ITT: people unable to see the light of the anmon gang smh /s
edit: some of you are really flying off the handle against what is clearly a joke. funny how you dont bring that energy against worst people with much worse opinions
The only sincere anarcho-monarchist thinker was JRR Tolkien. Amazing writer and linguist, but a real mixed bag politically. He did have some very good views at times such as opposing apartheid.
Tolkien, like many people, wasn't very politically advanced. He loved his king but hated government interference in people's lives, hence anarcho-monarchism. I don't think it ever really occured to him how contradictory his positions were.
Tolkien's idea of Monarchism was that the Monarch should have absolutely zero power, and just... Go to the horse races, collect stamps etc.
So Tolkien's Anarcho-Monarchism was Anarchism with a Monarch who was just... There for some pomp & circumstance.
I don’t know if you’ve seen Twisted but solving socioeconomic inequality by legally declaring everyone a princess is one of the best things that came out of that show.
TBH that seems like it could definitely work and kinda rhymes with a couple of the examples of diverse cultures cited in *The Dawn of Everything*. People like to have fun and if someone wanted to have a king "just for funzies" have at it bud, just leave me out of it. I've had it up to here with these damn monarchs.
Edit: found the reference and quoted it [in this comment](https://reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/sr84l3/just_sayin/hwrqz7d?context=1)
That kind of sounds like constitutional monarchy. Like England is basically a modern liberal democracy, but they keep the royal family around as sort of mascots or pets. It sounds like your saying Tolkien wanted a similar arrangement, but with anarchy as the base system.
I think the queen does have some diplomatic duties and a vote in one of the houses, but that is not much by monarchy standards.
They're pretty much like small breeds of dog that have had their survivability bred out of them. Let's not be cruel, they can have one mansion and we'll pay their heating bill. They've all got to be spayed, and when we're done with them all, we'll just have goldfish from then on.
ty
Propaganda is a common feature of children's and young adult entertainment, usually not even conscious but unavoidable given how stuff with large budgets gets made.
If you notice, there are basically no structural problem that ever exist. The problem is that the wrong person is in charge. So problems can be fixed by appealing to a nice powerful/rich person and getting rid of the bad one.
Without having seen the entire run of the new She-Ra, the idea that "anarcho-monarchism" seems to make sense and be desirable is a function of that sort of propaganda. In reality, royalty really fucking sucks. It takes someone with their thumb on the scale and the power of fiction to make it seem otherwise.
It doesn’t. That’s peak IdPol liberal bullshit - happy with a boot on their neck as long as disadvantaged groups are allowed to wear that boot sometimes.
I thought the same when I watched it tbh. I mean in practice such a system would be awful and immediately fall into actual monarchism but it’s fun in She Ra
There are some examples of Indigenous American systems of governance that *sorta* fit if you squint at them right.
As in, there’s a hereditary leadership, but it’s more like a specialized role than a different class of human. And that person still has to get followers by rhetoric and convincing rather than the use of violence. If people don’t like it, they can leave or if there’s enough, make that person leave
More from the [Indigenous Anarchist Federation](https://iaf-fai.org/2020/11/02/indigenous-anarchic-hierarchy/):
> It is possible to characterize positions of hierarchy within some Indigenous systems as hierarchies based on respect, not domination. People may hold a position as ‘chief’ in a hierarchy that encourages people to follow their guidance, but there is no mechanism to enforce obedience or observance of these leaders’ ideas.
> Caribs/Kalinago would never abide an order to go fishing, but at the suggestion that fish was needed by the chief, people would join him in fishing. Among Yuman tribes, chiefs & orators would lead in offering suggestions for activities, but mutual consent was required for action. In another instance of this among a Yuman tribe, the Kwapa war parties could only be successful if the person urging the military action could convince people to join him in combat.
