Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 3      Prev   1   2   3   Next
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,834
Reply with quote  #16 
In my opinion, distributism is the way to go. Not in the sense of a slavish devotion to the ideas of Chesterbelloc, but in the support for a localist, family and community orientated economic system. I say a plague on both houses, of socialism and liberal economics (I could say capitalism, but people get confused by that and I assume I'm then a socialist).
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Another problem for conservatives and traditionalists with most forms of socialism and social democracy is that they tend to be very centralising, top-heavy systems that help to undermine Burke's little platoons, like family and local community, by wantonly invading their autonomy and functions. They are as bad as corporate-capitalism (which itself is hardly a truly small state system). There are versions of socialism that don't, like guild socialism or that associated with E. F. Schumacher and Leopold Kohr, but these are rare.

By the way, I don't think Bernie Sanders is a moderate by any measure. He honeymooned in the USSR. And whatever you think about the end goals of the likes of Corbyn, Sanders, or Warren, they are quite radical in their means. They don't intend to proceed cautiously, but to just spend and interfere left, right, and centre. Warren's plans will require something like thirty trillion dollars over the next ten years, if I recall correctly. That's massive. They all will have to raise taxes hugely, including on people relatively ordinary in their incomes. Sanders and Warren will have to make over the entire US healthcare system, including probably banning private insurance, as otherwise many doctors and healthcare professionals simply won't accept the lower rates on offer from medicare for all and it will be hard for many of those without private insurance to see a doctor.

Personally, I do think we've swung too far in the neoliberal direction, and I am willing to accept some social democratic reforms, if that's the only likely alternative. But they should be done in a careful and measured way, which is not what Corbyn is offering. Also, we should recognise there may be economic downsides, even excluding social ones. The more robustly social democratic nations have tended to have chronically higher unemployment than us or the US. At Sweden's most socialist, between the 60s and the 90s, it had no net private sector job creation. The economy basically stagnated. Also, they have high levels of taxation. Even people just above median wage in the Nordic countries pay a lot of tax (or at least Denmark and Sweden). They are also different societies, especially the Nordic ones. They're smaller and more homogeneous. In fact, one of the reasons for some of the lessening of the welfare state in these countries in recent decades has been immigration and the lessening of the homogeneity of these societies. People are less willing to pay so much tax for people who may have moved to the countries. Also, many immigrants take out welfare at a much higher rate than Swedes and Danes usually do. In fact, one of the hallmarks of these societies has been a reluctance of many people to use welfare unless they really have to - despite the generosity of the system, few people abused it. But there's evidence that this kind of ethic is far less prevalent today, both amongst immigrants and younger native Swedes and Danes. Britain is not like Sweden in 1970. It's more like Sweden today, and then some perhaps.

Sanders and Corbyn are moderates, because they don't support abolition of private enterprise. Sanders merely wants to emulate the British NHS. That's hardly radical. It is possible to be pro-Soviet without being Communist. Jalal Talabani, Hafez al-Assad and Indira Gandhi were pro-Soviet without being Communists. I support the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is a social democratic, secular and pro-Russian Kurdish nationalist party in South (Iraqi) Kurdistan. I use to vote for SPD, the social democratic party of Germany. I have considered voting for AfD, a right-wing nationalist party in Germany, because AfD supports limiting immigration, leaving the Eurozone and establishing friendly relations with Russia, but I haven't done it yet, because AfD supports economic liberalism and parts of AfD minimize the crimes of Nazi Germany. Parts of SPD also want friendly relations with Russia.
Denmark and Sweden remain far more socialist than Britain, and Germany is also far more socialist than Britain, while being less socialist than Denmark and Britain.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
Depending on how broadly one defines socialist, even I, a free-market Crown/Peers/Commons traditionalist could be considered a Socialist, so there's no inherent need for Monarchism to constradict with Socialism.
I wouldn't self-identify as Socialist since  it is only in the incredibly broad sense of concern for all levels of society, in particular the poor (both the government-dependant class and the working class) and the means by which I would attempt to alleviate their problems would be abhored by most self-identifying Socialists.
Indeed Catholic Social Teaching, which is perfectly compatible with Monarchism, is often accusef of being just Socialism with a Christian paint-job by its detractors.
Nonetheless, I'm not convinved that it's a good idea to try and form alliance between the movements given that self-identifying Socialists, azadi excluded, are generally anti-Hierarchy and therefore anti-Monarchy.

