No.460
I've always wondered if there is more common ground between the advocates of traditional monarchy and anarchists than most people think.
It feels to me like often anarchists are reacting against is the same as what monarchists who admire something more medieval or early modern feel has gone wrong since the collapse of monarchist attitudes.
____________________________
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.467
There used to be a good website about it, although it was mainly an ancap-leaning site:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160302235611/http://anarcho-monarchism.com/
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.477
>>467
I wonder what happened to that guy. Hope he didn't die.
The term anarcho-monarchism at the very least attracts me for some strange reason. Perhaps because it has a paradoxical ring to it that taps into something very basic, like the poles of yin & yang.
On a practical level, I think we monarchists have to understand that we're a minority and that the conservative republican forces make poor allies. Because anarchists make it their business to be subversive and are highly critical of the modern nation-state system, it may be that if we could put our ideas into the "language" of anarchism, we might find more allies.
http://anarcho-distributist.org/pdf%20Documents/On%20Anarcho-Monarchism.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarch_(sovereign_individual)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/coordination-of-anarchist-groups-against-democracy
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/moxie-marlinspike-and-windy-hart-audio-anarchy-radio-an-anarchist-critique-of-democracy
I know that some people who have come to this board have also read Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed" or his abridgement of this book "From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy" which examines monarchy and aristocracy from the anarcho-capitalist point of view.
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.480
>>477
I can certainly see an alliance between monarchists and ancappers (especially when you've got someone like Hoppe as you mentioned or Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn). The weak propaganda being something like, "Ancap first, but in case you're wrong, monarchy second." The stronger form that monarchy can permit a Fabian strategy for the ancapper in much the same way that a democracy admits the Fabian strategy for a communist–but that's a much harder sell.
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.481
>>480
One argument you could pose is that sudden anarchy and chaos brought about by the collapse of the current nation-state system and skepticism towards the values which were the foundation of that system would result in the inevitable resurrection of traditional systems which better proved their viability over the centuries.
Basically, let the anarchists and the ancaps or whomever have what they want. In the end, they'll more than likely naturally contribute to the rise of a neo-monarchist social order because their own values and anarcho-whatever projects are better preserved and protected under the umbrella of a more monarchist value system.
In my view, monarchy does in fact permit some measure of anarchy, provided this anarchy is limited to certain sectors of society such that complete chaos is averted and that the weak aren't helpless before marauding groups of bandits and thieves. In the past, kings always were willing to respect the rights of autonomous zones inhabited by peoples of the frontiers or nomadic tribes and herders provided that they could be assured that these people would be no danger to more settled areas or their own caravans. The king doesn't care if a bunch of people want to drop out of normal society and live according to their own rules or customs as long as he has no reason to fear these people will challenge his birth right. If anything, he may patronize them so they can act as a buffer between himself and possible rivals or to act as guides or protectors of traders. In the past there were plenty of nomadic tribes, out of the way monasteries/hermitages and small villages and outposts that followed their own laws and were outside the jurisdiction of the nearest monarchs or whose autonomy within the cracks of conventional society was respected by said monarchs who had to go about things pragmatically. And for those who were tired of the restrictions and social norms of conventional society, there was plenty of frontier space to escape to and pursue higher spiritual enlightenment or just establish one's own little sanctuary.
It's interesting to note that this became more and more an exotic relic of the past as governments became more republican or democratic and sought to expand the reach and surveillance of the political center to all areas that happened fall within the arbitrary national border they drew.
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.521
>>481
That's a hard sell. I think you're going to have a lot of counterexamples that people are going to find to fling in your face with that…
>>467
That guy really should have kept that website going.
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.525
>>521
>That's a hard sell. I think you're going to have a lot of counterexamples that people are going to find to fling in your face with that…
I think it's an undeniable fact that the unexplored frontier, the nomadic tribe and the hermitage, all of which were staples of the "old world" are not really existent as much in the modern era and are even on the very verge of extinction.
If there were a way to convince such anarchists of the greater value of monarchy over all other possible governments in that at the very least, monarchy is actually the less of an obstacle to the ends they seek than democracy, we may find the backdoor we need to become relevant in major political discussions.