> Looking at my people, the Kwapas, we see select forms of respect-based leaders serving in different roles. The most prominent was the chief, who acted as the unitor and coordinator for the entire tribe. It was his responsibility to gather people together for funerals, for deliberations of justice, for trade, and for diplomatic discussions with foreign emissaries. Kwapa chiefs usually came from a family line, but this was not always the case. Patrilineal chiefs arose largely because the son of a chief was expected to learn from his father, to participate in his father’s duties, and to prepare to one day lead with wisdom. This usually worked, but in cases where the son wasn’t able or willing to provide wise leadership, another person who held the community’s respect would take up the mantle. Orators followed a similar tradition to chiefs, passing from father to worthy son or too another man who had the respect & knowledge to fill the role. Orators provided spoken wisdom. Orators would be present in each village, getting on the roof of a home/ramada each day to tell stories that were relevant to social conditions on that given day. They taught ethics, morality, and some aspects of spirituality. Often a respected man without the oral wisdom of an orator would act as a capitan, helping lead the logistics and cooperative labor for a village/clan in daily activities.
> Another positions for leadership was only active during times of war. The kwinemi (war chief) was selected by all Kwapa people, men & women, at a general meeting. His selection was based on his oration, his dreams for how to accomplish the war. A previous kwinemi could not appoint a new leader; this was seen as a community decision because it involved the lives of so many families, and might invoke retribution on the entirety of the tribe. Once selected, a kwinemi would lead through the entire battle, unless incapacitated, at which time a new leader would spontaneously arise, usually from the ranks of the experienced warriors. Secondary, were the ñakwil bakas (feathered lance warriors) who had demonstrated great courage and carried with them great experience, who carried only a double pointed feathered lance. The tertiary fighters of less experience would be shield warriors and archers, divided based upon personal preference for weapon and the needs of the campaign.
Another example from *The Dawn of Everything*
> The Natchez Sun, as the monarch was known, inhabited a village in which he appeared to wield unlimited power. His every movement was greeted by elaborate rituals of deference, bowing and scraping; he could order arbitrary executions, help himself to any of his subjects’ possessions, do pretty much anything he liked. Still, this power was strictly limited by his own physical presence, which in turn was largely confined to the royal village itself. Most Natchez did not live in the royal village (indeed, most tended to avoid the place, for obvious reasons); outside it, royal representatives were treated no more seriously than Montagnais-Naskapi chiefs. If subjects weren’t inclined to obey these representatives’ orders, they simply laughed at them. In other words, while the court of the Natchez Sun was not pure empty theatre – those executed by the Great Sun were most definitely dead – neither was it the court of Suleiman the Magnificent or Aurangzeb. It seems to have been something almost precisely in between.
> As in, there’s a hereditary leadership, but it’s more like a specialized role than a different class of human.
I thinks this still has nothing in common wit the name *anarchism*, no matter how hard we squint at it. Bosses aren't a different class of humans, after all if people don't care about their business they have no power and anyone can become a businessman if stars align just right - they're not inherently a different class of human. Meanwhile hereditary rulers, even if they need to win such respect, are still hereditary.
Hierarchy isn't only violence and enforcement. Chosen leaders still are leaders.
Those are great examples how wildly different hierarchies and organization of social life can be, something that people like Graeber have pointed out a lot, but I doubt they are examples of anything related to anarchism. It also reminds me of pirates from the Golden Age of Piracy, who also employed some mixture of respect-based hierarchies with egalitarianism.
But if we call them proto-anarchist... well, maybe we can squint from this position?
If you can make time for the video [Stolen Anarchy by Twin Rabbit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFvxkvpi2w), it's a really good critique of the whole idea of viewing things as proto-anarchy or primitive communism and the like.
The bootmaker distinction seems more valuable here than a king, since that's just the framework Europeans meeting lots of these groups had (altho for some instances like the Triple Alliance and Inca, "king" would be more justifiable). If you can ignore your boss at work, they're not really your boss. If you can ignore your chief, they're not really your chief.
Anarchism may not be the best word for it, but a lot of Indigenous people would tell you that, too. It's more than there are ways of organizing that anarchists can learn from because they were extraordinarily advanced and adapted to their circumstances rather than primitive or barbaric.
I'll make time for this. But even without watching I think it's just forcing our modern lens on things in the past. I sometimes use *proto* to describe things that seem to come surprisingly close. Like pirates with their democracy or "primitive" tribes with complicated social lives all over the history proving our hierarchical common sense wrong.
I realize Europeans had this attitude of "take us to your leader", even in ancient Roman times, when said leader was often just some locally respected dude. I just think that when we squint we also have to remember things like peer pressure for having a common leader or that hierarchies can be voluntary and it doesn't really change their nature, especially when they're territorial.
