Why Tolkien Hated Democracy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2024
- In this video we explore Tolkien's ideology and beliefs, his dislike of democracy and modern democratic systems, as well as examine his alternative!
Press this link if you wish to support the channel via TH-cam Membership and gain access to some awesome exclusive perks!
/ @inkandfantasy
You can join the discord server here!
/ discord
I do not own the footage, art or music within this video.
Any feedback is always welcome, I hope you enjoy!!
(Some of the) Artists featured in my videos:
Daniel Jeffries
Lorenzo Colangeli
Ted Nasmith
John Howe
Greg and Tim Hildebrandt
Bohemian Weasel
Joe Gilronan
Matt Stewart
Alan Lee
Melissa Myra
John Paul Cavara
Pasi Leinonen
Alyxandria Davis
Dartxo
Franz Fdez
Alan Lee
Ludovic Bourgeois
Federico Musetti
Anato Finnstark
Ahmet Can Kahraman
Jenny Dolfen
Justin Gerard
Donato Giancola
Anna Kulisz
Stevce Lazarevski
Coliandre
Antonello Venditti
Matt DeMino
Lady Elleth
DarianaLoki
Ainave
Shalizeh
Marek Madej
Bastien Lecouffe
Sniжna Barbarian
Vladimir Kafanov
Neyrefen
Natalia Be
NastyaSkaya
Anna Butova
Dane Madgwick
Amir Zand
Andrea Guardino
William Robinson
-and many more that I will add soon!!!-
Below are the songs used in the order they are played:
Snow Princess by Jimena Contreras
World's Sunrise by Jimena Contreras
Til Death Parts Us by Aakash Gandhi
Ceremonial Library by Asher Fulero
Chords of Harmony Aakash Gandhi - บันเทิง
He held these views almost one hundred years ago. Imagine if he saw the state of democracy today.
He would simply hold the same views, just feel more vindicated about those views.
Aristotle's study of the oral and written records of the Greek city-states, 'Politics c350BC', concluded that Democracies devolve into Oligarchies. The Dominican Order, who guided Tolkien's education, were founded to disseminate Aristotle: Mendicants (Beggers) by name, but Peripatetic (Wanderers, thinking On their Feet) by nature.
He may have known it would lead to this.
Exactly
He would have said "I told you so".
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Sir Winston Churchill
???? Bad education comes from those who want to rule them.
Churchill would know, he certainly spoke and drank like the average voter.
Hahaaha
@JG-MVEducation is always biased though.
@@randomdude2026 perhaps, but I would hope we can agree that an unbiased look at fascism concludes that it was and is a bad idea. Serious education frees thought, and so it criticizes itself. Bad education constrains thought, just like fascism.
I heard a quote once "It's easier to find one wise person to lead a nation than to find a whole nation of wise people to lead each other"
That statement has a massive flaw though. It implies chosing who the one wise person is, thus sticking things back in a situation of electing or someone seeking power. Monarchy has the major flaw of limited methods of removal of someone in power. Democracy can have numerous ways
@@fondajamesIt doesn't imply the wise leader is chosen, nor would that imply an election.
@@fondajamesyeah that explains why Joe Biden with his dementia is ruling the most powerful military in the world. Literally this is the flaw of monarchy "somehow" manifesting in democracy.
And when that person dies.? Hereditary succession can lead to weak and unwise rulers …
@@animalsarecomradestoo.8995historically that's not the case, someone who has had a royal upbringing simply doesn't have the predisposition that an average person has which leads one to corruption. Hereditary succession may not give u the wisest person at top every time but it's way better than the current system which rewards corruption
Tolkien understood the fundamental paradox of democracy. Anyone who is narcissistic and arrogant enough to seek the position of President is unfit for the position. It takes a special combination of the dignified and the petty.
It sounds very similar to a quote from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. It also could have been inspired by Tolkien and others. There is a moment when Worf kills Chancellor Gowran and the other klingons are promoting Worf to take Gowran's position. Instead he hands the position over to a reluctant General Martok. He quotes Kahless, an important military and religious figure in Klingon history who said, "one does not seek power, power is thrust upon him."
Democracy doesn’t necessarily mean such a person will be chosen. It could be modified to such a degree that the qualified would be chosen largely based on merit, but still retain a system where the people, to a limited degree, picks its representatives.
@@mism847 There are always benefits and costs for any type of government. Generally speaking, the more decisive a form of government, the more it is prone to tyranny.
The solution is obviously for people in charge of specific political decisions to be selected like juries. And, if the law adds new restrictions on what natural persons can do, for all people selected to agree to it unanimously, again like a jury.
@mism847 yea I think its worth a try to mix some form of technocracy with democracy. Potential candidates should have expertise for their position.
The statements you quoted suggest that Tolkien did not show that he "hated" democracy but that he entertained doubts about the political process. His depiction of monarchy is simply a reflection of the historical fact that monarchy has been the most frequent form of government.
And the most stable and successful. And the most in-line with human pack instincts.