My feeling is that monarchism is too small to be a relevant movement of its own with enough force to create change. It's not like we have a united federation of monarchies banding together under a united monarchist flag opposing the influence of communism, socialism, democracy and unfettered capitalist greed alike. If anything most of the monarchies in the world are powerless or simply extensions of the power and influence of the United States, either culturally or economically. I just think it's useless to try to ally ourselves with many of the political groups in power. It'd be more efficient to take a grassroots sort of approach in reaching out to those groups who have largely been left out of mainstream politics. We need allies and we need who our opponents are as well. i think the monarchist's opponents are mostly the fascists and racists who have hijacked the flag of the Right which is rightfully ours, the authoritarian collectivists on the left and monarchies that have compromised too many traditional ideas (the UK's excessive liberalism, Saudi Arabia's patronage of a kind of radical Islamic Protestantism, etc.). And I think many anarchists are just as critical of these groups as we are, even though many fall in the radical progressive camp we tend to loathe as well. But if its possible now that there can be "Catholic Anarchists" or "Buddhist Anarchists" or "Muslim Anarchists", and anarcho-communism as well as anarcho-capitalism it's certainly possible for there to be some kind of Anarcho-Monarchism that makes some sense in a strange surrealist type of way and is true enough to both parts of its name to be accepted as a legitimate movement to have a table at an anarchist book fair.
>That guy really should have kept that website going.
I really liked his pieces, my only issue is that he seemed a little more of an ancap than an actual monarchist. If there ever is gonna be an Anarcho-Monarchist, I think it needs to be a more independent creed and not simply an extension of the Anarcho-Capitalist school.
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.528
You could have both at the same time if a Monarch was popular enough for people to choose to follow without any law demanding they do, and there have been plenty who were adored to that extent.
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.532
>>525
Traditionally, the opponent to monarchism has been communism. Hell, I shouldn't even say traditionally. Still to this day Maoist rebels are trying to overthrow the King of Bhutan.
And typically, anarchists and communists are allies.
So, I think trying to find some political alliance between monarchists and anarchists is going to be extremely difficult.
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.539
>>532
>And typically, anarchists and communists are allies.
Actually this is something of a recent thing that you'll find many anarchists are growing increasingly frustrated with, precisely because some anarchists feel that communism and anarchism are antithetical due to communism's denial of the individual, or because many so-called anarcho-communists are annoying hyper PC SJW keyboard warriors and are uninterested in genuine revolution along economic or political lines. Anarcho-syndicalists and non-communist anarcho-socialists are also not too fond of AnComs. And for anarchists of the egoist variety, the fans of folks like Max Stirner, communism is just another spook. Most anarchists who aren't just rebellious teenagers and college students with only a superficial knowledge of either communism or anarchism are best described as mutualists and syndicalists (ideas that actually are somewhat reminiscent of the way peasant villages were structured) , consciously trying to avoid the extreme pitfalls of authoritarian communism and state socialism. Plus, consider the history of Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China with anarchist groups, even those of a more Marxist variety, which has been far from one of pleasant relations.The conflict between communism and anarchism can even be traced right back to the criticisms of Proudhon and Stirner by Marx himself.
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.541
>>539
>many so-called anarcho-communists are annoying hyper PC SJW keyboard warriors
>And for anarchists of the egoist variety, the fans of folks like Max Stirner, communism is just another spook.
>some anarchists feel that communism and anarchism are antithetical due to communism's denial of the individual
Your argument seems to be that the crowd is:
- Hating the SJW bullshit
- Becoming more individualistic
- Becoming more egoistic
…that would seem to align up better with ancaps, Randians, traditional conservatives, etc..
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.545
>>541
I'd say there's at least six groups of anarchists that we might be able to have enough common ground with:
1. anarcho-syndicalists
2. anarcho-distributism
3. anarcho-primitivists
4. anarcho-capitalists
5. anarcho-individualists
6. national/tribal anarchists
Many of the conceptions of property and the organization of labor by the syndicalists and distributists seem like they could be used as a means to restore the peasantry, which I think will be essential in the long term towards ANY pan-monarchist restoration project.
The primitivists we have common ground with to the extent that as monarchists, we naturally should be critical of any notion of progress and technology that undermines traditional social values and relationships. Ted Kaczynki's scathing criticisms of the progressive left in his manifesto come to mind.
Anarcho-capitalists share much of our belief in the safeguarding of private wealth and property and the anarcho-capitalist market mechanisms may be essential towards eventually rebuilding the aristocracy with the tools of the bourgeois class.