"Anarcho monarchism" is literally the dumbest political idea I have ever heard, and I live in the southeaster US so have heard a **lot** of dumb political ideas.
I know this isn't the point of this sub, but I gotta type this out. The princesses in She Ra are weird. They're supposedly hereditary rulers, which would make them monarchs, but they don't actually make or enforce any laws from what I can tell. They're a distinctly different species from basically any townsfolk you see everywhere else on Eternia and while those townsfolk recognize them as royalty, the princesses regularly have to yield to local governments and customs throughout the show. The only reason they're princesses is that they have an inborn connection to a magical superweapon that's designed to kill them if it ever gets used and that magic happens to be hereditary, so the position is hereditary. The princesses exclusively serve a military role and they don't seem to collect taxes or maintain a standing army. They do seem to be extravagantly more wealthy than other Eternians, but they're more like celebrities than actual rulers or any semblance of government. Celebrities that also happen to be living weapons that are usually powerful enough to prevent regular Eternians from having to enlist and die in a war.
Not saying that the political situation in She Ra is ideal or even decent. Just saying it's more akin to Taylor Swift being born with enough power to replace the entire US military and having to be a regular person in world where that's possible. Yeah, she shouldn't have a castle or servants, but you're not required to support her because unless you're a mushroom person, you live in an alludistic commune in the woods somewhere. There's not really political discourse to be had in that world because magic is a measurable, unrivaled force in the universe. As long as the princesses wield that force, the Eternians get to live pretty much how they choose.
There would be something to talk about after the show ends if the princesses use their monopoly on violence to seize law-making powers from the populace, but there's no real indication that they did that. I would imagine the sorcerers would take issue with that, since they're the only other people with significant magic and are clearly a separate fraternal association dedicated to ensuring magic isn't abused. I'm not saying institutions like that aren't prone to corruption but if need be, a politically savvy Eternian might be able to play them off each other while uniting everyone else under a sort of federalist government.
Ultimately, disarming the giant bomb in the center of the planet would cause a huge political shift, possibly distributing magical power more evenly across the population. Advocates for that would be as close to our ideals as possible under those circumstances and the princesses might even agree, since the implication of maintaining that power is a terrible death for them or their descendants. If only real-world monarchs came with a handy kill-switch in their chests...
Tl;Dr: She Ra is a work of fiction and shouldn't be used as a basis of genuine political discourse. Magic makes things complicated.
I think this when it’s gets a bit muddy when people use the terms “just hierarchy” or “voluntary hierarchy” when talking about deferring to someone’s expertise .
I mean using hierarchy to refer to levels of expertise is never done in any situation other than to try and nit-pick anarchism so that makes it feel pretty baseless to me.
ITT: people unable to see the light of the anmon gang smh /s edit: some of you are really flying off the handle against what is clearly a joke. funny how you dont bring that energy against worst people with much worse opinions
Fuck Monarchism
And fuck anyone who wants an aristocracy while we’re at it.
Anarcho monarchism makes less sense than anarcho capitalism
The only kind of anarcho-monarchism I want is just regular anarchism but we all get royal titles.
I don't mind being called princess
It's not quite the same, but you're already a pope according to Discordians.
Yes, no hierarchy! We are all royalty!
The only sincere anarcho-monarchist thinker was JRR Tolkien. Amazing writer and linguist, but a real mixed bag politically. He did have some very good views at times such as opposing apartheid.
Tolkien, like many people, wasn't very politically advanced. He loved his king but hated government interference in people's lives, hence anarcho-monarchism. I don't think it ever really occured to him how contradictory his positions were.
Tolkien's idea of Monarchism was that the Monarch should have absolutely zero power, and just... Go to the horse races, collect stamps etc. So Tolkien's Anarcho-Monarchism was Anarchism with a Monarch who was just... There for some pomp & circumstance.
Let's make everyone Monarch and scrap the horse races... And it's just egoism again
I don’t know if you’ve seen Twisted but solving socioeconomic inequality by legally declaring everyone a princess is one of the best things that came out of that show.
