[cddombrowski]

It seems like most of the other threads on here are about fascism.

Are there any other Monarchists here?

[Cartertonian]

Define what you mean by 'Monarchist'.

Given that this is in the Platonism & Dictatorship forum, I'm guessing you mean a hereditary authoritarian regime? I am firmly a Royalist, but in the context of our (UK) constitutional monarchy.

[Figlio di Moros]

Would you object to restoring any portion of the crown's power? Pre-cromwellian parliamentary limits, restoration of executive powers? Any thoughts concerning the peerage?

Myself, I label a fascist, but I would fancy also a "monarchist", of sorts. I have a soft spot for Hamilton's proposal at the constitutional convention, the "British Plan". Effectively, an appointment Executive, the governor(President), to serve for "duration of good behavior"(unless impeached), would be an Elective Monarchy.

In reality, what defines a monarchist towards other systems is really a matter of style rather than substince. Entrust a parliament with power, and you have a "constitutional monarchy" with a symbolic heriditary monarchy; allow the parliament to appoint them, it's a democracy with a symbolic elected monarch. Strip a monarch of their title, but not their power, you have a "dictator", "Junta", "President for life", "Juche". Hamilton labelled his chief executive the "guvnor", and he'd have greater powers than the current President(namely, appointment of state governors); in reality, he'd have been an elective monarch, nearly as powerful as King George III and far more so than Queen Elizabeth II.

[starman2003]

One thing is for sure. The original basis for monarchy--"divine right" is as archaic and out of place in modern times as it gets. I suppose even fascism can lead to "monarchy" depending on definition. But there's no way we'll have any kind of official monarchy here.

[Figlio di Moros]

It's ironic you believe so strongly in "a Great Leader" who'll somehow come to power through providence, and yet you laugh at the concept when it's called "divine right".

[starman2003]

It's ironic you believe so strongly in "a Great Leader" who'll somehow come to power through providence, and yet you laugh at the concept when it's called "divine right".

I've long stated that a new caesarism will arise not "somehow" or by "divine providence" but due to crises caused by the deficiencies of democracy. And perhaps by a transformation wrought by technology. The handwriting is already on the wall, IMO, and the factors involved are entirely rational.

[Withnail]

I would certainly count myself as a monarchist, insomuch as I am a fervent supporter of the monarchy in the UK. I believe at the very least a constitutional monarch can play a vital role as a figurehead and a link to a shared past that can help unify a people behind a common cause. I also think that there is much to be said for an absolute monarchy, although the idea of returning to one in this day and age is quite fanciful (although not insanely so, I understand the people of Lichtenstein voted to extend the powers of the Princely House in a 2003 referendum).

I do however think monarchy has to arise organically from society if it is to be of any merit. I would question whether a culture that has no history of monarchy would benefit from its introduction.

[Figlio di Moros]

All cultures have some history, but there are some "gaps" for those liberal-democracies. Still, the concept of an elective monarchy, for instance, isn't so completely proposterous for a democratic state with no established aristocracy.

[Withnail]

I would agree with that, although I'm not sure an authoritarian government in a country without a recent history of monarchism would need or benefit from couching itself in the terms of monarchy. Certainly not completely preposterous though.

[starman2003]

..I'm not sure an authoritarian government in a country without a recent history of monarchy would need or benefit from couching itself in the terms of monarchy.

I'm sure it wouldn't. Monarchy is a dinosaur. I suppose a few figureheads still serve some purpose. But a future authoritarian US or world on the brink of conquering space calling itself a monarchy.. The best model for a 21st century authoritarian regime will be the great totalitarian systems of the last century i.e. rule by a party dedicated to a secular worldview, and meritocracy.

[Section Leader]

The monarchy just has to go, Kings and Queens belong in fairytales nowadays, not as head of state. What did Queen Elizabeth actually do to entitle her to her position as head of state beyond accident of birth? Heads of state should be chosen on the basis of their abilities and leadership skills, not who their parents were. A future British Fascist state should abolish the monarchy and install a system of meritocracy under an executive presidency, though preferably not using the title of 'president', 'Leader of the Republic' or simply 'Leader' would be better, I'd rather not have any of the trappings of democracy.

[starman2003]

..Kings and Queens belong in fairytales nowadays not as head of state.

Bravo Section Leader!

Heads of state should be chosen on the basis of their abilities and leadership skills, not who their parents were.

Or what the electorate wants--which usually isn't very good...

[Section Leader]

Bravo Section Leader!