Those who fall under the label of anarcho-individualism defy simple categorizations and at times avoid affiliating themselves with any one group if any at all. They tend to have an elitist attitude as well. And so this group might be attracted to a new anarcho-X movement that on the one hand is friendly to the character of the dandy upperclassman and uses contrarianism to point out the hypocrisy of others. Stirner's criticism of political liberalism is probably useful in this regard. Even if anarcho-monarchists were just a bunch of guys smoking wood pipes while wearing top hats and monocles and just pushing leftists buttons by behaving like contrarian quote dropping memesters, if it got people talking more about monarchism this would still be useful for those of us who take it seriously.
The national anarchists criticisms of the of the progressive left's views on many social issues like those concerning race, political correctness and the idolization of democracy are not to be wholly rejected by us. Some of the views expressed on tribal autonomy against humanistic globalism also sound a lot like the well known quote by De Maistre on the French Constitution being made for "Man". And websites run by NatAn's like attackthesystem.com have expressed enthusiasm about a theoretical anarcho-monarchism inspired by those views expressed by Erik Von Kuehnelt Leddihn, which could join and strengthen the "pan-anarchist secession" just as much as anarcho-communists.
https://attackthesystem.com/2014/09/20/anarcho-monarchism-the-portland-declaration/
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.546
>>545
I can definitely see the reasoning for the last five, but I'm still rather skeptical of the first being on board. I mean, there was a reason the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain sided with the Republicans instead of the monarchists.
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.547
>>546
At the time anarchism emerged, monarchy was still a force to be reckoned with. That is the "establishment" at the time was still in most parts of the world monarchy, even though by 1800, monarchy was already on its last legs and by 1918 it was for all intents and purposes dead or pushed into irrelevancy, so at the time it made sense that anarchism and monarchism behaved like the arch-enemies of one another for so long with anarchists preferring to side with republican or communist revolutionaries who were the anti-establishment parties. But the Establishment has now become one based on principles of democracy, progressiveness and equality (even somebody like Putin or Trump is not entirely free of these principles) and this establishment has been no more favorable to anarchism than the old Establishment of monarchs was
And just from a point of view of common sense, if you're trying to undermine the established powers that be right now, does it make much sense to hold an anti-monarchist rally? You might have your share of criticisms towards monarchy as a concept where it still exists in the world, but the monarchists, the few who are still around, are not your enemy but rather it is the Democrats, Republicans, Globalists, State Socialists, etc. If anything the monarchists make better allies at the present moment, because like you, they are critical of the current establishment and are excluded from mainstream political discourse. I think a similar thing was the case with Christianity and Anarchism. Anarchism historically has been very anti-Christian, but as soon as Christianity's influence in Western society and politics began to diminish or be reduced to the most superficial level, and concern arose for the loss of genuine spiritual values in society, that's when you had groups like the Catholic Workers emerge who merged Catholic and anarchist thought as a way of fighting what they felt was an establishment becoming increasingly devoid of divine principles and some anarchists have welcomed them despite the Catholic Church having been a very strong opponent of the anarchists in the past. Why is that? Because the Catholic Church isn't really "the Establishment" anymore, it's secularism and/or Protestantism that more or less dominate and they haven't been favorable anarchists any more than the Catholic Church who supported the monarchs against them were.
With the anarcho-syndicalists, there's not really a problem with how they propose to organize communes, that is their practical methods, it is mostly their ideological leanings that clash with ours. But since monarchy is no longer the establishment, for those syndicalists and other left-wing anarchists who are willing to see past our differences and are simply looking for support among those who challenge the present establishment, I don't think our differences, which are mostly ideological at the present moment, need prevent cooperation.
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.554
>>545
>4. anarcho-capitalists
I definitely consider myself having more ancap leanings than anything else, but I have toyed with other systems of government, and you guys seem alright. I don't know if this is because you haven't attracted edgy children yet like the alt-right has or because you're actually smarter and more capable of conversing with others, though. I've been subscribed to this guy Fritz Imperial https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbiEAICCX-lyat0IOUIbyCA on Youtube for a while now, and I'm drawn to his emphasis on traditional values and the importance of the family. If it means anything, /monarchy/ is the first board I checked was recovered after the April 1st hack that was actually back.
Actually, I lied, I'm a Christian before an Anarcho-capitalist.
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.557
>>554
Glad to meet you and welcome. The board's still a little slow, but we're trying to find a way to advertise its presence on other boards without coming across as annoying shills.
>I don't know if this is because you haven't attracted edgy children yet like the alt-right has or because you're actually smarter and more capable of conversing with others, though.