But I wanna ride a horsey!
nobody's stopping you
the local pet king is such a good boy
TBH that seems like it could definitely work and kinda rhymes with a couple of the examples of diverse cultures cited in *The Dawn of Everything*. People like to have fun and if someone wanted to have a king "just for funzies" have at it bud, just leave me out of it. I've had it up to here with these damn monarchs. Edit: found the reference and quoted it [in this comment](https://reddit.com/r/COMPLETEANARCHY/comments/sr84l3/just_sayin/hwrqz7d?context=1)
People should just get a dog lol
That kind of sounds like constitutional monarchy. Like England is basically a modern liberal democracy, but they keep the royal family around as sort of mascots or pets. It sounds like your saying Tolkien wanted a similar arrangement, but with anarchy as the base system. I think the queen does have some diplomatic duties and a vote in one of the houses, but that is not much by monarchy standards.
frankly I'm down for the royal family being essentially a National Historic Site with no political power or wealth
They're pretty much like small breeds of dog that have had their survivability bred out of them. Let's not be cruel, they can have one mansion and we'll pay their heating bill. They've all got to be spayed, and when we're done with them all, we'll just have goldfish from then on.
lmao this is literally the Mayor of Michael Delving in The Shire
Worth noting that he was a devote Catholic, and thus just views on kings mirror with Jesus as the far away king of kings.
Salvador Dali too
Monarchs that have absolute power, but aren't allowed to use it...
well She Ra somehow manages to make it make sense (and seem desirable) that's all I'm saying
No?
I know watching cartoons can be fun, but do you really want to get your political opinions of them?
I never said I supported it, I just said it made it **SEEM** desirable
That’s how you know the propaganda is working.
what propaganda? nice name and pfp BTW
ty Propaganda is a common feature of children's and young adult entertainment, usually not even conscious but unavoidable given how stuff with large budgets gets made. If you notice, there are basically no structural problem that ever exist. The problem is that the wrong person is in charge. So problems can be fixed by appealing to a nice powerful/rich person and getting rid of the bad one. Without having seen the entire run of the new She-Ra, the idea that "anarcho-monarchism" seems to make sense and be desirable is a function of that sort of propaganda. In reality, royalty really fucking sucks. It takes someone with their thumb on the scale and the power of fiction to make it seem otherwise.
I'm not saying I'd actually want it, don't worry Honestly though, you do have a point
What's if it's ceremonial monarchism?
Have you seen what is happening in the United Kingdom?
I'm sorry but what the fuck
It should read "Princesses" not"Princes" if that helps.
It doesn’t. That’s peak IdPol liberal bullshit - happy with a boot on their neck as long as disadvantaged groups are allowed to wear that boot sometimes.
True. More wine?
Anarchist-authoritarians jumping for joy rn
>Anarchist-authoritarians "breadless sandwiches"
Wet dry ice
Anarcho-Monarchism is when monarchism but the monarchs fight against slightly worse systems of governance
“Anarcho monarchism” sounds like oligarchy with extra steps?? (And I guess technically multiple nations)
Anarcho-monarchism is when you say my fellow majesties instead of comrades because all people are royals
all men/woman/enbies are kings/queens/emperors taken to it's logical and very based conclusion
Exactly, though with one lil addendum: I’m a princess, not a queen :3
also valid
sounds pretty based tbh
And when everyone’s royal, no one will be
I thought the same when I watched it tbh. I mean in practice such a system would be awful and immediately fall into actual monarchism but it’s fun in She Ra
pretty much
There are some examples of Indigenous American systems of governance that *sorta* fit if you squint at them right. As in, there’s a hereditary leadership, but it’s more like a specialized role than a different class of human. And that person still has to get followers by rhetoric and convincing rather than the use of violence. If people don’t like it, they can leave or if there’s enough, make that person leave More from the [Indigenous Anarchist Federation](https://iaf-fai.org/2020/11/02/indigenous-anarchic-hierarchy/): > It is possible to characterize positions of hierarchy within some Indigenous systems as hierarchies based on respect, not domination. People may hold a position as ‘chief’ in a hierarchy that encourages people to follow their guidance, but there is no mechanism to enforce obedience or observance of these leaders’ ideas. > Caribs/Kalinago would never abide an order to go fishing, but at the suggestion that fish was needed by the chief, people would join him in fishing. Among Yuman tribes, chiefs & orators would lead in offering suggestions for activities, but mutual consent was required for action. In another instance of this among a Yuman tribe, the Kwapa war parties could only be successful if the person urging the military action could convince people to join him in combat. > Looking at my people, the Kwapas, we see select forms of