Monarchy has no place in Fascism, the lines in The Doctrine of Fascism explaining why the Fascists tolerated the Italian monarchy were included purely to maintain the support of King of Italy, the only person in the country with the power to remove Mussolini from Prime Ministership.

Or what the electorate wants--which usually isn't very good...

The concept of 'democracy' is a ridiculous notion, all the most sucessful societies in history prior to the American and French revolutions were authoritarian with a strong leadership on top. Society should be organised along the lines of the military, a strongly regimented hierachy where people rise and fall on purely meritocratic terms.

[starman2003]

Monarchy has no place in Fascism..

While I agree, to be frank, as others here know, I consider the term "fascism" no longer politically usable (due to historical baggage) and the ideology, while basically right, a mere precursor of a more up to date and successful worldview/system of the future.

As for democracy, idiots here point to our success as "proof" of its supposed superiority. In fact it's just a luxury which only the most powerful and rich nations can afford--until recently.

[Section Leader]

While I agree, to be frank, as others here know, I consider the term "fascism" no longer politically usable (due to historical baggage) and the ideology, while basically right, a mere precursor of a more up to date and successful worldview/system of the future.

I have a somewhat more optimistic view, I think the term can eventually be reclaimed, one simply needs to educate the people that Fascism is more than "the baddies in WWII films". Millions of people already have the Fascist world view, they simply don't realise it yet. Fascism does need to be updated, for instance imperialism is passe, but the rejection of utopianism and individualism will always be correct.

As for democracy, idiots here point to our success as "proof" of its supposed superiority. In fact it's just a luxury which only the most powerful and rich nations can afford--until recently.

Democracy is like an exquisitely cut diamond ring, gorgeous in the shop window but it'll break the bank and is ultimately a pointless posession that you will have to give up in hard times.

[Preston Cole]

Educating people into the true meaning of fascism is a pointless venture. For one, you've got a massive left-wing base in the world right now, which is currently monopolizing the academic field and steadily growing in size due to anti-capitalism. Secondly, there has never been a so-called ideological education campaign. Ideologies are what they are: liberalism appeals to the businessmen, socialism appeals to the workers (leftism, in general, appeals to the weak), conservatism appeals to the Church and fascism appeals to authoritarian nationalists. Ideologies appeal to people directly, through what they represent at first glance. Liberalism supports democracy and individualism--so do most people on this planet. It's sort of a coincidence.

Therefore, ideological reeducation is mainly a concept used by those parts of the political spectrum that have been accused of war crimes, genocides and other bullshit. Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. If we say that our ideology has been misunderstood, we're automatically declaring it's impossible to apply it again. We should inject Fascism into the population through activism and a new authoritarian and future-looking ideology. I prefer Futurist Fascism, myself.

It would be amusing to see a nationalist dictator come to power in one of our countries with a covertly-fascist platform and declare before a massive audience that "Our government is fascist!" That would be a true rebirth of fascism, in my opinion.

[starman2003]

..I think the term can eventually be reclaimed...

Believe me, I do predict that in the future, if, or when, democracy goofs badly and cracks, circumstances will be conducive to the propagation of nondemocratic worldviews. But even under such circumstances, a new leadership would be wise not to press its luck; given our long democratic tradition, it may be forced to maintain an initial facade and wouldn't dare admit it is, in essence, fascist. Rather than try to update fascism, it would be better to employ a new title, even after a new regime is consolidated. It's not just a matter of practical politics. Honestly, given all the vast scientific and technical strides since 1945, I think we'd look rather dumb if esentially all we could do was copy a century old ideology instead of devising our own--however similar in some ways. After all, the fascists themselves didn't call their ideology bonapartism; times had really changed. But I don't think imperialism is passe. Much of the raison d'etre of fascism--I prefer the term Wholism--is to strengthen the state vis a vis others; to be hegemonistic. That was the attitude of the greatest 20th century fascist states--even without a tenth of US power and geopolitical scope (even under democracy we've become the sole superpower)--and the original inspiration for them--Rome. In addition, environmental and economic issues--and a great space program--can best be handled by a united world--united by a great hegemonistic power.

[Section Leader]

Believe me, I do predict that in the future, if, or when, democracy goofs badly and cracks, circumstances will be conducive to the propagation of nondemocratic worldviews. But even under such circumstances, a new leadership would be wise not to press its luck; given our long democratic tradition, it may be forced to maintain an initial facade and wouldn't dare admit it is, in essence, fascist. Rather than try to update fascism, it would be better to employ a new title, even after a new regime is consolidated. It's not just a matter of practical politics.

