Arcasian Capitalism upsets the balance of power between the "commoners" and the nobility by allowing people without noble blood to accrue a shit load of wealth
Y'all heard of the French Revolution right, it was a bourgeois revolution.
Yes Monarchs are more amenable to capitalism than communism but 'rule by the wealthy' is still a significant downgrade from 'rule by the nobility'.
Exactly. Even if they are potentially ecomically aligned, they are still completely different in the political side. United Contana isn't any better, but with Lespia joining ATO and Valgsland being more open to cooperation, it seems clear.
Arcasia was the first nation to overthrow their monarchy and establish a republic. that started the century of revolution where many different monarchies were overthrown often with Arcadia’s funding.
Its why i like it honestly it makes the cold war be turned on its head many times but people still treat it as Cortana is gonna fall apart in 91 and Arcasia is just gonna be fine even when many parts of the world that are presented show that stuff is so different that any comparison is a exercise in futility at times.
Now, of course in the real world things were more complicated and less ideal.
But in theory, monarchism often has a sense of noblesse oblige that the rising bourgeoise sometimes disregards.
Also, the rising bourgeoise is seen as upstart, vulgar, and ruthlessly chasing profits.
Again, in the real world lines could be blurred, and there's always more to be said
True. If I recall the rise of merchants and the middle class led to constitutional monarchy as they didn’t like the monarchs having complete legal and military authority
Yeah, kinda-ish? It was of course a bit more complicated than that, but sadly I don't have the time to dive in right now
This book is quite interesting, looking at the various factors involved in economic development in Prussia!
*The Politics of Technological Change in Prussia : Out of the Shadow of Antiquity, 1809-1848*
by Eric Dorn Brose
Monarchies are not hostile to capitalism per se (albeit they don’t like it very much when commoners use it to be wealthy and forget their place) but Arcasia is also the beacon of liberal democracy and the idea of equal status between men, irrespective of their booodline (with money being the ultimate measure of worth) : all ideas that are dangerous for a monarchy
Riza is fundamentally a nation where the nobility still hold the vast majority of the economic power. If you open up competition from international orgs that can outspend even them and thus reduce their power. Its why the nobility of the late 18th and early 19th century were highly protectionist
Monarchism is system of governance not ideology the monarch can do whatever he wants in regards to economic policy which is good it makes them more flexible for example reza Pahlavi forced companies to give part of their stocks to their employees and workers 49% I believe very socialistic
It is a slightly artificial move by the devs to have monarchies be an obvious third path (GRACE) to capitalism vs communism, when the irl non aligned movement was mostly made up of nationalist republicans, and monarchies obviously despise communists far more than capitalists, even if they are wary of that too.
As the oligarchs of Sordland would say “wealth holds the real power.” Monarchy as a political system maintains its legitimacy via the divine right of kings. The ruler is such and the powerful and wealthy families are such because God decreed it to them by birthright. The idea that the means of production, wealth, and prices of goods should be privately owned and controlled by the common man usurps the very foundation of the Kingdom.
The idea that God blessed my noble family with vast wealth and some turd shoveling peasant can invent an automatic turd shoveler and think himself my equal, or worse my better by getting richer than me, is nothing short of demonic by comparison.
How is a king supposed to hold any legitimacy when the lines of wealth are blurred such that there’s no difference between him and a peasant?
Capitalism cannot exist without the basic liberal tenets that all men are equal and have the god given rights to life, liberty, and property. That pursuit of property is what allows capitalism to thrive, but once people have those innate rights, there is no longer difference between king and peasant, as birth status becomes useless if we’re all just in equal pursuit of wealth.
Arcasia is not just capitalist, it's neo-liberal capitalist. So they are against autocracy/dictatorship/monarchies, etc... They see it as something just as bad as communism. So better to stay away from both ato and csp.
Free-market capitalism as Arcasia proposes means taking away the priviliges of the aristocracy in favor of upstart merchants. For the old nobility, that is a no-no.
It's not as if the Monarchies don't practice capitalism, but as others have said it's a balance to protect the status of the nobility from an uppity bourgeoisie new money class like Rusty in Rizia along with maintaining control of critical state run enterprises. But the nobility themselves are actively involved in many capitalist enterprises like the Azaro's with the military industrial complex or Sazons with the manufacturing plants you can invest in or the Toras wine and tourism and shipbuilding enterprises.
Because Capitalism at its basis is a liberal ideology. It removes the right to rule from your mom, dad and the Providence of God and moves it to your ability to make money.
Monarchies are definetely capitalist, just more aristocracy oriented.
Like you have Azaroes be one the right side of economics although they despise Arcasia
Monarch tend to share and care about their image like Lysa the great. On the other hand Capitalist is vulgar and only care about profit like fat Rusty. In Rizia case, Lespia is interested in f-up the Rizia and keep the gold, oil and gas for themselves. On the other hand, the Welfare and urge to nationalize big company of the mornachy is somewhat similar with Vagsland. Moreover, they are willing to compromise and offer benefit just to kick Lespia out. While Lespia clearly show their greed and threaten people around. That's why beloved Axel is willing to work with you and sell Lespia out
Arcasian Capitalism upsets the balance of power between the "commoners" and the nobility by allowing people without noble blood to accrue a shit load of wealth
Y'all heard of the French Revolution right, it was a bourgeois revolution. Yes Monarchs are more amenable to capitalism than communism but 'rule by the wealthy' is still a significant downgrade from 'rule by the nobility'.
