No.33
Social-monarchy, is this idea even compatible?
Feudalism is no more, but why must you succumb to capitalism? I find socialism to be a better successor.
Historical examples:
Chinese Empire under Wu Zetian
Incan Empire
In Mesopotamia the Semitic monarchies - Assyria and Babylonia. You may see the uncanny resemblance of Lenin's Mausoleum to Ziggurats.
Persian Empire under Mazdakism
Or more modern:
Napoelonic Empire, perhaps best example of it. Modern day Bonapartists are just national-social-democrats, but historically it was inherently a social-monarchic movement.
Fascist Italy, worked like diarchy. At the end King overthrown Mussolini
Japanese Empire
Argurably socialist-leading, both countries were also realising monarchist priciples. Japan could create countries like Manchukuo with Qing Emperor as head of state, or Mengukuo, Italy would give Emmanuel titles like Emperor of Ethiopia, or send Prince Tomislav II to Croatia.
Argurably
Libyan Jamahiriya - Gaddafi titled himself "King of Kings" when speaking to Saudi King.
It was a weird state. Literal democracy like Switzerland with titular head of state.
Juche (or Cuba) - hereditary rule. At least for sure in case to North Korea.
North Korea uses name Choson, linking itself to ancient Empires of Korea
Additionally Suharto was offered crown of Indonesia (he co-operated with Japanese Empire) and Pilsudski of Poland, both socialist-leading, but they refused.
No.34
Ideally, I would like to see an economy that is NON-industrial. That includes capitalist AND socialist industrialization; socialism of course industrialized China and Russia. I consider all of these "isms" to be rather destructive to humanity. Instead, I propose a rural, agrarian society. Perhaps even plantation based like the Golden Circle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_%28proposed_country%29However, that is not practical. So I guess I would begrudgingly accept a quasi socialist system (see Spengler's "Prussian Socialism") mixed with free enterprise. The problem, as I see it, is the urbanization and mass-production that comes with capitalism (the values of the bourgeois and Third Estate in general) really destroys any traditions that Monarchists hold dear. I'm not sure how this can be countered.
No.35
Also, I would add that some of the examples of "social-monarchy" that you gave, are in fact, bastardizations of monarchy. Especially the North Korean state. Which is so nightmarish and totalitarian it makes my head spin.
No.58
Distributism.
Both capitalism and socialism fail, with socialism being the worse choice. L2history.
No.61
>>58
I'm becoming more interesting in Distributism. Where's a good place to start if I want to learn about it?
No.62
>>61
Hillaire Belloc and GK Chesterton: The Servile State, An Essay On the Restoration of Property, Utopia of Usurers and The Outline of Sanity.
No.64
No.93
No.147
/weeebpol/ here
Regarding Japanese social monarchy I recommend reading John Toland's The Rising Sun chapters regarding the motivations of reformers in interwar Japan. Many young idealists desired to implement some form of socialism or communism but refrained from taking any such action do to the laws against abolition of property which they respected out of their loyalty to the emperor.
I do remember a little more from this book which I returned to the library after only reading a chapter or two to avoid late fees. The Kuomintang Army is well-known for unilateral action without regard to Tokyo (aside from listening to the emperor of course!) and many young idealists envisioned Manchukuo as a society where Manchu, white Russian, Japanese, and Chinese people could live in true socialism.
Not sure why we'd want a social monarchism though. Leftism blows.
No.150
>>33
>Fascist Italy, worked like diarchy. At the end King overthrown Mussolini
>socialist
>diarchy
Monarchic/socialist agenda disinfo? What the fuck am I reading?