Monarchist Political Theory

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

OK, this is going to sound odd but I am trying to study Monarchist political theory and was wondering if anyone could possibly hook me up with pro-Monarchy articles, books, etc. preferably written by Monarchists? I already have Hobbes' Leviathan and the Book of the Courtier by Castiglione (which doesn't really fit with anything) written down for books to buy and that I own but am trying to find some more. I'm curious as my studies have shifted to Monarchies all throughout history and I think it would be both interesting and beneficial for research purposes to hear from Monarchists, royalists, loyalists, etc. about said system which the obviously advocate and I want to find out the political theories surrounding it and their argumentation and advocacy for it.

[Искра]

Ok, these books and authors are not essentialy advocating monarchy but they do talk about it and give good arguments and stuff:

Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince (original title: Il Principe)
He's pro-monarchy and gives advices to monarch. You can also find his book on republic.

Jean Bodin - Les Six livres de la République (Six Books About Republic)
He gives analysis of 3 systems: monarchy, democracy and aristocracy.

John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
I'm not sure if it is in this book, but he's advocating something called "moderate monarchy".

Anything by Edmund Burke. He was conservative who opposed French Revolution. He tought that Britan is ideal society because it has good constitiution. He believed in historical inheritage and slow evolution, in elites etc.

If I remember something else I'll post here. I study politic so I was forced to read all this crap :)

[ComradeOm]

I'd say that you're looking at the wrong period if you're reading Hobbes and Castiglione. It's only when a movement is in opposition that you really find out what's it's made of. Even Hobbes, writing under the Commonwealth, was merely reaffirming the most widely held ideals about society

To my mind the really interesting monarchist movements were those of the 19th and early 20th C. That is, after the French Revolution had overturned the apple cart and forced the monarchists to actually articulate their ideas [edit: in the form of a political ideology]. France is, as always, the best example of this with monarchism taking very different shapes in the Legitimists and Orléanists (plus later Bonapartists). The first of these is particularly interesting given their sheer discomfort with modern politics. Rene Remond devotes a good chunk of his The Right Wing in France: From 1815 to de Gaulle to those early monarchist groups

[deadsmooth]

For more current events, I recommend 'Long to Reign?' by A.W. Perdue (2005), a died in the wool Imperialist (or Monarchist if you prefer). forward has a good capsule view of the 'legitimacy' of this 'philosophy'.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Niccolò Machiavelli - The Prince (original title: Il Principe)
He's pro-monarchy and gives advices to monarch. You can also find his book on republic.

I had considered The Prince but for some reason I thought I remembered Machiavelli actually advocating the need for a Republic or something so I didn't think to put this on my list, good call.


Jean Bodin - Les Six livres de la République (Six Books About Republic)
He gives analysis of 3 systems: monarchy, democracy and aristocracy.

John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
I'm not sure if it is in this book, but he's advocating something called "moderate monarchy".

Anything by Edmund Burke. He was conservative who opposed French Revolution. He tought that Britan is ideal society because it has good constitiution. He believed in historical inheritage and slow evolution, in elites etc.

I will definately give these a good look over, thank you.


I'd say that you're looking at the wrong period if you're reading Hobbes and Castiglione. It's only when a movement is in opposition that you really find out what's it's made of. Even Hobbes, writing under the Commonwealth, was merely reaffirming the most widely held ideals about society

To my mind the really interesting monarchist movements were those of the 19th and early 20th C. That is, after the French Revolution had overturned the apple cart and forced the monarchists to actually articulate their ideas [edit: in the form of a political ideology]. France is, as always, the best example of this with monarchism taking very different shapes in the Legitimists and Orléanists (plus later Bonapartists). The first of these is particularly interesting given their sheer discomfort with modern politics. Rene Remond devotes a good chunk of his The Right Wing in France: From 1815 to de Gaulle to those early monarchist groups

Very good point comrade and duly noted. I will be sure to add said book to my on going list. I had read (via wiki) that Voltaire advocated something to the effect of 'enlightned absolutism' does anyone think this is worth pursuing in regards to my research? Or is this just Voltaire mentally masturbating? I couldn't really find the specific texts in which he supposed to be advocating it. Also, what about Montesquieu? I am interested in the assertion you just suggested though and am trying to find modern writers or somewhat modern, let's say 18-20th century Monarchist writers but can't find any specific names.