Claiming that socialists must be republicans is nonsense. A figurehead hereditary monarchy is compatible with socialism. Many socialists and social democrats have been monarchists. Denmark and Sweden are monarchies, Atlee was a monarchist, Orwell was a monarchist, Friedrich Ebert, who was the leader of SPD, tried to save the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany in November 1918 and Hun Sen, the current prime minister of Cambodia, was the Communist dictator of Cambodia before the restoration of the Cambodian monarchy.
The Mladorossi, a political movement, which was founded by Kazembek, supported restoring the Russian monarchy, while keeping the socialist economic system of Soviet Russia. The Mladorossi were National Bolsheviks. My political ideology is quite similar to National Bolshevism, but I don't consider myself a National Bolshevik, because I don't support total abolition of private enterprise. In addition, many Russian National Bolsheviks support antisemitism. I'm strongly opposed to racism and antisemitism.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,834
Reply with quote  #19 
None of those people mentioned has much in common with Sanders in a relevant sense. He was an American and this was the Cold War. Whether he was an actual communist or Marxist, it's behaviour well outside the mainstream American left of the time. He's what the Aussies call a rat-bag, as is Corbyn.

The point about Corbyn and Sander's radicalism is that don't pursue their goals in a moderate way. If you intend to turn American or Britain into Denmark or Sweden, or even what they were forty ago, then it behooves you to proceed at a careful, moderate pace. This isn't what Corbyn, Sanders, or Warren intend to do.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
None of those people mentioned has much in common with Sanders in a relevant sense. He was an American and this was the Cold War. Whether he was an actual communist or Marxist, it's behaviour well outside the mainstream American left of the time. He's what the Aussies call a rat-bag, as is Corbyn.

The point about Corbyn and Sander's radicalism is that don't pursue their goals in a moderate way. If you intend to turn American or Britain into Denmark or Sweden, or even what they were forty ago, then it behooves you to proceed at a careful, moderate pace. This isn't what Corbyn, Sanders, or Warren intend to do.

Support for socialism is increasing among young people. Sanders and Corbyn are very popular among young people, and Kevin K├╝hnert, the leader of the youth movement of SPD, supports nationalization of BMW. The financial crisis of 2008 has caused many young people to abandon capitalism, because they suffer from precarious employment, and young Britons and Americans suffer from student debt. Most young socialists aren't Communists. They are democrats, and they don't support total abolition of private enterprise. Monarchism must not be tied to conservatism, because we monarchists can't afford to ignore the young socialists. We must convince the young socialists of the benefits of a figurehead constitutional monarchy.
We must join the struggle against big business, and British monarchists must support abolition of the House of Lords, because supporting hereditary membership of the British parliament is unacceptable to the young British socialists. Aleksandr Kazembek was a Russian nobleman, but he supported socialism, because he realized, that defending fat cats against the working class and the poor peasants was a bad idea. He wanted to restore the Russian monarchy, but he supported the socialist economic system of Soviet Russia. Aleksandr Kazembek was an ethnic Azeri and a Russian Orthodox Christian. The Azeris are culturally close to the Kurds. I want to emulate Aleksandr Kazembek. A Nestorian Christian Kurdish nobleman living in Germany will be the tribune of the 99%.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,461
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
 ... and British monarchists must support abolition of the House of Lords, because supporting hereditary membership of the British parliament is unacceptable to the young British socialists.

Then again, possibly we couldn't care less what is and isn't acceptable to young British socialists.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

Then again, possibly we couldn't care less what is and isn't acceptable to young British socialists.

