yes but only at the end of its life@Reeves !Musicbot

so you are saying that monarchism itself isn’t globalist, but rather the last monarchs themselves were globalists?

Enlightenment led to Marxism actually. Feudalism lost because of industrialism

they end up being global in the sense of the known world at the time through genetics and the pressures of monarchical relations

feudalism began its decay with colonialism

then they collasp because their genetics become completly shit

The Enlightenment leading to Marxism is true much in the way it lead to Neo Reactionaryism

And colonialism was start of industrialism the main reason to make colonies was to get resources.

To support industries

not that there is anything wrong with imperialism, but it made feudalism mostly obsolete

Aren't y'all partnered with Traditionalism (the server)?

everyone knows the Sahara desert is full of resources

Oh and Feudalism ended in the 1500s when serfdom was made illegal

Which capitalism started to form

Incidents like Paris Commune show otherwise

like who thought marrying their cousin literally thousands of times was a good idea that would actually survive and not end up with a cabal of easily influenced fucking tards that go to war with each other.
ie a global tard family

It would make no sense for people to not capture unproductive parts because it would be a very low cost to acquire them

That's kind of hyperbolic

Many Royal families inter-married

Monarchism isn’t about the better of the nation but better for the families and their power

That is like saying why would people take a free tissue with dinner

I agree with that Edickens

was the penis cummune really the first cummie realization?

Supposedly yes

Talk in VC about this lads

The Paris Commune was a what spirred the transition from Utopian Socialism to Scientific Socialism

it was pretty shit and the germans just watched lol

And the division between anarchist and communist versions of socialism

Oh and between Reform and Revolution

Marxism however is the current Hegemonic Socialist position, as it's the most thorough, scientific and also has successfully conducted revolution

"scientific"😂

Yes actually, Marxism is much like a science in how it's conducted. I'm not sure I would call it a science in the modern sense so to speak, but it is characteristic of one

It uses much of the methodology and philosophical backing of a science

i understand that well

It is not. The only two theories that are dominant in economics for example, Keynesian and free market, both are different than Marxist economics

Only Marxists says that their view is scientific. No one else does

There is a lot to unpack here

It is simple. Whether you agree that these two are only dominant theories and whether Marxism is different than them

It seems you're more focused on 'winning' than having a conversation

I am trying to break down the argument in logical form.

May I ask, what kind of right winger are you?