@@midgetydeath That's a stretch. But it is the most common, at least
@@midgetydeathsuccessfull is debatable.
A sucesfull regime does not fall.
@@cpp3221
then successful regimes don't exist, because given enough time ALL of them will fall at some point.
Example: all of human history)))
Only with a good king even in lotr denethor being king in all but name had reasons for not being a very good king but aragorn is an example that monarchy can be good for a generation
the great philosopher socrates also hated democracy. because democracy is about popular opinion and not about hiring the correct man for the job.
he asked the people in the past, who would you want to be our ship captain in charged of our travel and lives? just anyone? or someone who has years of experience?
in the modern world, we have world leaders that are comedians and actors.
It was Plato, Socrates' pupil, who argued against democracy (in his book The Republic). But Plato was an elitist who believed in a dictatorship of "Philosopher Kings" - totally in charge of selecting and training their successors. What could possibly go wrong with that idea? Countless authoritarians have cited Plato's hostility to democracy to justify some form of tyranny - but they fail to see the obvious: that his Republic would be a dystopia. For example, he believed poetry and art should be banned, because they dealt in "illusion"! And most modes of music should be banned too, because they led to moral corruption. So much for the wisdom of "philosopher kings".
Thus far the one actor I know of did a great job.
Irony being that asking people their opinion of who they want in power is kind of the same thing as voting.
Pirates pretty much a democratic ship
The orcs thenselves.
4:21 Professor Tolkien was terminally based.
Yep, good old JRR definitely knew the truth.
Correct.
He was noticing
Likes for all!
He knows who truly rules the world🕎
good analysis of Tolkien's views. In America, democracy was called "the grand experiment". It is still just an "experiment"
Pretty much a failed experiment imho... Alright.. terminally failing experiment then 😅
@@gwo-burneloh9493It's literally the most powerful country on the planet... I don't approve of a lot of things about it but that's a funny way of "failing"
@@brettjohnson536 That has far more to do with having an ocean on either side (and thus invincible to serious attacks from the worlds other powers at the time), nearly unlimited valuable natural resources, and being birthed right as the industrial revolution was starting in earnest, than it does with the method of government. The constitution failed within two generations, propagating a civil war it was unable to prevent. It was then irrevocably changed by Lincoln and again by FDR into a bloated bureaucratic monstrosity we have today, utterly divorced from the intentions of the founders.
We're talking about a people that rebelled and went to war over a 3% tax hike on tea now levying 20% income taxes on top of all the myriad other taxes that exist. What the founders intended did fail. What now exists is radically different.
@@xenophon5354And that has led us down a path very similar to the late stage Roman republic. Corruption at the top was incredible and reformers like the Gracchi brothers were killed when they tried to change it. In America we didn’t actually kill the reformers, but we made sure that nobody would dare try to challenge the behemoth again with countless legal lawsuits and criminal proceedings.
Rome’s problems ended when Julius Cesar took power by force and implemented his policies against the will of the senate. They didn’t like him doing this so he was killed. One civil war later and Cesar’s appointed successor Augustus finished implementing the man’s populist reforms. Let’s hope that America doesn’t have to go through all of that before its crisis ends
America isn't really a democracy it's a republic
Shout out to Hans-Herman Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed
Hans-Herman Hoppe is a well-known for his extreme racism, ultra-capitalism and devotion to "free markets". Tolkien would have certainly despised him - and all other so-called "libertarians" who worship nothing but money.
Shit book tbh
Failed so much we westerners still live in free democracy with quality of life and peace never seen before in the history of humanity
You people are just the cringe edge lord who just oppose the status quo but always come up with worst alternative
@@ni9274We westerner ? Who is we ? The original ethnically white,founder of democracy are dying out. Killing themself in desperation and refusing to have children. They don’t rebel out of bread and circuses. Burying their own head in hedonism & nihilism. The Muslim who based their society on patriarchy and authoritarian way of organizing is thriving. Who are we to judge ? The European who has failed and on their way to extinction ? The American who are the road to ruins in their turn ? We see a culture that is strong and despite it as crude.
A lucid presentation , thank you!
It sounds like Tolkien was close to Catholic integralism, a late 19th-early 20th century philosophy that rejected the “economic man” attributed to Adam Smith and Marx as a being defined by his economic interests. Instead integralists wanted to see humans as embedded in their religions, cultures, communities and nations. Some followed this rejection of so-called materialism into fascism, finding meaning in the heroic myths championed by fascist movements. Tolkien’s desire to create an English mythos fits with this framework, but thankfully not all integralists made that leap into authoritarianism. As you point out, Tolkien rejected the Ring, like Gandalf and Galadriel rejected it.
Too many people think that lotr is facist it is ridiculas it is traditionalist which unlike facism does not cherry pick certain traditions that support their ideology❤
@@SeanCollins-gv1ws
Exactly, fascism is an ideology which only wishes to preserve those traditions that empower the state, this is something folks like Tolkien and his contemporaries like GK Chesterton were vehemently opposed to.