This board has sometimes gotten people who are more on the fascist alt-right end of the spectrum and admittedly, our reading lists often include books that are also read by the alt-right, but I'd say what separates the average /monarchy/ poster from that crowd is that we tend to emphasize more traditionalism and religion and not so much nationalism and race. The alt-right kiddies pay lip-service to monarchy, but I get the feeling that they actually service the narratives of the left who like to portray monarchy as pre-modern fascism, the difference being that while the left condemns monarchy for this reason, the alt-right praises monarchy for it, but both have a very basic misconception of this system and its history.
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.562
>>554
>4. anarcho-capitalists
>I definitely consider myself having more ancap leanings than anything else
You should definitely check out the ancap-leaning site listed in the second post on this thread. It was what 'converted' me from being 'ancap only' to 'ancap first, but aristocracy second.'
>I don't know if this is because you haven't attracted edgy children yet like the alt-right has or because you're actually smarter and more capable of conversing with others, though.
This is elitist of me to say (which is probably an O.K. character trait to have on /monarchy/), but I like to think that it's because the majority of posters on this board have jobs. As you can tell by the way the board nearly completely dies on weekdays.
>I've been subscribed to this guy Fritz Imperial
Hopefully, I'll check him out.
Welcome, btw.
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.564
>>562
I have to admit I'm unemployed, but have been going to school, so I don't have as much time for the board as I'd like.
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.569
>>557
>we tend to emphasize more traditionalism and religion and not so much nationalism and race.
That's literally all I want out of society (culture?), none of this 'race realism' nonsense that /pol/ and its ilk spout. I have my gripes about the way monarchy works but I'll check out the website that >>562 suggests, perhaps I'll find out that all of what I know about monarchy are misconceptions.
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.571
>>569
>That's literally all I want out of society (culture?), none of this 'race realism' nonsense that /pol/ and its ilk spout.
The people from /pol/ who would like monarchy are usually these keyboard nazis/catholophiles who have fantasies of being crusaders slaughtering kebab and preventing miscegenation
But for me personally, I see monarchism as something that is universal and which could potentially ease the current tensions between racial, ethnic and religious groups without sacrificing individual societies' own senses of value. Monarchism unites the world as a family in such a way that only it can. Queen Elizabeth, for instance, is not only related to the german and russian monarchies, but also presumably to the prophet muhammad.
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.618
This thread is incredibly disappointing but I should not be surprised, people here doesn't seem to know what anarchism even is.
If you people want to find a common ground with anarchism you need to understand that leftist ideologies partake from materialism while all the arguments I've seen for monarchism do not work in a materialist worldview. Stuff like "The king as a neutral arbiter", "the king has been educated all his life for the role" or "Monarchy means social stability" Simply doesn't hold up when we analyze it for what it does.
Another issue is what monarchism is to a materialist, a purely materialist definition of monarchy is when the state itself is a private property, a horrendous state of being. And that without all the symbolism, rituals and superstitions that monarchies carry.
So the issue is not what common ground there is but how do monarchist ideas translate into other axioms.
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.619
>>618
>people here doesn't seem to know what anarchism even is.
To be fair, even anarchists can't agree on what anarchism is.
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.620
>>618
>people here doesn't seem to know what anarchism even is.
the way it is today, no two anarchists even seem to have the same definition of anarchism either way. The only point of this thread is that some sub-schools of anarchist thought do seek the same aims as monarchists or share many of the same criticisms of modern society, even if their solutions are very different. The nature of anarchism generally prevents a singular definition other than just a vague, seemingly indefinable notion of "no leaders". It is rather folly to try to speak of some kind of anarchist orthodoxy in a movement that includes the most devout Catholics and the most evangelical of atheists as well as the most Marxist of socialists and the most aggressive Rothbardians all under the same roof. Really, the history of anarchist thought is pretty much the history of the attempts by writers and thinkers to redefine the traditional definition of anarchy itself for their own political agendas.
>If you people want to find a common ground with anarchism you need to understand that leftist ideologies partake from materialism while all the arguments I've seen for monarchism do not work in a materialist worldview.
Even if one might argue that Marxist materialism is the logical end of leftism, leftism is a diverse movement filled with many different schools of thought. There are after all plenty of religious based socialist and anarchist movements. And Otto Von Hapsburg once made the argument that socialism actually fares much better under monarchy than it does under republican forms of government due to the unique characteristics of the institution are much more favorable to 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.622
>>619
>>620
That is funny but sadly truth, still most anarchists will insist that private property can't exist without a state and that any "anarchist" faction that defends private property are contradictory.
