Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Traitorfish]

In many ways, the DPRK is the state which most closely resembles Kaiserguard's neo-absolutist ideal.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Anyway, it all happens to among North Koreans a sense democratic legitimacy. If completely free elections were to be held, you can be sure to expect the North Koreans will vote in favour of Kim Jong-Woon.

I am not sure. And I don't think anyone can be sure how much of the propaganda North Koreans really believe. Especially because form what I have gathered images and news from the outside world increasingly make their way into North Korea.
If by "completely free" you also mean completely free news media etcetera... The current regime would crumble within seconds. Of that I am actually sure. Reality just is too much in the face of all the lies. Their legitimization just is too ridiculous.

 

[Tahuti]

UKIP may be more civilised than some of their more openly fascistoid cousins, yes. But the Democratic Unionist Party supported a thirty-year campaign of racial terrorism against British subjects and citizens, and even you might struggle to frame that as "civilised".

I've been trying to find stuff about it. No luck so far.

In many ways, the DPRK is the state which most closely resembles Kaiserguard's neo-absolutist ideal.

Not really. That's almost like saying you would love North Korea and Stalinist Russia because it is nominally Socialist.

The DPRK is essentially democratic and autocratic at the same time without any ideological contradiction, which is totalitarianism. The people were given nominal equality after which the state molded their way of thinking - within that same framework - and so the people genuinely accepted the Kims rule by charisma - albeit a highly artificial one created by the media. I seek to replace democratic institutions with autocratic ones, not complement them. It is liberating to not be considered a cog in the wheel, even if it means viewing yourself as an underling. This the vast differences between aristocratic monarchies and North Korea.

If by "completely free" you also mean completely free news media etcetera... The current regime would crumble within seconds. Of that I am actually sure. Reality just is too much in the face of all the lies. Their legitimization just is too ridiculous.

News media is never really free. If the government doesn't control the media, the media will control the government. Though by complete free, I refer to the elections themselves (i.e. no fraud, etc.).

 

[ParkCungHee]

The DPRK is essentially democratic and autocratic at the same time without any ideological contradiction, which is totalitarianism. The people were given nominal equality after which the state molded their way of thinking - within that same framework - and so the people genuinely accepted the Kims rule by charisma - albeit a highly artificial one created by the media. I seek to replace democratic institutions with autocratic ones, not complement them. It is liberating to not be considered a cog in the wheel, even if it means viewing yourself as an underling. This the vast differences between aristocratic monarchies and North Korea.

And my point is that doesn't really pan out as understanding of North Korea except maybe for like a ten year transitional period, and is looking at things through a very European, soviet oriented lens.

The DPRK represents fundamental continuity with Korea's past, and is based around implicitly monarchistic concepts. I don't mean, by this, that North Korea's autocratic and nepotistic style of rule is implicitly monarchistic, but that North Korea does not make these concepts explicit because they don't need to.

They are the last Monarchy on earth that does not seek to legitimate itself, and explain itself in terms set by liberalism, but simply is. They are unideological monarchs, with a court ideology.

 

[Tahuti]

They are the last Monarchy on earth that does not seek to legitimate itself, and explain itself in terms set by liberalism, but simply is. They are unideological monarchs, with a court ideology.

Monarchies by definition 'are', whether that monarchy is Saudi Arabia or Norway. The Kims are personally a component of Juche, by virtue of being its creators and proponents.

 

[Traitorfish]

I've been trying to find stuff about it. No luck so far.

The Democratic Unionist Party has historically supported the Loyalist paramilitary groups, specifically the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. Mostly this support has been implicit, but during the 1980s it was direct, with senior members of the DUP forming the pseudo-paramilitary Ulster Resistance, which imported arms for the UVF and UDA. (From South Africa, to the surprise of nobody anywhere.)

Not really. That's almost like saying you would love North Korea and Stalinist Russia because it is nominally Socialist.

"Nominally" is the key word, though: I may share with the DPRK a nominal enthusiasm for socialism, but the actual structure of North Korean social and political life is entirely abhorrent to me. But while you may reject the DPRK's nominal socialism, its actual structure of traditional autocracy is probably closer than any other state- not identical, but closer- to the revival of absolute monarchy that you propose.

It's certainly closer than any of the European monarchies, which beyond symbolism and ritual are indistinguishable (or at least, cannot be collective distinguished from) from their republican neighbours.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Monarchies by definition 'are', whether that monarchy is Saudi Arabia or Norway. The Kims are personally a component of Juche, by virtue of being its creators and proponents.