@@SeanCollins-gv1ws Or to be more precise, fascists keep the traditions which lend power to the State and discard traditions which interfere with the State's power and significance.
@@delrunplays2903 yes or in general just cherry pick like crazy 👍
Monarchy is Authoritarian
What you really mean is totalitarian monarchys even in absolute arent totalitarian
As a conservative catholic british is hardly suprising tolkien wasnt a fan of democracy. Nevertheless IN PRACTICE the Shire is hardly a monarchy (is part of Arnor but the king is vacant for hundreds of years) so its sort of a republican local selfgovernment and quite a bit democratic (certainly compared to Gondor, Rohan or Mordor) in its functioning.
It is precisely the monarchies that allow for this form of self governance to flourish. If what you want are stable, lasting communities then monarchies preserve them best.
@@xenophon5354 Well that is open to debate. The point is that by the time of the Hobbit and LOTR the Shire has lifed without an actual monarch, for century.
De iure is part of Arnor, a lost kingdom.
De facto is an independent republic.
@@vatsetis No, what I mean to say is that a National-level monarch is what allows the small communities to flourish. As a medievalist, Tolkien admired the small, communitarian shires of England. What I am saying is that these communities are best preserved under a King of England, not under a Prime Minister. More democratic modes of life are more workable when you know your neighbor, when you know the people your policies will affect. When you do not know the people your vote will affect, your desire to preserve their cultural institutions and way of live reaches practically 0. Their economic or cultural demise only affects you tangentially, and often with a long lead time.
If the liberty of communities to live as they wish is your goal, as it was Tolkiens, then a King of Arnor best secures this goal.
Edit: I might have misinterpreted your comment. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Tolkien viewed the monarchy as integral to preserving the system in the Shire. It only exists as it is without the king thanks to work of the Dunedain in defending its borders. And the proper state of the world, in Tolkien’s mind, is restored with the return of the King. That the shire endured unchanged is because of the exile king and his kin protecting the Shire. It is clear to me that Tolkien believes without the king the shire would not endure indefinitely.
No, it isnt. Its how monarchies worked. They were decentralised. But in the end of LotR the Ring is placed under the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Arnor under the King Aragorn
@@vatsetisHow is it a republic? IIRC the shire only had a sheriff who helped find lost cattle.
As far as I know he called himself eventually an anachist of the peaceful kind.
The Shire would be every anarchists dream. Everyone is equal, there are no relevant governmental structures and there is an enormous solidarity between the people.
Edit: Found the quote:
"My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)"
I disagree, The Shire has clear social and economic divisions. The Tooks (Thain of the Shire) and Brandybucks (Master of Buckland) are powerful families with both hereditary prestige and significant wealth. Bilbo Baggins was a sort of squirely, upper middle class fellow until he returned from his adventure with enormous wealth. Wealth that bumped him up the social latter so that his heir, Frodo, is best chums with the young heirs to the Took and Brandybuck dynasties. It should be noted that Merry and Pippin have very little interaction with Sam through the entire trilogy. They are not comradely with Sam, nor do they try to order him about. Sam is Frodo's servant. As kind as Frodo may be with Sam, Sam is still chattel. The assent of Sam Gamgee to Samwise Gardiner is due to Sam inheriting all the Baggins assets.
@@kennethhenderson9000 None of that contradicts the Shire's anarchist nature. The social and economic divisions are neither coerced nor enforced by any power, as far as we can see. They have formed naturally over generations from the decisions, traditions, and ways of life of their respective families. The abolition of social and economic divisions, as I so often hear flaunted by European anarchists, can only be accomplished via the use of State power, and thus Anarchy cannot produce such equality. Humans are inherently unequal, and thus disparate outcomes will emerge without an overriding power structure to control those outcomes. The only equality humans possess is in our Natural Rights, which are negative rights not to be violated rather than positive rights to be enforced.
Very true, and I agree with Tolkien anarchism of the peaceful kind is ideal.
Tolkien supported Franco. But B+ for effort
@@EldenRingBuildsArchive No need to be snarky. I didn't know that. He seemed to be rather ambiguous or undecided on politics. He was anti-communist, royalist, catholic and conservative, yet he abhorred the Nazis and their antisemitism, the racism of South Africa and the suppression of the people and their thoughts. And the Anarchy quote is not fake. He really wrote it.
The notion that monarchs don't pursue power because they're born to it ignores all the assassinations, wars of succession, wars of conquest, etc. waged by monarchs and the aristocracies that gather around them. Then there's the fact that your next king is always a pig in a poke. You might get an Aragorn, you might get a Joffrey, you might get an Earth King (Avatar: The Last Airbender). Furthermore, monarchs who are born to power and stupendous wealth, who live their lives surrounded by fawning courtiers who tell them what (the courtiers think) the ruler wants to hear are insulated from the problems of their nation.