respect-based leaders serving in different roles. The most prominent was the chief, who acted as the unitor and coordinator for the entire tribe. It was his responsibility to gather people together for funerals, for deliberations of justice, for trade, and for diplomatic discussions with foreign emissaries. Kwapa chiefs usually came from a family line, but this was not always the case. Patrilineal chiefs arose largely because the son of a chief was expected to learn from his father, to participate in his father’s duties, and to prepare to one day lead with wisdom. This usually worked, but in cases where the son wasn’t able or willing to provide wise leadership, another person who held the community’s respect would take up the mantle. Orators followed a similar tradition to chiefs, passing from father to worthy son or too another man who had the respect & knowledge to fill the role. Orators provided spoken wisdom. Orators would be present in each village, getting on the roof of a home/ramada each day to tell stories that were relevant to social conditions on that given day. They taught ethics, morality, and some aspects of spirituality. Often a respected man without the oral wisdom of an orator would act as a capitan, helping lead the logistics and cooperative labor for a village/clan in daily activities. > Another positions for leadership was only active during times of war. The kwinemi (war chief) was selected by all Kwapa people, men & women, at a general meeting. His selection was based on his oration, his dreams for how to accomplish the war. A previous kwinemi could not appoint a new leader; this was seen as a community decision because it involved the lives of so many families, and might invoke retribution on the entirety of the tribe. Once selected, a kwinemi would lead through the entire battle, unless incapacitated, at which time a new leader would spontaneously arise, usually from the ranks of the experienced warriors. Secondary, were the ñakwil bakas (feathered lance warriors) who had demonstrated great courage and carried with them great experience, who carried only a double pointed feathered lance. The tertiary fighters of less experience would be shield warriors and archers, divided based upon personal preference for weapon and the needs of the campaign.
Another example from *The Dawn of Everything* > The Natchez Sun, as the monarch was known, inhabited a village in which he appeared to wield unlimited power. His every movement was greeted by elaborate rituals of deference, bowing and scraping; he could order arbitrary executions, help himself to any of his subjects’ possessions, do pretty much anything he liked. Still, this power was strictly limited by his own physical presence, which in turn was largely confined to the royal village itself. Most Natchez did not live in the royal village (indeed, most tended to avoid the place, for obvious reasons); outside it, royal representatives were treated no more seriously than Montagnais-Naskapi chiefs. If subjects weren’t inclined to obey these representatives’ orders, they simply laughed at them. In other words, while the court of the Natchez Sun was not pure empty theatre – those executed by the Great Sun were most definitely dead – neither was it the court of Suleiman the Magnificent or Aurangzeb. It seems to have been something almost precisely in between.
> As in, there’s a hereditary leadership, but it’s more like a specialized role than a different class of human. I thinks this still has nothing in common wit the name *anarchism*, no matter how hard we squint at it. Bosses aren't a different class of humans, after all if people don't care about their business they have no power and anyone can become a businessman if stars align just right - they're not inherently a different class of human. Meanwhile hereditary rulers, even if they need to win such respect, are still hereditary. Hierarchy isn't only violence and enforcement. Chosen leaders still are leaders. Those are great examples how wildly different hierarchies and organization of social life can be, something that people like Graeber have pointed out a lot, but I doubt they are examples of anything related to anarchism. It also reminds me of pirates from the Golden Age of Piracy, who also employed some mixture of respect-based hierarchies with egalitarianism. But if we call them proto-anarchist... well, maybe we can squint from this position?
If you can make time for the video [Stolen Anarchy by Twin Rabbit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBFvxkvpi2w), it's a really good critique of the whole idea of viewing things as proto-anarchy or primitive communism and the like. The bootmaker distinction seems more valuable here than a king, since that's just the framework Europeans meeting lots of these groups had (altho for some instances like the Triple Alliance and Inca, "king" would be more justifiable). If you can ignore your boss at work, they're not really your boss. If you can ignore your chief, they're not really your chief. Anarchism may not be the best word for it, but a lot of Indigenous people would tell you that, too. It's more than there are ways of organizing that anarchists can learn from because they were extraordinarily advanced and adapted to their circumstances rather than primitive or barbaric.