I don't think this is true. If you ask a Norwegian or a Saudi, ESPECIALLY a Norwegian or Saudi close to the monarchy why they have one, they'll give you an answer. And they'll give you an answer, as you do, and as this thread does, based on terms and justifications in relation to democratic principle. They may be pragmatist, conservative, or ideological justifications for the Monarchy, but none the less the monarch must be justified. The culture has already moved on, but the monarchy has preserved because of reasons.

This was not the case, as you must know, hundreds of years ago in Europe. It was not the case only decades ago in East Asia, and that is the continuity the Kim dynasty has tapped into, along with more explicitly monarchist traditions like the Tonghak.

The Kim Dynasty simply "are" monarchs in the way that a chief of an isolated tribe may be chief. Not because of any particular justification, because having a chief simply is an unexplained expectation of life. Note that I'm not talking about things like autocracy and nepotism making a functional monarchy, but a CULTURE of monarchy here.

 

[Tahuti]

And they'll give you an answer, as you do, and as this thread does, based on terms and justifications in relation to democratic principle. They may be pragmatist, conservative, or ideological justifications for the Monarchy, but none the less the monarch must be justified. The culture has already moved on, but the monarchy has preserved because of reasons.

Making good arguments for monarchy is merely a nice bonus, though ultimately, any monarchy pretty much is. The rationalist arguments are mere ripostes against republican notions, which are grounded in pure rationality.

Ultimately, a monarchy has value beyond any explanatory power of rationality. Rational defences of monarchy explain very little of what monarchy truly is.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Making good arguments for monarchy is merely a nice bonus, though ultimately, any monarchy pretty much is. The rationalist arguments are mere ripostes against republican notions, which are grounded in pure rationality.

Ultimately, a monarchy has value beyond any explanatory power of rationality. Rational defences of monarchy explain very little of what monarchy truly is.

That may be your contention, but it is not a part of the worldview or lived experience of your average Norwegian. It probably does a much better job describing the worldview and lived experience of the average citizen of the DPRK, and the news from there will sound a lot more consistent and even reasonable, when you keep these words in mind.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The wealthiest country in the world (per capita) is the Principality of Liechtenstein, where the monarch retains much more power than most of his European counterparts. Hans-Adam II is a rather unusual monarch though, who receives no income from taxes. (The prince makes most of his money by owning a bank that specializes in helping rich foreigners evade their countries' taxes. The country has more shell corporations than it does human residents.) He is supporting of direct democracy and actually tried to push through a new constitution which would allow any of his individual citizens to chose to secede for any reason and take their property with them while themselves becoming sovereigns. It was the legislature who blocked this, making him settle for the compromise that allowed any municipality to secede based on a bare majority vote in a local referendum.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Ultimately, a monarchy has value beyond any explanatory power of rationality. Rational defences of monarchy explain very little of what monarchy truly is.

So if you try to make an argument for monarchy you are just trying to apeace those that require arguments while in actuality monarchy is superior because it simply is and it can't be explained why?

Which can be shortened to: magic.

Or - are you just referring to a world view which assumes rational actors or something?

 

[Snorrius]

The wealthiest country in the world (per capita) is the Principality of Liechtenstein, where the monarch retains much more power than most of his European counterparts. Hans-Adam II is a rather unusual monarch though, who receives no income from taxes.

That's an interesting observation. There are few monarchies in Africa (outside of Arab world) but among Swaziland and Lesotho the one with absolute monarchy fares better than the other with constitutional.

 

[amadeus]

No discussion of property rights at all? It's something that every advanced economy has, and when property rights are undermined, everything goes to you-know-what. Recent examples: Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Look closely at some of the countries on the bad list again: Mozambique, Guinea, Burundi, Burkina Faso, and Eritrea.

Guinea - socialist one-party state from 1960.

Burundi - socialist coup, 1966.

Mozambique - socialist state imposed by FRELIMO, 1975.

Burkina Faso - socialist coup, 1983.

Eritrea - under Ethiopian control of the red Derg from 1974.

Now look again at the top of your good list. Marxist-Leninist-Maoist regimes are conspicuously absent.

The answer isn't monarchy, it's capitalism.

 

[Snorrius]

The answer isn't monarchy, it's capitalism.

This observation may or may be not true but there are plenty of capitalistic countries which did not make to even first half of the list save the top. I also suspect monarchies will be more inclined to protect property rights than "democracies".

Location: Osaka (大&#38442

Japan (monarchy)

 

[mitsho]

I might suggest a few good books from political science on an introduction to Theory and Measurment of Democracy, but I fear those might be lost on people who just want to debate.

Astonishingly, the arguments you bring up in the opening and subsequent posts are quite close to the early debates in empirical political science on how to measure democracy. I'm reminded of stuff like Dahl and Polyarchy (1972 or so) from the early semesters of study.