Taken to its logical extreme, you get a monarch who thinks everything is going swimmingly until the people show up at the palace with guillotines. Aragorn was a good king because he spent his whole pre-coronation life as a Ranger, owning only what he could carry and living amongst the peasantry and the natural world. Few, if any real kings had that sort of life experience before attaining power. Pitting an idealized, fictional monarchy ruled by a perfect king to real, messy, human democracies is not a fair comparison. One could just as easily write a fantasy story about an ideal democracy in which everyone seeks harmonious consensus and the best ideas always rise to the top.
One potential way to "fix" monarchy: an AGI monarch that is able to receive and process all the data coming in from society including the level of well-being of the people and their sentiments (plus weather data, crop yields, etc., etc.) and make decisions for the maximal benefit of society, not having any interests or animal needs (wealth, status, sex, etc.) of its own. Plus, it would never age or die, so secession struggles cease to be a thing. _Automate_ the Ring of Power! 😂Of course, there would be issues, such as "who programs the robo-monarch," or if it programs itself, would there come a point where it decides to pursue some other aim of its own and refuses to open the pod bay doors?
Man, Tolkien was onto something.
I agree 100% democracy is criminally overrated.
Doubly so for fascism, communism, totaliarianism, tribalism, theocracy/, monarchism. Democracy won in the marketplace of ideas. The only system where there can be any basically. Agreeing to disagree is always a good idea.
Yep what’s your alternative ? Dictatorship where we select one guy based on how « spiritually good » he is even if spiritual goodness doesn’t exist
Democracy is the best system we have right know, if you want to present an alternative at least don’t choose something that was proven to be worst than democracy
The Shire had an elected mayor. Gondor had a monarchy, with the Steward functioning as a regent. Frodo and Sam both resisted the Ring, and thus proved their fitness for office.
I don’t see how the mayor thing matters. All towns and small areas (like the shire) had elected mayors. For millennia around the world.
@@midgetydeath Tolkein paints a picture of a free society with some mixture of elections and hereditary position. I merely suggest that claiming based on that that he prefers a monarchy. Of course he may, but he certainly recognizes others. Also the Silmarillion and LOTR both point out severe deficiencies in rulers, which wouldn't be expected from a monarchist.
Frodo gave into the temptation of the ring numerous times, Sam never did. Granted Frodo had more direct contact with the ring so the temptation was ever present, but the time when it tempted Sam it offered him the world pretty much, endless fields for him to rule over and Sam didn't want it. Sam was a simple man who had no use with more fields than he could ever tend himself he wanted no power over anyone just enough land for him to tend and grow enough for him and his family and to be with his wife and children and those he loved, evil just cannot understand a man that doesn't seek power or dominion as it does.
To be fair to Tolkien his most idealized social order wasn't monarchy at all but was communalism (not to be confused with communism) as represented by the Hobbits.
The Hobbits have no king, no aristocratic class.
The Hobbits are a shared community, which is why wealth is redistribute at a constant rate through their birthday giving system or
"byrding."
"In the Shire it was expected that close relatives (second cousins or closer), as well as neighbors living within a 12-mile radius of the byrding would give a gift. These gifts would be received in private, so as to avoid embarrassing the giver.
The byrding also gave presents of his or her own. After their third year byrdings traditionally gave gifts to their parents that were made, grown, or collected by the byrdings themselves (usually the youngest byrdings gave bunches of wildflowers.) Beyond this, the giving of gifts depended on a byrding’s age and status. If they owned a house, they would be expected to give gifts to all those living in the house, as well as any employees or close neighbors. Younger byrdings without houes of their own weren’t required to give gifts to anyone in particular (other than their parents) and could give depending on their resources. These gifts wouldn’t be expensive, so as not to burden the byrding (one of the ways Bilbo was unusual - his birthday presents were extremely generous.)
Holding a party on the eve of the birthday was a tradition, and all those invited to the party would receive a gift from the byrding (but guests never brought their present for the byrding to the party - it had to be delivered in person before the date!)
Tolkien wrote extensively on this alternative system of living, so he does actually have an alternative idealized veiw to Monarchy.
But it is one that requires peace, sacrifice, as well as shared community values.
Values based on the place he grew up in before the horrors of rapid industrialization prior to ww1.
His veiws on Monarchy need to be veiwed under the context of Martial soceities.
Now I personally do not share his veiws on Monarchy, I think executive powers in anyform lend themselves to cults of personality, in any system of government. But I very much do respect his veiws of communal organization and the values they inspire.
It is clear in Tolkien's thought, especially given their proper context of Medieval England, that communities like the Shire only thrive under the protection of a King. He would never argue the whole of England should be organized like the Shire, rather the whole of England should consist of independent Shires under the jurisdiction and protection of the king. As the Shire was. Even during the long exile of the kings in the north, the Dunedain still defend the borders of the Shire, allowing it to exist.
Further, the Shire does have an aristocracy, if not codified in law. Frodo and the Bagins's are nobles, as are the Tooks and Brandybucks.
@@xenophon5354
They only survive when left alone- not under the protection of a king.
The Shire wasn't protected by a king because of poltical agreement, but by its geography- up to a point
This is why I brought up Martial States. States who's authority ultimately stem from conflict and their ability to make War.
The Shire lays in an area where their borders are protected by their neighbors again not because of political agreement but because of it's locality. They are a largely geographically isolated peoples when you look at the maps of Middle Earth. They don't sit on land that has any particular value to their literally & figuratively larger neighbors.
It does sit in a position that reaps the benefits of being policied for them, as these other powers act as buffer zones to the Shire. This marries the security of the Shire to the security interest of their neighbors. If something happens to their neighbors it is only then that the Shire is in danger.
Likewise Frodo & Bilbo are not aristocrats. Aristocracy is a ruling class, having assets is not the same as being a member of a ruling class which the hobbit don't have.
even non codified.
They have no political power and their economic "power" comes from the fact that their family lines leave the shire and import wealth which is then redistributed to an extent under the byrding tradition. Authority amoung the hobbits is a Familial matter & is decentralized.
Now you can, and Tolkien did, make the case that you cannot have idealized communalist social orders without also having Martial neighbors,
And his preferred form of social order •Was• Monarchy.
So he does offer an alternative social organization that is not •based• on monarchy.
But that alternative is highly conditional.
@@xenophon5354
This is an important distinction when you say, look at Frodo's reasoning for being the ring bearer.
He understands that the Shire cannot exist without the other peoples of Middle Earth sheilding them from conflict. So he steps up, NOT for a king ( he is isolated from the Monarchist events in the books), but because he knows everyone is fighting for the Shire even if they don't realize it and that he needs to "fight" for them as well. Something Merry & Pippin come to terms with as well later as they experience the horrors of War and come to understand their friends struggles better.
The books are ultimately about values such as Sacrifice, loyalty, friendship and the dangers of Power- in any form. Tolkien was absolutely a monarchist but his writing really isn't a poltical treaties on monarchism, rather he uses his polical idealizations as a story telling device that speaks on values more than anything else.
There is more than a singular way to interpret his work, something he alludes to. Rather he wants people to think about the values they hold and why they do things.
More so than trying to promote his own poltical veiws.
@@xenophon5354 The Shire wasn't under the jurisdiction or protection of a king, though.
@@paulchapman8023it was under the protection of the kings of Arnor
Democracy is a waste of time. Imagine voting who should be captain of a ship when its about to hit an iceberg and sink.
Can't blame him. With monarchs maximum tax rates were like 10-15%
One Crown(authority/government) to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.
Well, a crown is basically just a great big Ring...
Unfortunately for our world, we don't have Elves or Numenoreans blessed with unlimited wisdom to have as our enlightened monarchs. We would just end up with tyrants we cannot get rid of.
Except that's not how it works
One becomes a monarchist by learning about history
History has taught us over and over that democracy is far more authoritarian, also you can get rid of the king, for the king only is up thanks to it's people, it's far less likely he will be corrupt as the kingdom is in essence his own home, those he needs to preserve it for his future children sake
There is always exceptions to the rule, but in democracy the rule is corruption while monarchies in essence aren't corrupt
If you do not agree with this, think? Will you destroy your home for a quick buck if you were to stay there for the rest of your life and you children will inherit it, or will you destroy it if you will only stay there for 6 years at most and you will get more money?
Elves or Numenoreans blessed with unlimited wisdom. Yeah, between the Doom of Mandos and Akallabeth, that unlimited wisdom brings a slight smidge of tomfoolery.
Except that's not how monarchies always end up. I don't trust people to actually vote wisely at all.
Sure. If we completely ignore all of human history like you did. Hint: you’re completely wrong.
Your concerns are not supported by history and are purely imaginary. Yes, there have been a few bad rulers. But just that, a few. As opposed to democracy having, on rare occasion, a somewhat less corrupt leader than his colleagues.
Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't. The politicians that are elected not only usually lack wisdom, they more importantly lack a concept of public duty.. There can often have unseen controlling hands which a monarch is free from, because they already hold both power and wealth. The problem with democracy is not just who is elected but when there isn't complete transparency and a system in place to ensure those with money and power don't get undue influence on what should be a system of public representation. Unfortunately this is often absent purposefully so, and so many democratic systems that proport to be that, don't function in the interests of the citizen voters. The potential for changing things through voting, can be severely limited by the selection of those who you can vote for, and the mechanism which ensure that they do their job.
The quotes that democracy equals financiers and that the politician has a banker backer may come from the British Nationalist magazine, "Candour". It is said that the late Tolkien's back copies of this magazine were found with his estate with such statements, which were underlined by him.
this is your most interesting video by far. before i watched it i was convinced this would finally be the one where i fully disagreed with tolkien, but even though i disagree with his solutions, i think his insight into the problems our "democracy" has were shockingly accurate. i do believe a corrupt democracy is better than a corrupt monarchy, and i personally think with some significant changes to the world we could fix our democracy, but he really was spot on with his take on how things are
Why is a corrupt democracy better than a corrupt monarchy?