For more current events, I recommend 'Long to Reign?' by A.W. Perdue (2005), a died in the wool Imperialist (or Monarchist if you prefer). forward has a good capsule view of the 'legitimacy' of this 'philosophy'.

Thanks mate.

[eric922]

I could be wrong, but I've heard that The Prince was possibly a satirical book. As to the OPs question, I don't have any books, but a few years back I came across a Monarchist forum where advocates of Monarchy had discussions similar to Revleft. I can't remember the name, but a google search might turn up something interesting and you could ask direct questions.

[Искра]

The Princ is a book about how should monarch act. It's not a satirical book ;)

His other book was about how should republic work.

[ProletarianResurrection]

Joseph De Maistre's book on the French Revolution and his Conversation's in St Petersburg.

[ComradeOm]

Very good point comrade and duly noted. I will be sure to add said book to my on going list. I had read (via wiki) that Voltaire advocated something to the effect of 'enlightned absolutism' does anyone think this is worth pursuing in regards to my research?I wouldn't consider Voltaire to be a monarchist because, and this comes back to my point, that was just the default mode of thought back then. Had be been writing 50-100 years later then Voltaire would almost certainly have been a democrat


I am interested in the assertion you just suggested though and am trying to find modern writers or somewhat modern, let's say 18-20th century Monarchist writers but can't find any specific namesIt won't be easy. In practice monarchism was such an intellectually bankrupt ideology that it produced little of note. That said, there are plenty of writers out there, primarily French, whose names I can't recall without my reference books. The big one is of course Charles Maurras and his Action Francaise. He's the man to go to if you're interested in late 19th C monarchism

[#FF0000]

The Princ is a book about how should monarch act. It's not a satirical book

It actually is.

[Aspiring Humanist]

It actually is.

Someone reads Cracked

[CornetJoyce]

The True Law of Free Monarchies; or, The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects, by James the 6th of Scotland, published a few years before he became James the 1st of England.
During the Restoration, Robert Filmer's Patriarcha- mostly a restatement of the True Law- was required reading.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Someone reads Cracked Or Rousseau.

OP, Grab Aristotles Ethics and Politics. Monarchy was his ideal form.

[GPDP]

OP, Grab Aristotles Ethics and Politics. Monarchy was his ideal form.

Wasn't it the Polity?

[Smyg]

Machiavelli was, regardless of how the Prince is to be interpreted, pro-republic.

[ckaihatsu]

It's only when a movement is in opposition that you really find out what's it's made of.


While this is certainly dialectically correct I'll also add that it may be helpful to view an era during its *upswing*, or emergence. Historically a period of new political centralization -- even albeit of a ruling-class character and tempo -- *may* be societally progressive because it breaks populations out of their localism and facilitates a cosmopolitan empowerment.





The civilisation of the 13th century

In time, every aspect of society changed. The classic account of European feudalism by the French historian Marc Bloch goes so far as to speak of a ‘second feudal age’, in which relations between the feudal lords themselves underwent a transformation. Kings became more influential. They were able to formalise their power at the top of hierarchies of feudal lords. By granting various towns internal self government they could use them as a counterweight to the barons. And they tried to set up national networks of courts where their officials rather than the barons administered ‘justice’—although the barons usually managed to remain all-powerful in matters affecting their own estates.

Intellectual life was also tranformed. The traders needed to keep accounts and written records of contracts in a way which the feudal lords of the earlier period had not. They also wanted formal, written laws rather than the ad hoc judgments handed down in the villages by the lords. Some took the effort to learn to read and write, and did so in the local idioms they spoke. Literacy was no longer confined to the monasteries and Latin ceased to be the only written language. Learning moved from the monasteries to new universities established in cities like Paris, Oxford and Prague, and scholars could now earn a livelihood away from the direct control of church authorities by teaching for money. They showed a new interest in the serious study of non-religious works of the Greek and Roman world, travelling to Sicily, Moorish Spain or even Syria to gain access to them through Arabic translations.102 They began to dispute with each other over the merits of Plato and Aristotle, and of the Islamic Aristotelian, Averroës.

Medieval thought is often associated with ‘scholasticism’—disputation for its own sake, based upon hair-splitting references to texts. But the first phase of the new thought was far from scholastic in this sense. It involved using the long forgotten texts to try to generate new ideas.




Harman, _People's History of the World_, Chapter 6, 'European Feudalism', p. 145


Of course, the proviso here is that that monarchical development was *historical* and was progressive only in *that* historical context. Any argument for monarchism in our present day and age would be anachronistic by definition, given how much more developed material societal options and practices have become.

[ComradeOm]

Of course, the proviso here is that that monarchical development was *historical* and was progressive only in *that* historical context. Any argument for monarchism in our present day and age would be anachronistic by definition, given how much more developed material societal options and practices have become.It wasn't even progressive back then. One of the interesting features of monarchism is that it was rarely, as a political ideology, aligned to the interests of the monarch. Instead monarchism in the modern era has been a vehicle for the interests of the feudal nobility seeking to limit the power of the centralised state... regardless of who heads the latter. Hence we got the fascinating sight across Restoration Europe of monarchs laying their hands on centralised Napoleonic states and coming into conflict with 'monarchist' nobles who wanted a return to a more romantic past. That is, more power for regional corporate bodies which the feudal nobility had traditionally dominated

[ckaihatsu]

It wasn't even progressive back then.


Well, as Harman's research points to, there *was* an empirical centralizing / centralization dynamic inherent to the generalization of power, as up into broader polities defined by one monarchy or another. This is "progressive" compared to a variety of lord-based localities forever warring with each other -- by *class* standards, of course, it may as well just be "here's the new boss, same as the old boss".

But as proletarians we can't afford to ignore developments taking place within the bourgeois trajectory -- their configuration at any given point reveals strengths and weaknesses, and their overall stewardship of 'civilization' affects us who remain on the ground, too.





One of the interesting features of monarchism is that it was rarely, as a political ideology, aligned to the interests of the monarch.


The "interests of the monarch"...(!) Care to explain more on this one?

(You're obviously speaking within the historical context of nascent nationalism and beyond.)





Instead monarchism in the modern era has been a vehicle for the interests of the feudal nobility seeking to limit the power of the centralised state... regardless of who heads the latter.


Agreed.





Hence we got the fascinating sight across Restoration Europe of monarchs laying their hands on centralised Napoleonic states and coming into conflict with 'monarchist' nobles who wanted a return to a more romantic past. That is, more power for regional corporate bodies which the feudal nobility had traditionally dominated


You're reinforcing my first point here -- that a monarchist centralization (or imperialist Napoleonic strongman) would be more historically progressive, and preferable to, a return to a patchwork of feudal nobles controlling local lands.

But, once the ruling class has generalized and standardized its practice of societal stewardship, on a more civil-rights-equitable basis, the task of the self-politicized working class remains, for decisive overthrow of ruling-class-determined social relations altogether.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

The Princ is a book about how should monarch act. It's not a satirical book ;)

His other book was about how should republic work.
The Prince is interpreted by many as a satire:

As discussed by Johnston (1958) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#CITEREFJohnston1958) many authors have historically argued that "the book is, first and foremost, a satire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire), so that many of the things we find in it which are morally absurd, specious, and contradictory, are there quite deliberately in order to ridicule ... the very notion of tyrannical rule". Hence, Johnston says, "the satire has a firm moral purpose - to expose tyranny and promote republican government".[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#cite_note-48)
This position was the standard one in Europe during the 18th century, amongst the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) philosophes. Diderot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diderot) thought it was a satire. And in his The Social Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Contract_%28Rousseau%29), the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau) said:

Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Borgia), clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.

— Social Contract, Book 3, n. 23 (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_03.htm#23)
Whether or not the word "satire" is the best choice, there is more general agreement that despite seeming to be written for someone wanting to be a monarch, and not the leader of a republic, the Prince can be read as deliberately emphasizing the benefits of free republics as opposed to monarchies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy).
Differences of opinion amongst commentators revolve around whether this sub-text was intended to be understood, let alone understood as deliberately satirical or comic. One such commentator, Mary Deitz (1986) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#CITEREFDeitz1986), writes that Machiavelli's agenda was "offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed." Antonio Gramsci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci) argued that Machiavelli's audience for this work was not even the ruling class but the common people because the rulers already knew these methods through their education.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Hans Baron (1961) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#CITEREFBaron1961) is one of the few major commentators who argue that Machiavelli must have changed his mind dramatically in favour of free republics, after having written the Prince.


I know it's from wikipedia but it has good citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Interpretation_of_The_Prince_as_politic al_satire
check it out

[ComradeOm]

The "interests of the monarch"...(!) Care to explain more on this one?In that the Restoration monarchs inherited, so to speak, relatively advanced and centralised state apparatuses from Napoleon. There was an obvious interest for the monarch, both as person and wider institution, to defend these Bonapartist structures - even if it involved, as it often did, aligning with the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie in opposition to the feudal nobility. To be simplistic


You're reinforcing my first point here -- that a monarchist centralization (or imperialist Napoleonic strongman) would be more historically progressive, and preferable to, a return to a patchwork of feudal nobles controlling local landsWhich is in turn my point: monarchism, particularly post-Napoleon, was in opposition to a centralised state in the Napoleonic model. If you insist on applying the 'progressive' label then the monarch was progressive but the monarchists were reactionary

[GPDP]

So what I'm getting from this discussion, then, is that monarchist ideology and the monarchist institution itself are not necessarily bedfellows, and in fact are often in opposition to each other? That's pretty interesting. I never would have imagined such a dynamic, but I suppose it makes sense.

[ckaihatsu]

In that the Restoration monarchs inherited, so to speak, relatively advanced and centralised state apparatuses from Napoleon. There was an obvious interest for the monarch, both as person and wider institution, to defend these Bonapartist structures - even if it involved, as it often did, aligning with the bourgeoisie and the petit-bourgeoisie in opposition to the feudal nobility.


Yes.





To be simplistic


No need to qualify it -- you're laying out the fundamental factors, or historical vectors of material forces -- and not *over-* simplifying.


I'll also note that the conventional political spectrum, from right to left, aligns with objective historical progression, from past to present. Note that, on the following diagram, imperialism / adventurism / nationalism would be preferable to that which is relatively more right-wing / historically regressive, namely regionalism and ethnicity-based religious traditionalism.


[3] Ideologies & Operations Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Ocean Seal]

Yes.





No need to qualify it -- you're laying out the fundamental factors, or historical vectors of material forces -- and not *over-* simplifying.


I'll also note that the conventional political spectrum, from right to left, aligns with objective historical progression, from past to present. Note that, on the following diagram, imperialism / adventurism / nationalism would be preferable to that which is relatively more right-wing / historically regressive, namely regionalism and ethnicity-based religious traditionalism.


[3] Ideologies & Operations Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/
In your chart why is the religious right to the right of the imperialists/adventurists. I think that someone who genuinely advocates imperialism is fairly right wing. Not those who say that the US is on a peacekeeping mission, but rather those who are like yay let's blow stuff up to get more land/oil and so on.

[Lucretia]

The text to read if you are going to study seriously monarchism as a political theory is Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha.

[ckaihatsu]

In your chart why is the religious right to the right of the imperialists/adventurists. I think that someone who genuinely advocates imperialism is fairly right wing. Not those who say that the US is on a peacekeeping mission, but rather those who are like yay let's blow stuff up to get more land/oil and so on.


First off, thanks for the feedback -- I welcome any and all comments that constructively address any of the educational illustrations I've made.

I think it's crucial to view and comprehend politics as being any of various positions that are all *relative* to each other -- this is why we can validly use relativistic terms like 'progressive' and 'regressive' (or 'reactionary'), since the political spectrum itself is a one-dimensional linear expanse.

I placed the 'religious right' to the right of generic 'imperialists / adventurists' since they would have more traction with the *right-wing* of the imperialists, as with the recent neo-cons (neoconservative hawks) who held sway in the White House over most of the last decade. Their rampant aggression was finally rebuked by the U.S. electorate, though Obama continues with a more maintenance-like kind of imperialism, with less overt hostility in matters of state. (We may be seeing more inter-imperialist bridge-building and cooperation on predation, as with the recent plundering and carve-up of Libya under the resurgent NATO aegis.)

The religious right, of whatever religion and denomination, will necessarily be more *fundamentalist* -- subscribing to a political doctrine more informed by religious tenets than by principles concerning the polity of the civil nation-state.

Fortunately religious fundamentalism continues to be on the outskirts of nationalist politics generally, but also continues to exert a steady influence, especially at times when conventional nationalism weakens and is more susceptible to political redefinition.

I'll expand on this notion of rightward (and leftward) political influence tugging at the prevailing status quo by positing a dynamic of "centrifugalism" -- a figurative shorthand to illustrate the real-world shifting of the world's political center of gravity:


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/