Most people have already pointed out the distinction between the nominal titles and the actual structures used to reach decisions. While I find the point you are trying to make about the strength of the belief in some ordering structure interesting, you certainly overestimate its value and you are wrong in connecting it only to monarchy. While the "King" may be a valuable belief, so can be the constitution (USA), "standing united against outside forces/direct democracy/confederalism" (Switzerland) or the ethnicity and a history of being persecuted (Israel). Now all of these provide their own problems: The US struggles with their inflexibility to reform its political system, Switzerland is "slow" in policy and a little bit too stubborn and Israel struggles with how to connect this identity to its non-Jewish citizenry and distinguish it from the ideas of its ultra-orthodox citizenry.

But so does Monarchy. To a large degree. To a very large degree.

And it has nothing to do with (empirical) political theory. This debate is more on how to explain power and wealth.

So why is this exactly a RD thread? Back to the drawing board, this needs a well though ouf opening post.

 

[Tahuti]

No discussion of property rights at all? It's something that every advanced economy has, and when property rights are undermined, everything goes to you-know-what.

A monarchy is more compatible with property rights than a democracy.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Democracy good? Monarchy bad?
If you think about it closely, the results are quite sad.
Democracy is squabbling, a government that fights,
how can things get done when everyone is right?

A monarch on the other hand, benevolent and wise,
can steer his country forward, with his unwavering guise.
If some subjects debate policy, causing all sorts of dread,
with the wave of his hand, it's off with their heads.

With one man in control, there's no need to think,
all your worries can go right down the sink.
Your property is his property, your loyalty not in question,
if you think you can own, you're relieved of possession.

Just look at history, all the good times, its not very difficult,
the Tsar for example, a beautiful Russia he did built.
The peasants worked hard for their patriarchal father,
knowing he's in charge, they lived their lives with honor.

The Tsar's collapse, therefore, was not of his doing,
it was those petty westerners, with their democracies and booing.
The Prussians, Austrians, French and Brits too,
with their elected leadership and republican can do.

Their fighting, cussing, and ceaseless debate,
which is only something democracies can create.
In the end brought them to war,
which made Father Nicholas really quite sore.

He attempted his best, like a master at the loom
to steer his way clear of the oncoming doom.
But those elected representatives, without much sight,
created diplomatic agreements and forced him to fight.

And so the fall of the monarchy came not from his subjects,
who's peaceful and happy lives created no cause for reject.
It was the machinations, the plots, the need to be the best,
debated in the great Victorian chambers of the west.

After the great war, the goodness ceased to exist,
with all our ideals destroyed and our lives in a twist.
A man was now entitled to the sweat of his brow,
and could rule himself, and others, without fallow.

Greed and corruption, individual and collective,
have turned our world into a great big hot bed.
Everyone fights, no one can agree,
all because of the curse of democracy.

 

[Snorrius]

The Tsar's collapse, therefore, was not of his doing,
it was those petty westerners, with their democracies and booing.
The Prussians, Austrians, French and Brits too,
with their elected leadership and republican can do.

Well, to be fair, Prussians, Austrian and French also had to eat this medicine. Brits are only one who were able to use "democracy" without significant degradation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is liberating to not be considered a cog in the wheel, even if it means viewing yourself as an underling.

Sorry, just don't get being held as property 'liberating'.

 

[Traitorfish]

No discussion of property rights at all? It's something that every advanced economy has, and when property rights are undermined, everything goes to you-know-what. Recent examples: Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

Look closely at some of the countries on the bad list again: Mozambique, Guinea, Burundi, Burkina Faso, and Eritrea.

Guinea - socialist one-party state from 1960.

Burundi - socialist coup, 1966.

Mozambique - socialist state imposed by FRELIMO, 1975.

Burkina Faso - socialist coup, 1983.

Eritrea - under Ethiopian control of the red Derg from 1974.

I think you're coming close to the same mistake that Kaiserguard makes, assuming the causal relationship suits you: that the nature of a country's political regime is responsible for its prosperity or its lack of prosperity, rather than the country's prosperity being responsible for the nature of the political regime. Are these places dumps because they were socialist ("socialist"), or did they give socialism a go because capitalism didn't seem to be doing much for them?

I mean, in this case, I agree that the generally lousy economic policy of a lot of African Marxist-Leninist regimes ("1. Soviet aid. 2. ? 3. Profit.") plays a part in their lack of development, but the regimes themselves didn't drop out of the sky onto once-prosperous countries. The ultimate burden that all of these countries suffer is the legacy of colonialism, to which neither monarchy nor democracy, socialism nor capitalism offer any magical solution.