If communism or democracy or liberalism or some other form of ism is the inevitable end of history why did peasant revolts like the one who stablished the second Bulgarian empire or the first two servile wars or the rise of the ming dynasty all immediately choose a monarch as their leader and wanted to stablish a monarchy?
>>16886420> all immediately choose a monarch as their leader and wanted to stablish a monarchy?Most of them didn't choose, shit, anon. Most of it just happened naturally and typically the people that ended up in charge were literal peasant nobodies. The Hongwu Emperor's brothers and sisters were literally sold like fucking sheep.
>>16886420>if the end of history why Bulgaria
>>16886433You literally agree with me
>>16886420by "end" fukushima meant that liberalism is the best we can produce and so far he's right
>>16886440No, because "Choose" implied some kind of consent from the mases. If you want to argue "People in power like to stay in power" I'm not going to argue against that. Even people that actually do try to rule with genuine democratic support after taking over power still typically want power.
>>16886420amogus
>>16886420>If fuedalism isn't the end of history why did it exist
>>16886473feudalism is the end of history, we're just waiting for the return of the hyperborean aristocracy to take their rightful place
>>16886535Hyperborean is the animalistic evil at the core of humanity. It is incompatible with any civilization.
>>16886420Most of them were not as spontaneous as people think. The best preserved of the peasant revolts are the 15th century ones in England preceding war of the roses and they seem to be entirely AstroTurfed by Richard, Duke of York as part of inter court intrigues
>>16886732I mean, they word filtered posting his real name
>>16886735sussy baka
>>16886458Scope glint, upside down
>>16886750There's no such thing as amogusTAKE MEDS SCHIZO SCHIZO SCHIZO
>>16886420I think I heard someone explain once that peasants were more inclined toward an absolute monarchy because they'd reign in the local lords. A monarch as leader might be dictatorial or powerful from the perspective of the common peasant, but they're also at a distance compared to the baron down the valley, and that power can also check the power of those local lords who the peasants had beef with. (Kind of parallels blacks in the American south appealing to the federal government to protect them from state governments and local cops.)
>>16886420If we take an orthodox Marxist perspective it makes imminent sense, being that forms of government are the results of the means of production and not the other way around. Peasant Revolts in the Middle Ages aren't going to establish Communism because they have not yet even established capitalism, and they won't establish Capitalism because the technology and resultant social changes it brings have not yet occurred.
>>16886747First panel, tv, top center-right>>16886970Acropolis, top of rightmost column
>>16886420history was still in its middle stage. Or more precisely, they were not developed economically or technologically to the level needed to sustain liberal democracies (or communism for that matter, though being unable to sustain communism is basically a tautology)
>>16886420There is no end of history and popular revolutions have varying results if there are no professional revolutionaries guiding it ideologically
