring resource?. It may seem like a cop out but it is almost certainly a matter of geography. There is no timeline in this globe where the German, Austrian, or ottoman states could have participated as global maritime empires such as The British French, and Americans(British) and it only takes a cursory glance at a map to understand why.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Kaiser fled Germany before the armistice. You tards can't even get basic facts right

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Same would have happened to France if they received a just bit less support. The British were almost completely removed from the horrors of war, but compared to thr French, the German state endured far more despite being a "despotism".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I doubt that the French Republic would have collapsed or at least maintained its collapse long-term. Look at for example the Second Restoration or the Second French Empire, both of which fell the moment they faced any real adversity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Have you ever heard the tragedy of the Russian German and Austro-Hungarian empires?
      the tragedy was german autism and greed

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you fricking idiots would just love a boot to live under
    frick you're embarrassing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm free because I have the choice between a wide variety of dildos

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this but unironically.
        there is nothing more cucked than the government deciding for you what you can stick in your ass.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Spoken like a true amerimutt.

          So proud.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The last man's only conception of "freedom" is the freedom to stuff whatever garbage you want in your mouth.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    now you wonder why liberals of the day like HG Wells complained about the backward warlord-like nature of European politics

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >pissed off everyone and dragged your nation into an unwinnable war

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"""enlightened""" despotism
    funny how all these governments collapsed under their own weight after WWI while the Republics and Constitutional Monarchies remained standing.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      weimar germany collapsed and got more regressive and it didnt even fight a war
      what do you think about that?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the victors remained standing
      You don't say?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hey they tried I guess

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    only after WWII were the old nobility discredited forever and European c**ts taken over by businessmen and technocrats instead of guys who wanted to LARP as Julius Caesar

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it was a transitional period. the business class was rising in Europe but the old feudal nobility still existed and weren't happy about being replaced. it was also an era of whinnying intelligensia like Nietzsche and Bauderlaire complaining about the new rising social order and mass popular democracy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US had a certain parallel in that the progressive movement was mainly older elite families who felt displaced and threatened by the rising industrial tycoons. It should be no surprise that the Roosevelts, an old Dutch family that had been a name since colonial times, were some of the worst leftists.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the issue was Wilhelm II for being a tard and a guy who let himself be used by the army general staff. Bismarck wouldn't let them do moronic stuff like invade Russia (which a lot of the generals wanted to do) but Willy was a complete idiot with a Napoleon complex.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the issue was Wilhelm II for being a tard and a guy who let himself be used by the army general staff.
      Which wouldn't have happened if the Junker class and Prussian militaristic culture had been done away with like they should have by that point.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But as we cann see with Bismarck they were in fact very much controllable. Wilhelm II. had Imperial ambitions himself it wasn't the Junker class in itself. You also have to understand that Germany was unified through war. You couldn't just ignore the militarism, because the German people largely loved the military, even the liberal middle class. Also the SPD supported the first world war as well. To "blame" it on the junker calss/military is moronic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wilhelm was a paper tiger, those "imperial ambitions" he held were not something that he wished to go to war over, which is why his reign lasted 26 years before a war broke out. You could ignore the militarism, infact you should ignore the militarism, as it wasn't there in the first place, it is a fiction. The social status of the military wasn't significantly different from other countries, and the level of militarization of civilian life wasn't significantly different from other countries. Note the Zabern Affair, when there was a huge public backlash against the military, and this was just half a year before the war started. The SPD supporting the war effort doesn't at all mean that German workers were more militaristic, the SPD had supported strikes incase a war broke out, just like socialists in other countries had, and like the others they quickly changed their minds because the war was perceived as one of self defence. Blaming it on junkers or the military is wrong, but blaming it on the German people in general, which is what you appear to be doing, is also wrong. The only ones to blame are the statesmen who set the preconditions for the July Crisis and the ones who turned the crisis into a world war, and that includes not just German statesmen, but also French, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Serbian, British, and even Italian statesmen, as Germany was not the only culprit or even the main one.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Willy
      No, the issue like you buy into amateur propaganda about him.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is a self-defeating post OP because all the "enlightened" monarchs eventually dropped those ideas real fast when they realized it was all a scam designed to threaten their power.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He looks like a fricking bus driver, no wonder this country is dogshit

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reichboos be like
      >how dare you insult the kaiser by comparing him to a lowly arbeiter?! He looks so majestic in his pickelhaube and cape, VGH this is what the democracy took away from us...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What is wrong with bus drivers?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"Enlightened" despotism
    >Falls apart when your moronic son or nephew takes the throne
    Closest thing to a genuine execution of enlightened despotism was the five good emperors and that fell apart the moment someone said "yeah I know my son would be a shitty ruler and I should adopt a protege to groom, but he's my son"

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I disagree. When looking at the times when enlightened despotism succeeded, it often seems unrelated to the will of the despot themselves. There are either major forces that the despot ends up being subject to, like when you look at the multiple attempts at serf emancipation in Russia prior to Alexander II, or there is a more powerful personality guiding the state than the despot, like Otto Von Bismarck or Sergei Witte. In fact, even when enlightened despotism fails, it is usually because of something outside the hands of the despot as well. The Russian elite embracing pan-Slavism, then that same elite occupying positions within the government, that government being overly compartmentalized, leading to assurances and guarantees which the Tzar himself had very little to do with. Ultimately, the enlightened despot is rendered entirely superfluous within the system designed specifically to operate because of him.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I agree, but the thing is, is over, there iis no way to bring that back, it ended as soon as tye 20th century started, so im sorry, but such a good system would be impossible to modern people.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    18th and early 19th Century American Democracy >>> All forms of government (except the USSR, Nazi Germany, and the Russian Federation) >>> radioactive dogshit >>> Nazi Germany and the USSR >>> Furries >>>

    [...]

    >>> Russian Federation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *