Monarchy

[4thInter]

Is a monarchy left or right? Or does it depend on the monarchs political views?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A monarchy is inherently reactionary.

[synthesis]

The monarchy is actually the definition of right-wing, even though I would argue that the left-right divide is only really a characteristic of bourgeois society. The concept of the left-right divide came about when the bourgeois revolutionaries would stand on the left-hand side of the French court and the royalists would stand on the right-hand side.

[Left Voice]

A monarchy is one of the most explicit actualisations of the kind of social hierarchies that the left should want to eliminate. The political views of the monarch aren't necessarily relevant - the role of a monarch cannot exist in a post-class society.

There is no squaring that circle.

[Jemdet Nasr]

I would like to mention that you see two types of monarchists today. The first are what you might call patriotic monarchists, those people who support current monarchs as national symbols and who enjoy the tradition or the pomp and circumstance of their monarch. Liberals, as well as many on the right can be patriotic monarchists, but it, as with most other forms of patriotism, is incompatible with radical leftism.

The other sort of monarchists you see are actual reactionary feudalists, often calling for the return of aristocracies and absolute monarchs. They are ardently anti-egalitarian and are basically the crazier cousins of the fascists.

[Broviet Union]

Monarchy, especially of the more absolute kind, is as far right as you can go.

[ProletariatPower]

Monarchy is not necessarily "far right", as there are different forms of Monarchies and sometimes they allow for some progress. Indeed there have been the so called "enlightened despots" in the past who have tried to improve conditions for the workers. However, the system in itself is paternalistic, it presumes that a ruler must be inherently born to rule 'his' people.

The problem with "enlightened despots" is that this "support" is in itself is demoralising to the proletariat, "paternalistic" in that it treats them as lesser humans who need to be protected and led. While they support their people's basic needs they do this (whether by intention or not) to prevent revolutionary change, to keep the people in their place, much like a concession. This is why even with a "good" monarch the system itself fails the people and maintains the Status Quo. Remember, "left" (while as someone quite rightly pointed out is itself a bourgeois concepts) is not about meeting the "knife and fork" demands of the people, what it is truly about is power to the people. The monarchs themselves may not intend to be oppressive, as you say, given bourgeois often lack class consciousness (forgive me if I am misusing the term), they may intend to help people but in reality the system itself is inherently right wing, and oppressive to the people. This is why I believe we must do away with all monarchies, as unpopular as it makes me in my own country; we must establish a Republic. Regardless, whatever the intentions of the particular ruler a Monarchy in itself is a right-wing establishment, as for the Monarch themselves, well if the Monarch is truly a Leftist ruler then they will get rid of such a system or will refuse to participate in it.

[Smash Monogamy]

The term "right wing" itself was made to specifically denote those in favor of the monarchy in France. Monarchy is as right wing now as it was then, if not far more so.

[RedWorker]

So what if the monarch enforces good work conditions and a distribution of wealth? There must be left monarchs and right monarchs, even if monarchy is, by definition, on the right. In the same way capitalism is by definition on the right yet there are left capitalists (socialdemocrats) and right capitalists (conservatives or whatever).

Another example, take Stalin. An authoritarian autocrat with far-right views when it comes to society, orgnization and hierarchy, yet his economic policy may be considered on the left.

What about left Carlists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlist_Party) in Spain? (Not to be confused with Carlism in general, most of which is right-wing.)

[synthesis]

So what if the monarch enforces good work conditions and a distribution of wealth?

What if the monarch has eleven fingers and hair dyed baby blue and enjoys long walks under the Tuscan sunset? You can't talk about "the monarchy" as an abstraction, only as a historical and political reality.

[RedWorker]

What if the monarch has eleven fingers and hair dyed baby blue and enjoys long walks under the Tuscan sunset? You can't talk about "the monarchy" as an abstraction, only as a historical and political reality.

Your post only makes the sense if all monarchs ever had the exact same politics, which obviously isn't the case.

Left and right are only relative. Conservatives are left of fascists. Socialdemocrats are left of conservatives. Socialists are left of socialdemocrats. Left monarchs are left of right monarchs.

I already gave you an example of left monarchists: the left Carlists in Spain.

[synthesis]

Left monarchs are left of right monarchs.

I already gave you an example of left monarchists: the left Carlists in Spain.