@@SC-gw8np i think people deserve to have a government that represents their interests, rather than being expected to agree with a monarch's interests. a corrupt government still has to do enough good not to get voted out, a bad monarch has the power to ruin the country until the day they die. and more importantly, corruption in democracy (in my opinion) is something that can be fixed systemically even if it would be hard, whereas a monarchy is fundamentally corrupt by giving one privileged family control based on blood not ability. by definition there's nothing we can do to control who's in power in a monarchy, there's no evil rich people behind the scenes to blame, so no matter what we did we'd eventually end up with a terrible leader
@aldrichunfaithful3589 I don't think democracy represents the common people's interests either...if you still think that you have some catching up to do. What people always miss when they are talking about the so called virtues of democracy is the culture this democracy rests in. We live under the rule of capitalists, that's no different than being under the rule of a monarch. Capitalist culture dominates - so at present democracy and all societal institutions are under corporate capture. Our democracy answers to corporations, not to the people. If you deny that at this late stage, you are willfully ignorant. As for monarchs not being selected based on ability - that's not true, at least not initially. Monarchs are born into an aristocratic bloodline, it means somewhere along the line, their ancestors were conquerors of vast territories and lands. See William the Conqueror, the ancestor of the current British royal family. These people didn't conquer vast lands and territories without merit. Of course, monarchs can also become corrupted, but no less than democratically elected leaders. That's why in my opinion, the first priority should be to create a healthy culture that prevents corruption by providing no incentive for it. You can't get that in capitalism.
@@SC-gw8np i was saying the exact same thing about capitalism replying to someone else's comment, im a socialist. im talking about an ideal democracy separate from capitalism, and when i talk about democracy being corrupt and trying to fix it im basically saying that capitalism is the reason it isn't working and we need to get rid of it. in a capitalist society i don't care much whether im ruled by a monarch or not, since whoever i vote for is dancing on strings anyway, so we're pretty much on the same page. the only difference between us is that i'd rather get rid of capitalism while preserving democracy, while you think it's more realistic to ditch democracy to keep capitalism in check
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 I’d rather get rid of both capitalism and democracy. I want to live in a place with competent and wise rulers. Statistically, most people aren’t gonna be wise so I don’t think democracy will ever work whether capitalism is abolished or not.
Well, if he actually believed in a king's divine mandate...
He was a medievalist, not an Enlightenment monarchist. The Divine Right of Kings as a political doctrine does not exist until the absolutism of the Enlightenment. Obviously Medieval kingship was closely allied to Christianity, but it was far more a vocational divine "right" than it was a "chosen by God to rule".
Really interesting vid on the professor's thoughts, thanks! 👍
For those people wondering here in the comments why someone might prefer aristocratic, hereditary monarchies to democracies:
A monarch owns the government as private property, property his children will inherit. He is thus, more than anyone, incentivized to ensure the whole of his property prospers. Rich peasants pay more taxes over the course of their lives, and will continue to do so into the future for his successors.
A politician in a democracy, elected not through merit but through popularity and demagoguery, is a renter of the government. They have a limited amount of time to enrich themselves and their backers/bank rollers/supporters. The long term prosperity of the citizen is irrelevant, as their term in office is not long term. They are incentivized to make hay while the sun shines, using taxes on short term personal projects and to pay back their lobbyists and supporters. Not to mention Their friends. While a king might need to do the same, he has his entire life to do so, not 4 years of outrageously high taxes. He is not incentivized to loot his own treasury any more than I am mine. I might need to, but I don’t want to. A politician does not own the treasury, so looting it (printing money) is of no Nevermind, so long as it doesn’t have immediate consequences.
Additionally, kings are chosen by the accident of birth. You get some good ones, some bad ones, but mostly benign and unremarkable ones who simply own their government as you or I might own our home. Take good care of it, making mistakes along the way as well as making some improvements.
Politicians, by contrast, are universally ambitious. They want to rule. They want to wield power over you, for good or ill.
Finally, for this short medium, kings are far more accountable than the primary political unit of democracies (the political party). While you might vote out particular politicians, you cannot get rid of the party nearly so easily. If I, in Pennsylvania, do not like my representative I might remove them. But my representative takes orders from people I cannot remove, and they will simply replace Party Slave X with Party Slave Y. This applies to all parties and factions in democracies. And worse, nearly all of these important political decisions are not visible to the public. Who runs, why the policies are decided, deals between the parties all take place behind closed doors. This applies to nearly all republics and democracies. Some have found partial solutions. One is to operate democracy ONLY on the small scale, at the community level where you know your neighbors and who will be affected by your vote. All for this. But this does not help nation level democracies, where people living in cities dictate the policies rural folk will live under, or where the numerous poor will demand taxation from the middle. The only republic I quite like is that of Venice, but this is mainly because the Doge was so monarchical in his power, it was almost entirely aristocratic, and the election process for the Doge was so complicated it basically strangled factionalism in the crib.
