To whom it may concern

Lets tactically analyze Socialism shall we?

Well, we all remember that daring German Karl Heinrich Marx, the man who predicted much of the future and proclaimed that the next step after a point would be 'socialism'.

Doesn't this mean, he has layed out a linear path to progress? No, he predicted patterns, the later governments were no greater then the Monarchy, dare I say it, at some points the later governments proved even worse then Tribal Despotism.

What exactly is Socialist? The next step along that never quite came.

Examples? Examples of socialists are countries that have been influenced by Marx, often cases this was an attempt to rush towards the revolution.
Who are these such places? The Soviet Union tried to force their revolution, they had a short lived peak as they managed to seize all trade within their economy and then whip many into slavery and murder many of their own people to keep control, kill off the poorer class and to ease maintenance. Does this sound great? No not really. Yes, this is Communism but communism was a branch of socialism.
Lets look at Cuba? Sure you can get most goods for a few cents, but the cost? Overall the country is going down hill.
What about other examples of blatent socialists? Nazi Germany, national Socialist. I think we all know the direction of this, one man has an ideal and everyone conforms, those who don't, die. Not looking good for Socialism so far is it?

Do you want to continue the bad chain or go back to the tried and true absolute monarchy? Is it such a tough decision?

Vote for Absolute Monarchy!

Sure but lets look at China.

An amazing and steady development without economical crisis' and stuff.
Also lets see that Absolute Monarchy is nasty - do you want only one man to rule you?

China has massive overpopulation, the masses are rather annoyed at the actions Mao performed to bring communism. If China didn't spam infrastructure it wouldn't have anything at the moment. They've had riots, tanks, descrimination and just general misfortune since they chose that path.
They had massive hostilities, aproximately 35 million died in a famine as a result of their government structure. Sure, they seem to have a nice economy 'now' but they basically killed off millions of people and spread their wealth around to those who survived.

I was talking about China today.

People what do you want?

This or this

You can have both if you vote for the Absolute Monarchy.

Yeah! Let's not forget that Socialism is bad, do you want to be bad? Think about that for a few seconds before you decide to vote for the Monarchy.

Prove it.

Socialism is good, it means equality, it means state-assured homes,sanitation, food and other things

It means the intention of equality which is impossible, you can try to say everyone equal, even enforce a law to treat everyone equally but the very universe rejects it, people are not born equal, saying people are equal doesn't influence good or bad luck that will change peoples lives.

Equality also has a horrible effect on individuality, if everyone is said to be equal, they all in a similar position in life (similar not equal) and then they get less diverse, as the enviromental factors are different enough to produce true creativity naturally. Not to say this will crush everyones personality and turn them into robots but it certainly lessons the division between people.

Many systems give state-assured homes, the downside of this is generally people are clumped together and cramped. Sometiems it means people are thrown into community housing and don't even get to choose the family they are with. That and other systems including monarchies ensured housing, not all but the monarchy is diverse in that respect.

Food? Socialism has always proven that it can only supply enough food by killing enough people so theres less demand, and yet most socialist countries in the early years still starve, exceptions include Nazi Germany, but you can also owe part of that success to taking land from Czechs and invading Poland, conquest=problems fixed generally.

You can't prove nothing >=D fake evidence is as easy to manufacture as real evidence.

Lets not forget that when people are equal they don't have any reason to improve themselves.

I brought that up somewhere else as a lack of motivation.
In Soviet Russia, when after they killed all the peasant class, they decided everyone was equal except those up the top anyway, the people had no motivation to improve themselves, no ambition to achieve, they would just recieve a medal, if they worked extra hard, which wasn't as satisfying as a promotion or payrise.

Lets not forget that when people stop worrying about money differences they start thinking about the moral differences so they treasure more politeness, goodness and things like that. They won't judge a man after its money, but rather on its merit.

If a man has more merit then another then they are not equal, they'll judge him none the less as people are judgemental and thats fine.
Politeness, goodness and 'things like that' can be placed under morality, thus they would be a ethical 'and' moral difference, as its part of their morality to favor goodness, politeness and what not.

They will also still worry, who is to say this won't encourage stealing? Hmm.. only way to get ahead! Kill the man next to me and get his share! Wait, if I kill as many people as I can, that means a better share divided for who remain!