I can give you examples of "right-communists," too. "Left monarchism" means nothing in terms of actual political effect; if you can provide an example of something you'd consider a "left monarchy" that might provide for a more fruitful discussion.

Moreover, the political ideology of a monarch - even if you could find one that might be considered "progressive" - is essentially irrelevant next to the actual class position of monarchies historically, next to which the bourgeoisie is progressive.

[RedWorker]

I can give you examples of "right-communists," too. "Left monarchism" means nothing in terms of actual political effect; if you can provide an example of something you'd consider a "left monarchy" that might provide for a more fruitful discussion.

Consistutional monarchies in which the monarch's powers are limited (does not neccessarily mean a modern-style one: there are old monarchies where the monarch still played a role yet was constitutionally limited) are left of absolute monarchies.

Another example: The Spanish monarchy which established the inquisition was obviously more to the right than other monarchies which didn't install such harsh repression.

Kim monarchy in North Korea may have certain left economic policies despite being pretty far-right.

I'm sure you can think of a thousand other examples.

[synthesis]

Another example: The Spanish monarchy which established the inquisition was obviously more to the right than other monarchies which didn't install such harsh repression.

This is a problem I have with these sorts of discussions; a historical analysis wherein "right-wing" just means "something bad." It's completely anachronistic.


Kim monarchy in North Korea may have certain left economic policies despite being pretty far-right.

First, "monarchy" is just a pejorative term for the DPRK; it's better described as a bourgeois military dictatorship with a patrilineal procession of lucullan figureheads.

Second, what are these "left economic policies" of which you speak?

Finally:


I'm sure you can think of a thousand other examples.

I can't, but that may be because we are working with two entirely different frameworks of what it means to be "left" and "right."

[RedWorker]

This is a problem I have with these sorts of discussions; a historical analysis wherein "right-wing" just means "something bad." It's completely anachronistic.

Ok. So authoritarian regimes are just as left as libertarian societies according to your logic (no, I'm not calling any monarchy a "libertarian society"), or "go beyond left and right" (nonsense).

Tell me, how do you define left or right? :laugh:

Whatever definition you give would be able to be interpreted pretty easily into considering more authoritarian as more right. Except if it's made very carefully and doesn't match the actual meaning at all. Which would be an irrelevant personal definition.

You really have no point other than nitpicking over irrelevant nuances. Which is why I often find your posts boring and lacking in substance.


First, "monarchy" is just a pejorative term for the DPRK; it's better described as a bourgeois military dictatorship with a patrilineal procession of lucullan figureheads.

So exactly the same as any traditional monarchy.

[synthesis]

Ok. So authoritarian regimes are just as left as libertarian societies according to your logic. (no, I'm not calling any monarchy a "libertarian society")

Bourgeois democracy is authoritarian.


Tell me, how do you define left or right? :laugh:

Well, again, the original definition of "left" was the distance from which one's politics could be measured from monarchists.


So exactly the same as any traditional monarchy.

Except bourgeois and just not. You should investigate the term "mode of production." I would like to go into this further but there seems to be a significant gap of understanding here.

edit: Since you edited this into your post:


You really have no point other than nitpicking over irrelevant nuances. Which is why I often find your posts boring and lacking in substance.

The last point I made above seems more hostile than I intended it to be. But I stand by the statement itself.

[ComradeOm]

So what if the monarch enforces good work conditions and a distribution of wealth?In which case it merely becomes enlightened despotism, which is still despotism.

Effective examples of this are rare in history because the individual monarch is still working within what is inherently a reactionary framework. The monarch is supported by a class/state that can be expected to hinder any weakening of its wealth/power, while the logical conclusion of any real progress in a reformist platform is the abolition of the monarchy itself.

Hence there's a lot more written about the personalities and courts of the Enlightenment monarchs than their actual achievements. In the real world monarchy serves as a brake on progress.


Another example: The Spanish monarchy which established the inquisition was obviously more to the right than other monarchies which didn't install such harsh repression.Why? I'd struggle to see Isabella and Ferdinand as any more 'right-wing' than any of their contemporaries.

[ashtonh]

Monarchy is right-wing. It puts absolute power in the hand of one leader or a small group of aristocrats. The very power type leftists fight against.

[DOOM]

As the base changes, the ideologies based in the superstructure change. You can't really say that monarchy is left or right - as the context is an entirely different one. Capitalist ideologies =/= feudalist ideologies.