A king, by contrast, is one man. Tyranny tends to result in him becoming much shorter. Typically a head shorter.
The tragic truth of comments like these is that only people who already agree with you will read them.
@@giw_jones TL;DR if it doesn’t conform to initial bias
Wow this comment is amazing and so incredibly insightful. Thanks for taking the time to write this. Comments like this and others here leave me with much to think about.
incredibly insightful and well thought out.
Would love to pick your brain further on the topic
Fantastically put.
'Monarchy is featured in the book=Tolkien hates democracy.'
This is weak as an argument as it would mean you cannot set any story in a middle-age european setting without hating democracy, this is just not true.
He critizised the use of greece as a model for democracy (legitimately, it was not recognizable by modern standards as such).
He critisised CURRENT democratic systems (again legitimately, as capitalistic based democratic systems are by nessessity less democratic as they are naturaly hierarchical and exploitative).
He does not in fact propose an alternate system of government and nothing mentioned here suggests that he disliked democracy any more than any other form of governing (saying he leans towards anarchy).
‘Monarchy being portrayed positively implies he likes monarchy’ is closer to my intention.
If I set my story in the Middle Ages and kept writing how horrible and unjust the king is, you could probably tell I’m not a particularly big fan of monarchy. If however, I portray monarchy in a way that it seems to be the natural system of governance for all mankind, then I’m probably a fan, not to mention he literally called it the natural thing in his letters!
Moreover, him specifically disliking democracy beyond his like of monarchy, mostly stems from the rest of the video, which is his own words about why he dislikes it, both its ancient roots and its modern variation, at least through my understanding.
Lastly, again through my own understanding, him saying “give me a king”, means that this is his alternative. He’d rather have a king that likes stamps more than politics, than have elected politicians.
Definitely an interesting discussion so thank you for the comment!
@@InkandFantasy So say I write a book in a world set in something aproximating medieval europe, based on the medieval or earlier fairytales of northern european countries, is then the monarchy not being problematiced as an institution a sign of my the author's bias in government or a thematic choice based on that period and cultural context?
Whichever way you swing, to me it's far less obvious why these choices were made, and I feel absolute satements as to the Author's intent is hard to support (later edit: and also arguably uninteresting).
From what can be gathered in the texts you've provided i see a critical musing on the nature of democracy and man but little in the way of disdain for said system.
@@tobiaslundqvist3209if someone writes in his writings nothing wrong about the institution of monarchy and most of his main characters are of royal background then it's pretty damn clear that the writer is a monarchist. Tolkien is exactly that
@@LSSD1292 So your idea is indeed that what the author writes is a direct representation of his views and that what you interpret in meeting with the text is a process of direct messaging from his mind to yours, even if the text in question is fiction?
This form of direct communication is one very outdated theory of communication science and has largely been shunned in favor of structuralist approaches like Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model.
Just know that what you're proposing as a given is highly contested in social sciences and thus need some form of argument or hypothesis to sustain it.
What i'm arguing is not author intent as there is no data presented to substantiate it and that absolute statements to that effect are largely unsupportable and uninteresting. What we should look at is what the text represents. And as i've stated earlier it does indeed not problematize monarchy, is this in any way proof of the author's thoughts on democracy? No, substantiated in comment above.
Is holding a critical lens up to CURRENT democracies evidence of antidemocratic tendencies? No, substantiated in comment above.
Now could he have hated democracy, it's unlikely but possible but no evidence is provided.
Could he be a monarchist?
It's possible but unlikely and no evidence is provided.
@@tobiaslundqvist3209 he really wrote in his letters that he liked monarchy and also it's very known that Tolkien didn't like allegories so yes his writings are literally a presentation of his views. Tolkien was a big fan of the institution of monarchy and it is made clear in his writings
Great video, very thought provoking. He understood the necessity of feeling like you were being left alone but protected for a sense of wellbeing to grow and encouraging/nurturing the best in us to come forth.
"We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or what is most important of all, the banker of the backer"
Love this quote by Tolkien. I too dislike democracy and have the same views as Tolkien on localism and monarchies. When did the world decide that "democracy" was the ideal system of governance.
Because so far, it’s the best system we have.
I personally think that the best president would be the one who doesn’t want to be president. It’s too easy to pervert the system.
I was once asked if I would like to be a president and I said “NO, no circumstances!”
I also believe you should have a certain level of education and compassion. And you should be totally vetted to make sure you know enough to run the country. That is very important.
