No.33
Social-monarchy, is this idea even compatible?
Feudalism is no more, but why must you succumb to capitalism? I find socialism to be a better successor.
Historical examples:
Chinese Empire under Wu Zetian
Incan Empire
In Mesopotamia the Semitic monarchies - Assyria and Babylonia. You may see the uncanny resemblance of Lenin's Mausoleum to Ziggurats.
Persian Empire under Mazdakism
Or more modern:
Napoelonic Empire, perhaps best example of it. Modern day Bonapartists are just national-social-democrats, but historically it was inherently a social-monarchic movement.
Fascist Italy, worked like diarchy. At the end King overthrown Mussolini
Japanese Empire
Argurably socialist-leading, both countries were also realising monarchist priciples. Japan could create countries like Manchukuo with Qing Emperor as head of state, or Mengukuo, Italy would give Emmanuel titles like Emperor of Ethiopia, or send Prince Tomislav II to Croatia.
Argurably
Libyan Jamahiriya - Gaddafi titled himself "King of Kings" when speaking to Saudi King.
It was a weird state. Literal democracy like Switzerland with titular head of state.
Juche (or Cuba) - hereditary rule. At least for sure in case to North Korea.
North Korea uses name Choson, linking itself to ancient Empires of Korea
Additionally Suharto was offered crown of Indonesia (he co-operated with Japanese Empire) and Pilsudski of Poland, both socialist-leading, but they refused.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.34
Ideally, I would like to see an economy that is NON-industrial. That includes capitalist AND socialist industrialization; socialism of course industrialized China and Russia. I consider all of these "isms" to be rather destructive to humanity. Instead, I propose a rural, agrarian society. Perhaps even plantation based like the Golden Circle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_%28proposed_country%29However, that is not practical. So I guess I would begrudgingly accept a quasi socialist system (see Spengler's "Prussian Socialism") mixed with free enterprise. The problem, as I see it, is the urbanization and mass-production that comes with capitalism (the values of the bourgeois and Third Estate in general) really destroys any traditions that Monarchists hold dear. I'm not sure how this can be countered.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.35
Also, I would add that some of the examples of "social-monarchy" that you gave, are in fact, bastardizations of monarchy. Especially the North Korean state. Which is so nightmarish and totalitarian it makes my head spin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.58
Distributism.
Both capitalism and socialism fail, with socialism being the worse choice. L2history.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.61
>>58
I'm becoming more interesting in Distributism. Where's a good place to start if I want to learn about it?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.62
>>61
Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton: The Servile State, An Essay On the Restoration of Property, Utopia of Usurers and The Outline of Sanity.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.63
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.64
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.93
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.147
/weeebpol/ here
Regarding Japanese social monarchy I recommend reading John Toland's The Rising Sun chapters regarding the motivations of reformers in interwar Japan. Many young idealists desired to implement some form of socialism or communism but refrained from taking any such action do to the laws against abolition of property which they respected out of their loyalty to the emperor.
I do remember a little more from this book which I returned to the library after only reading a chapter or two to avoid late fees. The Kuomintang Army is well-known for unilateral action without regard to Tokyo (aside from listening to the emperor of course!) and many young idealists envisioned Manchukuo as a society where Manchu, white Russian, Japanese, and Chinese people could live in true socialism.
Not sure why we'd want a social monarchism though. Leftism blows.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.150
>>33
>Fascist Italy, worked like diarchy. At the end King overthrown Mussolini
>socialist
>diarchy
Monarchic/socialist agenda disinfo? What the fuck am I reading?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.454
The one benefit capitalism has for monarchists is its strong emphasis on private property. Even if most libertarians aren't monarchists, the anarcho-capitalist vision of many libertarians is most definitely in the monarchists benefit because what was the medieval kingdom to the modern nation-state but a private estate opposed to a publicly owned one?
The main problem that capitalism poses is that it doesn't offer much room for genuine aristocracy, favoring a bourgeois run society or a society of mass consumerism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.639
Read Maurras and look up the Mladrossi, Montagne Blanche, and the Lys Rouge.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.640
>>150
This is a strange thread. I would argue that there was a good reason that most socialist countries were begat from the revolutions against a King–and then fell into a slow ruin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1167
>>639
Maurras is a hero of mine
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1845
>>58
think its the other way around
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1846
>>150
How are fascists and the imperial Japanese even considered socialist?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1849
>>33
>>Feudalism is no more, but why must you succumb to capitalism? I find socialism to be a better successor.
How high do you have to be to be a socialist nowadays? That's why I always tell people to learn their methodology before they try to solve world hunger, but do they? No.
>>1846
Fascism was supposed to work with a kind of planned economy, in the form of syndicalism. In the end, it was more Mussolini dancing around, trying to figure out what he was doing. What he didn't do, however, was leave the market alone. He did nationalize businesses and interfere with labor fights for the sake of the workers and of national production.
Not sure about the Japanese anymore, I think they were highly interventionist though. Legal monopolies, nationalizations, high tariffs and so on. But it's been a while since I looked it up.
As much as it makes socialists cringe, socialism is basically just the state running the economy. That's what all the definitions, including workers owning the means of production, practically amount to. The one meaningful qualification might be that production should not just be organized by the state, but also for the good of the whole people. Which doesn't have to mean that this goal has to be reached, or that systems which aren't pure of heart aren't socialism or some crap like that.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1850
>>1849
>Fascism was supposed to work with a kind of planned economy, in the form of syndicalism.
