Jaded_Railman
Banned
Would you have a response that addresses my point? Do you accept that societies change inevitably? And that an aristocracy is defined by an outmoded form of production? By outmoded production, an aristocrat by definition is landed and passes it heredically, they are an outgrowth of pastoral lifestyle. As that system dies out due to industrialisation, the political system dies as well.
I thought aristocracy was defined by a particular government form. For instance, while people like to call the planter class of the antebellum US south an 'aristocracy', they actually weren't because there were no titles of nobility in American government. Calling aristocracy an 'outmoded form of production' pretty much IS Marxist rhetoric. There are still aristocrats TODAY, they've just lost most of the power they used to have.
But just before WW1 there were still aristocraties with ruling power. So if WW1 wouldn't have happened their power could at least have been prolongued.
Because of WW1 people lost their faith in the old system. So, with no WW1.....
BTW Workers uprisings will happen, but aristocracy can deal with that, if they are smart enough
This is the most topical post in the thread so far. It brings up the correct point that aristocracy survived well through the 19th century and would have continued into the 20th if it weren't for the disaster that was WWI. The Junker class is Germany was still the prominent class, along with the untitled capitalist class. The House of Lords in the UK still had real power. What you need to do is find a way to preserve that status quo.