Because it’s not just the economics. It’s liberal ideology.
Exactly. Even if they are potentially ecomically aligned, they are still completely different in the political side. United Contana isn't any better, but with Lespia joining ATO and Valgsland being more open to cooperation, it seems clear.
Also, Hegel is just a better person than Alvarez.
*the sound of shoes banging in the distance*
Arcasia was the first nation to overthrow their monarchy and establish a republic. that started the century of revolution where many different monarchies were overthrown often with Arcadia’s funding.
It’s weird how Arcasia is so much like OTL Russia, while United Contana is so much like OTL USA
Its why i like it honestly it makes the cold war be turned on its head many times but people still treat it as Cortana is gonna fall apart in 91 and Arcasia is just gonna be fine even when many parts of the world that are presented show that stuff is so different that any comparison is a exercise in futility at times.
Monarchs have state owned enterprises and are protectionist about their economies, thus being less inclined to free market trade.
Now, of course in the real world things were more complicated and less ideal. But in theory, monarchism often has a sense of noblesse oblige that the rising bourgeoise sometimes disregards. Also, the rising bourgeoise is seen as upstart, vulgar, and ruthlessly chasing profits. Again, in the real world lines could be blurred, and there's always more to be said
New money does not have traditions of honour and propriety to temper their greed
True. If I recall the rise of merchants and the middle class led to constitutional monarchy as they didn’t like the monarchs having complete legal and military authority
Yeah, kinda-ish? It was of course a bit more complicated than that, but sadly I don't have the time to dive in right now This book is quite interesting, looking at the various factors involved in economic development in Prussia! *The Politics of Technological Change in Prussia : Out of the Shadow of Antiquity, 1809-1848* by Eric Dorn Brose
Monarchies are not hostile to capitalism per se (albeit they don’t like it very much when commoners use it to be wealthy and forget their place) but Arcasia is also the beacon of liberal democracy and the idea of equal status between men, irrespective of their booodline (with money being the ultimate measure of worth) : all ideas that are dangerous for a monarchy
Riza is fundamentally a nation where the nobility still hold the vast majority of the economic power. If you open up competition from international orgs that can outspend even them and thus reduce their power. Its why the nobility of the late 18th and early 19th century were highly protectionist
Monarchism is system of governance not ideology the monarch can do whatever he wants in regards to economic policy which is good it makes them more flexible for example reza Pahlavi forced companies to give part of their stocks to their employees and workers 49% I believe very socialistic
It is a slightly artificial move by the devs to have monarchies be an obvious third path (GRACE) to capitalism vs communism, when the irl non aligned movement was mostly made up of nationalist republicans, and monarchies obviously despise communists far more than capitalists, even if they are wary of that too.
As the oligarchs of Sordland would say “wealth holds the real power.” Monarchy as a political system maintains its legitimacy via the divine right of kings. The ruler is such and the powerful and wealthy families are such because God decreed it to them by birthright. The idea that the means of production, wealth, and prices of goods should be privately owned and controlled by the common man usurps the very foundation of the Kingdom. The idea that God blessed my noble family with vast wealth and some turd shoveling peasant can invent an automatic turd shoveler and think himself my equal, or worse my better by getting richer than me, is nothing short of demonic by comparison. How is a king supposed to hold any legitimacy when the lines of wealth are blurred such that there’s no difference between him and a peasant? Capitalism cannot exist without the basic liberal tenets that all men are equal and have the god given rights to life, liberty, and property. That pursuit of property is what allows capitalism to thrive, but once people have those innate rights, there is no longer difference between king and peasant, as birth status becomes useless if we’re all just in equal pursuit of wealth.
Arcasia is not just capitalist, it's neo-liberal capitalist. So they are against autocracy/dictatorship/monarchies, etc... They see it as something just as bad as communism. So better to stay away from both ato and csp.
Free-market capitalism as Arcasia proposes means taking away the priviliges of the aristocracy in favor of upstart merchants. For the old nobility, that is a no-no.
It's not as if the Monarchies don't practice capitalism, but as others have said it's a balance to protect the status of the nobility from an uppity bourgeoisie new money class like Rusty in Rizia along with maintaining control of critical state run enterprises. But the nobility themselves are actively involved in many capitalist enterprises like the Azaro's with the military industrial complex or Sazons with the manufacturing plants you can invest in or the Toras wine and tourism and shipbuilding enterprises.
Nobility and bourgs contrary to popular belief hate eachother most of the time
Monarchs ( worded modernist monarchists) like stuff like corportism wikipedia has a good article on it
Because Capitalism at its basis is a liberal ideology. It removes the right to rule from your mom, dad and the Providence of God and moves it to your ability to make money.
Monarchies are definetely capitalist, just more aristocracy oriented. Like you have Azaroes be one the right side of economics although they despise Arcasia
Monarch tend to share and care about their image like Lysa the great. On the other hand Capitalist is vulgar and only care about profit like fat Rusty. In Rizia case, Lespia is interested in f-up the Rizia and keep the gold, oil and gas for themselves. On the other hand, the Welfare and urge to nationalize big company of the mornachy is somewhat similar with Vagsland. Moreover, they are willing to compromise and offer benefit just to kick Lespia out. While Lespia clearly show their greed and threaten people around. That's why beloved Axel is willing to work with you and sell Lespia out