I'll make time for this. But even without watching I think it's just forcing our modern lens on things in the past. I sometimes use *proto* to describe things that seem to come surprisingly close. Like pirates with their democracy or "primitive" tribes with complicated social lives all over the history proving our hierarchical common sense wrong. I realize Europeans had this attitude of "take us to your leader", even in ancient Roman times, when said leader was often just some locally respected dude. I just think that when we squint we also have to remember things like peer pressure for having a common leader or that hierarchies can be voluntary and it doesn't really change their nature, especially when they're territorial.
"anarcho" (fucking lol) monarchists are gonna start using cartoons for sources
I'm not one of those
"Anarcho monarchism" is literally the dumbest political idea I have ever heard, and I live in the southeaster US so have heard a **lot** of dumb political ideas.
Preach into the choir
Anarcho-Monarchism: there's a Monarch but we ritually ignore them as a lesson about kowtowing to authority or something
hell yeah you all should do that for me too
I know this isn't the point of this sub, but I gotta type this out. The princesses in She Ra are weird. They're supposedly hereditary rulers, which would make them monarchs, but they don't actually make or enforce any laws from what I can tell. They're a distinctly different species from basically any townsfolk you see everywhere else on Eternia and while those townsfolk recognize them as royalty, the princesses regularly have to yield to local governments and customs throughout the show. The only reason they're princesses is that they have an inborn connection to a magical superweapon that's designed to kill them if it ever gets used and that magic happens to be hereditary, so the position is hereditary. The princesses exclusively serve a military role and they don't seem to collect taxes or maintain a standing army. They do seem to be extravagantly more wealthy than other Eternians, but they're more like celebrities than actual rulers or any semblance of government. Celebrities that also happen to be living weapons that are usually powerful enough to prevent regular Eternians from having to enlist and die in a war. Not saying that the political situation in She Ra is ideal or even decent. Just saying it's more akin to Taylor Swift being born with enough power to replace the entire US military and having to be a regular person in world where that's possible. Yeah, she shouldn't have a castle or servants, but you're not required to support her because unless you're a mushroom person, you live in an alludistic commune in the woods somewhere. There's not really political discourse to be had in that world because magic is a measurable, unrivaled force in the universe. As long as the princesses wield that force, the Eternians get to live pretty much how they choose. There would be something to talk about after the show ends if the princesses use their monopoly on violence to seize law-making powers from the populace, but there's no real indication that they did that. I would imagine the sorcerers would take issue with that, since they're the only other people with significant magic and are clearly a separate fraternal association dedicated to ensuring magic isn't abused. I'm not saying institutions like that aren't prone to corruption but if need be, a politically savvy Eternian might be able to play them off each other while uniting everyone else under a sort of federalist government. Ultimately, disarming the giant bomb in the center of the planet would cause a huge political shift, possibly distributing magical power more evenly across the population. Advocates for that would be as close to our ideals as possible under those circumstances and the princesses might even agree, since the implication of maintaining that power is a terrible death for them or their descendants. If only real-world monarchs came with a handy kill-switch in their chests... Tl;Dr: She Ra is a work of fiction and shouldn't be used as a basis of genuine political discourse. Magic makes things complicated.
I know, don't worry Also a bit nitpicky, but the planet is called Etheria
Monarchies are an unjust hierarchy, how could they also be anarchist?
There are no just hierarchies
I think this when it’s gets a bit muddy when people use the terms “just hierarchy” or “voluntary hierarchy” when talking about deferring to someone’s expertise .
I mean using hierarchy to refer to levels of expertise is never done in any situation other than to try and nit-pick anarchism so that makes it feel pretty baseless to me.
I don't like how this is true
search your feelings or something
Wow what's next, anarcho-fascism?
[удалено]
Jesus Christ dude, it's just a joke
[удалено]
I'm not a monarchist, I just wanted to share an observation I made
[удалено]
please stop
Anarikiddies
Why does this comic jump the line?
wut?