We can't afford to shackle monarchism to conservatism. According to opinion polls, the majority of the British millenials will vote Labour. Monarchists ought to be in tune with the zeitgeist in order to preserve current monarchies and restore abolished monarchies. Reza Pahlavi is in tune with the Iranian zeitgeist. He supports democracy and secularism in Iran. Most young Iranians want democracy and secularism. Reza Pahlavi enjoys widespread support among Iranians. Aleksandr Kazembek was also in tune with the Russian zeitgeist.
The Tories will likely win the general election on December 12 because of Brexit, but Labour will likely win a landslide victory in the 2024 British general election. Rebecca Long-Bailey will likely become Prime Minister of Britain in 2024.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

Claiming that socialists must be republicans is nonsense. A figurehead hereditary monarchy is compatible with socialism. Many socialists and social democrats have been monarchists. Denmark and Sweden are monarchies, Atlee was a monarchist, Orwell was a monarchist, Friedrich Ebert, who was the leader of SPD, tried to save the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany in November 1918 and Hun Sen, the current prime minister of Cambodia, was the Communist dictator of Cambodia before the restoration of the Cambodian monarchy.
The Mladorossi, a political movement, which was founded by Kazembek, supported restoring the Russian monarchy, while keeping the socialist economic system of Soviet Russia. The Mladorossi were National Bolsheviks. My political ideology is quite similar to National Bolshevism, but I don't consider myself a National Bolshevik, because I don't support total abolition of private enterprise. In addition, many Russian National Bolsheviks support antisemitism. I'm strongly opposed to racism and antisemitism.


I didn't claim that though...

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,834
Reply with quote  #24 
Azadi, what you say has very little directly to do with my points.

Anyway, you are correct that it's not a good idea to tie monarchism to too narrow an ideological basis, but it's also true that monarchism needs a certain respect for tradition and a society that doesn't think equality and democracy are the only political values. The millennials you talk off have an outlook not very hospitable to monarchism in general.

Also, although I certainly am not sanguine about it's quite possible that the views of these people in their teens and twenties won't be the same when they get older. Becoming a property owner and having a career and family makes you less more cautious. The question will be, I suppose, how many are likely to become homeowners, have a relatively secure career, have a family, etc. Again, this is an argument for at least a little distributism from conservatives. They should aim to encourage homeownership and small businesses.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Azadi, what you say has very little directly to do with my points.

Anyway, you are correct that it's not a good idea to tie monarchism to too narrow an ideological basis, but it's also true that monarchism needs a certain respect for tradition and a society that doesn't think equality and democracy are the only political values. The millennials you talk off have an outlook not very hospitable to monarchism in general.

Also, although I certainly am not sanguine about it's quite possible that the views of these people in their teens and twenties won't be the same when they get older. Becoming a property owner and having a career and family makes you less more cautious. The question will be, I suppose, how many are likely to become homeowners, have a relatively secure career, have a family, etc. Again, this is an argument for at least a little distributism from conservatives. They should aim to encourage homeownership and small businesses.

I want to combine the socialism of Sanders, Corbyn and Norbert Walter-Borjans, the new leader of SPD, with the right-wing nationalism of Putin, Orban, Le Pen and Salvini. British socialists ought to support the socialist monarchism of Orwell and Atlee. I prefer Aleksandr Kazembek to Roger Scruton and Chesterbelloc.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,834
Reply with quote  #26 
Your preferences are noted, although I have heard them before. I have quite the reverse position.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Your preferences are noted, although I have heard them before. I have quite the reverse position.

Why do you dislike Aleksandr Kazembek?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,834
Reply with quote  #28 
What's there to like about him, except his monarchism? Centralised socialism is a bad idea. We've been through this. Why would I change my mind just because you bring up some random figure.

Also, looking at this figure, he seems to be a fascist. Fascist advocacy is banned here.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
What's there to like about him, except his monarchism? Centralised socialism is a bad idea. We've been through this. Why would I change my mind just because you bring up some random figure.

Also, looking at this figure, he seems to be a fascist. Fascist advocacy is banned here.

Aleksandr Kazembek supported the Russian Orthodox Church.
Kazembek supported Mussolini, but he was opposed to Nazism. Kazembek abandoned fascism in favour of National Bolshevism during the 1930's. Condemning Kazembek, because he supported Mussolini, makes no sense. The fascist regime of Italy appeared to be a decent regime in the 1920's and the early 1930's. Churchill admired Mussolini. The rules ban "Nazism, fascism and racialism". I'm strongly opposed to racism and antisemitism. Mussolini's racial laws, which were introduced in 1938, were disgusting, and the Italian Social Republic was an illegitimate quisling regime. The Italian invasions of Ethiopia and Albania were wrong.

MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #30 
At least in the UK, NazBol is often understood as a form of socialist fascism, like strasserism.

Can you clarify whether the form of NazBol you are advocating for lines up with this perception?

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.