>leftism is a diverse movement filled with many different schools of thought.
At least on Marxist's case those differences are mostly on praxis or how marxism relates to other philosophies.
>Otto Von Hapsburg
Had to look up this guy, he was an anticommunist and an europhile so his definition of socialism was probably the state subsidizing private companies.
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.623
>>622
>Had to look up this guy, he was an anticommunist and an europhile so his definition of socialism was probably the state subsidizing private companies.
Many European socialists during the Cold War sought to distance themselves from the Soviet form of socialism. When Hapsburg spoke of socialism flourishing better under monarchy, he was speaking more specifically of the democratic socialism that had become quite prevalent in Western Europe as a moderate alternative to Bolshevism or Marxism itself.
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.628
>>623
welfare 👏 and 👏 subsidies 👏 are 👏 not 👏 socialism
Pleas see pic related
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.629
>>628
>it's not socialism even though the socialist party did do it but they have no idea of true socialism because I know better than the socialist party how to socialism and would only kill the right people
How is Venezuela turning out for you pal?
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.630
>Replying to a guy using👏twitter👏memes👏unironically
Can't you see he's not a real 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.631
>>630
The Don uses the twitter so can't be bad
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.632
>>629
Next you're going to tell me nazis were left wing because they had socialist in the party name. Its not in the word but in the acts
>>630
👏You👏mad👏
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.633
>>632
>Next you're going to tell me nazis were left wing because they had socialist in the party name. Its not in the word but in the acts
Actually National Socialism was a radically progressive ideology fiercely opposed to the reactionaries and the ancien regime. They sometimes actively fought right wing governments like for example in Austria. On the other hand they allied with fascists out of opportunity to fight common enemies ie Italy. Their economic policy was more left wing than that of any relevant leftist party in the civilised world right now, and more left wing than in liberal (USA, UK) or corporatist (Italy, Spain) nations at the time. 'nazis' on the other hand are of course only a social construct that did not exist until the ~70s when jews started LARPing as them to remain relevant in the public opinion, though.
>Its not in the word but in the acts
In fact Nazis didn't do anything inherently right wing coming to my mind right now. All they did, centralising government and abolishing tradition, increase military spending, fight Christianity, interventionist foreign policy etcpp might as well have been done by Napoleon when he was in power. Do you think Napoleon is right wing? If so your terminology is fradulent.
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.634
>>633
Hitler privatized everything he could, the word 'privatization' was invented to describe Hitler's economic policies of giving all power to the private sector and smashing workers unions.
Doesn't matter there were rightist who didn't like Hitler, Hitler is rightist as it gets because he opposed workers self management.
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.635
>>634
Their have been privatizations after the implemantation of National Socialism in Germany, yes. But as your charts show those have been in some designated sectors like railway corps, military relevant heavy industry and state level banks. Military relevant macro economic sectors that should probably not be in state ownership in the first place and often are not in self proclaimed socialist states. The economic freedom of Germany based corporations was heavily infringed upon though and claiming 'he' 'privatized what he could' does not live up to reality. As in socialist or communist states like most famously the Soviet Union unions were forbidden, yes. This was due to the policy that there should be no form of lobbying for a single interest group, that there was no need and no place for that because everyone was a German first, and any German could fight for fellow Germans interests not only his peers. This was one of the most integral differences to fascists and makes the claim that Germany was anything like corporatism false. In actual corporatism lobbying was integral part of state fare, ie in Mussolini's Italy. Regarding the interest of Italy as a whole all parties at the table had to suffer for the greater good at times, that's part of the idea. I also fail to understand how an increase of the rate of return on capital is seen as an inherently bad thing. Don't you think workers had a pension plan or saved any money at all? Of course those rates will increase in a booming economy and rightfully so. That's what made NS so popular after all, their economic and social success
> Hitler is rightist as it gets because he opposed workers self management.