I describe myself as a Fascist out of simple honesty, but I don't claim to be leadership material (I think I'd be better suited as a soldier or a mid-level bureaucrat) so the choice of titles and names should probably be left in better hands than mine.

Honestly, given all the vast scientific and technical strides since 1945, I think we'd look rather dumb if esentially all we could do was copy a century old ideology instead of devising our own--however similar in some ways. After all, the fascists themselves didn't call their ideology bonapartism; times had really changed.

Socialists still call themselves Socialists and Libertarians still call themselves Libertarians. I see no reason why we shouldn't adapt and improve old ideologies to suit our times. The world view behind Fascism is universal, the forces which drive the destinies of nations and peoples haven't changed in any radical way since 1922, just the machinery by which they operate.

But I don't think imperialism is passe. Much of the raison d'etre of fascism--I prefer the term Wholism--is to strengthen the state vis a vis others; to be hegemonistic. That was the attitude of the greatest 20th century fascist states--even without a tenth of US power and geopolitical scope (even under democracy we've become the sole superpower)--and the original inspiration for them--Rome. In addition, environmental and economic issues--and a great space program--can best be handled by a united world--united by a great hegemonistic power.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one, the colonization of space will be the ultimate fulfillment of national destinies, once interstellar travel is perfected even the smallest of nations will have the ability to expand their influence, military power and population in ways never possible on Earth. The conquest of space will not be the end of national empires, just the beginning.

[starman2003]

I describe myself as a Fascist out of simple honesty, but I don't claim to be leadership material....so the choice of titles and names should probably be left in better hands than mine.

Maybe certain aspects of policy too?

Socialists till call themselves Socialists and Libertarians still call themselves Libertarians.

Because neither has been tainted by mass atrocities, nor has the stigma of being an enemy of our countries and a failure to boot.

..once interstellar travel is perfected even the smallest of nations will have the ability to expand their influence, military power..

Just because a technology is perfected doesn't mean it's affordable to every nation. Manned interplanetary travel, within our solar system, has long been theoretically possible but virtually no single nation can afford it. Many nations can't even afford state of the art jets or tanks. I think inevitably, only a global authority can oversee real progress in space. It's not just the limitations of individual nations. As long as there are independent states, there's bound to be rivalry or tension, which will inevitably mean big defense budgets, siphoning away more resources from space. There will have to be stability and unity on earth before civilization here can devote its full attention--or at least enough--elsewhere. And, as history shows, the only way to stability and unity is through hegemonization e.g. pax Romana. That is the great mission I envisage for a future wholist US--surpassing all past hegemons and unifying the globe. I realize that fate has placed others in more modest spheres so it's often hard for them to relate to this, but it's the best way to go.

[Preston Cole]

You do make a point regarding the affordability of space expansion for smaller nations, starman. Only the great powers and superpowers of our time can afford space campaigns: the US, Russia, China and perhaps India. And even their projects can barely muster feats like putting a man on Mars or revisiting the Moon, let alone colonizing it.

I'm afraid this timeline for the Halo video game series, which I helped put together, is more realistic than I thought.

UN-sponsored military forces begin a pattern of massive buildups, culminating in the first real interplanetary war. After the successful Marine deployment on Mars, recruitment drives and propaganda tactics strongly bolster UNSC (UN Space Command) forces. UN forces defeat Koslovic (supporters of rabid Communist hard-liner Vladimir Koslov) and Frieden (a resurgence of fascism) forces on Earth, then begin a systematic and dedicated drive to crush their remnants on the various planets they hold throughout the system. At the conclusion, Frieden and Koslovic forces are defeated, in the face of a massive, unified and very powerful UN military.

A unified Earth government was formed in the wake of the conflicts of 2160. Now, the victors were forced to deal with a less obvious but equally serious threat: overpopulation and a massive military that had no enemy to fight.

Imperialism is the vanguard of military progress. As war is a method of revitalization, the victors will take on the responsibility of conquering greater territories and governing the defeated. For smaller nations to become space-compatible, the world would need to go through a phase of multiple world wars in order to sideline the weaker nations and highlight those worthy and powerful enough to rule the planet and expand into space. A Darwinist war of global proportions. It would put the nations' sense of honor and pride to the test, but the resulting inferno would be difficult for the winning side to quell.

A multicultural world government isn't the way to go, either. I would rather see nations fight for supremacy in a new world war than see cultures mix together. The global futurist discourse may be more logical, yes, but the nationalist futurist discourse is more human and spiritual--these are the two trends of futurism that exist in my mind, and they reject each other.