So it is clearly not socialism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1856
>>1850
Then define what socialism is, as I have done, and show me why fascism does not fall under your definition. Then we can talk about which one of our definitions makes sense.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1857
>>1856
Where did you define socialism?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1874
>>1857
Here: >>1849
>As much as it makes socialists cringe, socialism is basically just the state running the economy. That's what all the definitions, including workers owning the means of production, practically amount to. The one meaningful qualification might be that production should not just be organized by the state, but also for the good of the whole people. Which doesn't have to mean that this goal has to be reached, or that systems which aren't pure of heart aren't socialism or some crap like that.
I don't call it a definition, but making it one would be a purely formal task.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1877
>>1874
>>1874
>As much as it makes socialists cringe, socialism is basically just the state running the economy.
So you are willing to claim that as soon as 'the state runs the economy' apllies a system is socialist?In that case socialism is just an economic dogma, and not a social and metaphysical agenda like irl.
>>1856
>show me why fascism does not fall
But does it even fall under your definition?If there is a series of independent and dependent bodies representing subsection of society and making agreements with each other under the supervision of the state, does that qualify as 'the state running the economy'?
Can I also define fascism instead? If I define fascism as the system that seeks to restore pre French Revolution values with a post French Revolution society by the internal and external fights in order to achieve self improvement, does that require a socialist social or economic system?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1958
>>1877
>So you are willing to claim that as soon as 'the state runs the economy' apllies a system is socialist?In that case socialism is just an economic dogma, and not a social and metaphysical agenda like irl.
No, I would add to it that the economy must be run for the benefit of the whole people, or of society as a whole. I pondered before whether this should be part of the definition, but now I'm sure of it. Socialism then clearly is an agenda, too.
>But does it even fall under your definition?If there is a series of independent and dependent bodies representing subsection of society and making agreements with each other under the supervision of the state, does that qualify as 'the state running the economy'?
I would argue that these bodies will become the state, or organs of the state.
>Can I also define fascism instead? If I define fascism as the system that seeks to restore pre French Revolution values with a post French Revolution society by the internal and external fights in order to achieve self improvement, does that require a socialist social or economic system?
It doesn't. That's a fairly anachronistic definition, however. The one authentic fascist state was Italy under Mussolini, and that one was not reactionary or even conservative, even though it occasionally paid lipservice to the ancien regimé. Still, Mussolinis collectivism, his bellicosity, nationalism, and areligiousness (sometimes bordering on anticlericalism) bar him from being a genuine reactionary. You cannot have the form of the ancien regimé without the substance, and Mussolini didn't even try to resurrect the form.
Besides Mussolinis Italy, all examples of fascism are highly debatable. I don't see why the Iron Guard or the Falange should fall under it, for example.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1968
>>33
We all know that democracies increase their national debt until they collapse, and that monarchies have a far more sensible approach to debt. However, how do social policies fare economically in non-democratic countries? I didn't hear a bad word from Libya.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1971
>>1968
>However, how do social policies fare economically in non-democratic countries?
Better, but certainly not good. Social policies are harmful by themselves, whether they're instituted by a responsible or an irresponsible ruler.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1974
What do you think about Maurras?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.1975
>>1968
A good example of a social monarchy, or more precisely a charitable ruler are the United Arab Emirates where the Ruler's ancestors found a shitton of oil, decided to sell it and now they have so much money they can afford public healthcare for everyone, or to build skiining slopes with actual snow in the middle of a desert
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.2045
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.3245
I'm absolutely against giving people something for nothing.
But I'm 100% in favor of doing things that helps a people ascend.
Subsidize their books.
Build them roads.
Build educational institutions.
Limit the workday to 8 hours.
Build hella libraries, opera houses, strength through joy (but only for high culture, no thugs)
I'm not about taking from the rich and just GIVING it to the poor. But if it costs the rich a bit of money to help the poor enrich themselves, spiritually and materially, that seems fine to me
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4523
>>33
Given what we've seen with socialists and their attitude towards monarchy, I cannot say, OP. I doubt they would comply and there are many things anti-monarchistic from the socialist pov. I think it's a stretch to refer to older civilizations as just socialism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4525
>>454
>The main problem that capitalism poses is that it doesn't offer much room for genuine aristocracy, favoring a bourgeois run society or a society of mass consumerism.
"Capitalism" doesn't do that. Modern consumerism is enforced by leftist Keynesianism, which dominates Western democracies and fetishizes consumption over all other parts of the economy. Without leftist policy stimulating consumer spending there would be no "consumerism."
>>3245
>I'm not about taking from the rich and just GIVING it to the poor. But if it costs the rich a bit of money to help the poor enrich themselves
But that's literally the socialist argument, they even make the same suggestions for spending you do–muh roads, muh schools, muh unions. And the answer to these suggestions is the same one it always is: The Economic Calculation problem. Even neglecting the fact that socialist policy (and yes, publicizing some industries but not other is still socialist policy) is fundamentally incompatible with human incentives, even if we pretend for the moment that you can create the perfect "New Soviet Man" whose incentives are altered to be in line with socialism, socialists cannot solve the Calculation problem. It extremely inefficient to determine consumption without a price system, and fundamentally impossible to determine supply-side resource allocation without a price system. It doesn't matter how big your computer is or how much information you have collected, without a price system you cannot do proper calculation, because prices are the only method through which one may quantify the inherently subjective valuations of individuals within the economy. Therefore, any attempt to subsidize or centrally plan any industry will result in costs increasing and quality decreasing.
Free enterprise is the economic policy most compatible with the monarch. Both encourage low time-preference behavior, and both benefit from the massive productivity increases as a result. Socialist policies will only push a monarchy further towards the pitfalls of democracy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.4546
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.