Come on now. So did the USSR. So it was as rightist as it gets too? Do you realise that privatising business and abolishing regulations initially was a radical left wing policy? Just as nationalism? You also haven't answered if Napoleon was a right winger too btw. Do you actually think everyone out there is a secret nazi if he doesn't 100% agree with you on everything? That's the vibe I get from antifa sometimes. Commies probably really think so, that's why they start killing each other over the smallest differences in their autistic ramblings time and time again
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.636
>>635
The point of my post is to show that Hitler and the nazis could not be leftist because they sided with business owners against workers self management. Doesn't matter that Hitler did X that other fascists didn't like or that Hitler did Y that also was done by cold war socialist states in the end the german bourgeois got richer and the working class lost their power
>Do you realise that privatising business and abolishing regulations initially was a radical left wing policy? Just as nationalism?
This has never been the case, what makes you think bullshit was ever the case?
>You also haven't answered if Napoleon was a right winger too
On his day he was kind of leftist but today he'll be a centre liberal at best
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.637
>>636
>The point of my post is to show that Hitler and the nazis could not be leftist because they sided with business owners against workers self management.
But the National Socialist German Worker's Party kinda represented German workers? At least as good as some union.
> in the end the german bourgeois got richer
Yes. Why is that a problem?
>and the working class lost their power
What kind of power did they lose? The power to starve in the streets because there is no work? Or the power to be murdered by some commie militia in the streets in cold blood? I don't understand you guys rly. No one contests that workers were better off in Nazi Germany than in the Weimar Republic, but that doesn't matter. It is almost as if it wasnt about workers at all but only about their use for your system. Like today, when you despise actual workers because they oppose your political ideology.
>This has never been the case, what makes you think bullshit was ever the case?
The Far left Radical movements of the late 18th and early 19th century were classical liberals and nationalists. They fought the traditional European system of Guilds and Serfdom which ultimately protected workers and social stability. They also attacked trade barriers like tariffs or other government regulations.
>On his day he was kind of leftist but today he'll be a centre liberal at best
So the slippery slope is real. That means you've got to be the most radical left wing nut imaginable to be objectively on the right side of history. Otherwise you will just end up a the Nazi of tomorrow. Do you ever think about that? It doesn't matter if the left or the right is going to win, you, you personally are going to be despised by your great grand children for who you are now either way. Food for thought.
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.656
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>634
in this clip kelthuz explains how nazism is 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.713
>>634
>dat paper by Germá Bel
Aww shit nigger. He acknowledged in that paper that he used the term "privatization" in a formal sense, and that the owners of a private firm didn't have much control over it in Nazi Germany. He also mentions an aerospace company that got confiscated because it didn't produce military hardware. And as for the banks, the Reichsbank engaged in monetary policies similar to those of the Fed. Just like in the US nowadays, there essentially weren't any private banks in Nazi Germany, only formally private banks that were substantially state-owned.
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.726
>>636
By the same logic, the Soviet Union wasn't leftist because the Soviets shot striking workers in the streets. The idea was that the state would ensure the people were provided for, and workers who refused to produce were enemies of the people because they were interfering with that production. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a fairly socialist stance, no?
State management of the means of production and distribution in order to provide for the needy of the nation was the fundament of Nazi domestic policy. Hell, a lot of their problems with the Jews were the same problem our Protest Wallstreet guys have with muh 1%.
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.1246
>>477
>>467
>>480
>>525
>>539
You're all appealing to Anarcho-Capitalism, which is admittedly a right-wing sect of anarchy. Ancaps believe in things incompatible with other forms of anarchy, like hierarchy in institutions outside of the state; heck, even one look at >>>/anarcho/ will show you that ancaps are generally opposed by the rest of the anarchist movement.
>>618
This guy knows what he's saying. Good for you if you succeed in convincing an ancap about Monarchism, but a left-leaning anarchist is an entirely different game.
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.1248
>>1246
>You're all appealing to Anarcho-Capitalism
You say this like it's a bad thing.
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.1249
>>1248
No I don't. I say that like it is a narrow way of appealing to all anarchists. I say that like if you need different tactics to appeal to different sects of anarchism.
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.1267
Monarchy vs Anarchy in the nutshell.
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.1325
>>618
>This thread is incredibly disappointing but I should not be surprised, people here doesn't seem to know what anarchism even is.
I'm also disappointed but for different reasons. >>545 is literally the only post I've seen in this thread that actually explains the similarities between anarchy and monarchy. >>467 is a neat resource but they didn't explain anything themselves. Otherwise, every post before yours has been explaining how Monarchists can subvert anarchist language/movements to further their goals, or their respective histories. We've diverted far beyond the thread's initial topic anyway though, so it isn't like it even matters anymore.
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.3383
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.