✡
@@MuffSplitteryeah man the part about bankers made me think of them
Monarchies face the same problem. The monarch is also a politician with backers and bankers.
democracy is the best system of governance, just not in its current form. i agree with everything tolkien said about modern democracy, and the lives of the people that he imagined under an ideal monarchy, but he massively downplayed the flaws in monarchy and he wasn't able to find an acceptable solution to make democracy a good system, which is how he arrived at his opinion. monarchy is fundamentally flawed at its core by granting people the right to rule regardless of their ability to lead, whereas modern democracy has been corrupted by late-stage capitalism which is something we can fix. the main issue with it is that in a world that revolves around money, people with lots of money are often above the law, people with far too much money are influencing the law in order to make even more, and the people who rise to the top politically are the ones who best meet their interests. unless things drastically change in my lifetime i'll probably never vote because im not interested in figuring out which choice is the lesser evil, but i still prefer that to waking up one day to hear the king died and his replacement is increasing tax by 50% by divine right to pay for a diamond bathtub
Ironically, Tolkien was living in a country where members of his religion (Roman Catholicism) were legally banned from taking the throne, and could not even marry the monarch. His vision of monarchy was always heavily-idealized, and in the Legendarium, the best possible candidates for crowns tended to be the ones who got them. Those who were unqualified usually had no right to rule (e.g. Ar-Pharazon the Golden, who seized power by marrying his first cousin, who was the actual heiress to the throne of Numenor).
That isnt a political well somewhat is but more kf a historical theological view than anything.
Deep despise of prots and catholics was very much so in those days even to this
I think he was looking more towards pre Henry the 8th well there were good monarchs afterward but again history
@@IndianaJonesTDH - Monarchy has historically been hit or miss. Which is why so few nations retain absolute monarchs anymore.
@@daniels7907 Democracy is hit and miss too. The trick would be to compile data and see which ones 'hit' more. But that would probably be subjective and not objective.
To your OP, I wonder if Tolkien mentioned the laws about no Catholics in the Royal family. I'm sure he was aware of it. I haven't read Tolkien's letters, I'm sure they'd be interesting to read.
@@daviddestefanis2989 - One flaw that monarchy has that democracy lacks is the issue of heirs. Tolkien *didn't* miss this problem, as it was central to the state of Gondor and Rohan, as well as the history of Arnor. Who rules if the monarch is dead or incapacitated?
Gondor has been ruled by the Stewards for a very long time. During that time, it has been gradually losing ground, especially during Denethor's reign when Osgiliath was well and truly taken. Meanwhile, Theoden was being manipulated by Wormtongue and there was nobody to compensate for the incapacitated king. Arnor had been long gone after its various kings had met bad ends.
I've only read a little of Tolkien's letters. It's a goal that I need to pursue. He most certainly knew that Catholics were subject to certain legal issues in the U.K.
One merely has to look at the UK over the last century to see his views were correct.
Or to veiw the history of the UK over the last 1000 years to realize he was not correct.
The life of the average person in the UK over the course of the last 75 years
(Post ww2) has been of much higher quality than the rest of the last 1000. It is easy to veiw the problems of today under a negative light & to have nostalgia of the past- because unlike the people in the past we have instant access to nearly the entire collective knowledge of all mankind. People in the past were far more blind to the happenings around them.
While today you can chose to watch a live stream from an active conflict zone, or find out about millions of tragedy's occuring all over the world. This hyper awarness lends itself to a negative biase on our current world state.
Tolkien is a product of his era.
As we all are.
Monarchy is a step backward, we need to move forwards away from consolidated executive powers.
Democracy is a sheet of paper, what we write on it, how we use it, can mean the difference between authoritarianism under the thumb of personality cults, mob rule, or Liberty.
Under total Monarchy you have to trust the next heir isn't an inbred monster with dreams of Empire. You become a slave to family dynasty and every dynasty in human history has ultimately ended badly, except those who's powers have been subsumed by democratic reform. Including Britian.
Haha, this guy thinks he's free.
@libraryofpangea7018 I am not implying that absolute monarchy is great but full democracy has been a disaster as is any system that leads to big government, which has now destroyed the UK.
Why specifically the UK. Most of the west has denocratic governments, and the UK is a flawed example as it's not even a full democracy, the monarchy still has some degree lf power and the head of state is unelected. And yet we can still see that life on a day to day level is luxery compared to the times of absolute monarchy in the UK
@@brettjohnson536 All western countries are declining rapidly in terms of freedom, wealth (our economies are sustained by debt), culture, pretty much ever measure. The comparison is not with the monarchy but the limited democracy that was in place before the last hundred years. The UK did not become a world power under full democracy but since then its decline has been precipitous. The people wanted a welfare state which lead to big government which lead to decline.
Makes me think of king David, and of course, what happened after him and Solomon were gone. No system is ever going to really work while humans are in charge lol
Humans are paradoxically the most ungovernable creatures imaginable while also being motivated by the desire to rule over each other. We are chaos incarnate.
King David ruled like a mafia don.
That's anything in life without a higher ideal we will fail
Thank you, that was quite interesting.
His arguments on the many flaws of democracy all stand, but did he really think The Goodly King existed outside of fantasy?
It was probably a mixture of the answers of certainly and certainly not. England has a very mixed bag of monarchs; King Henry VIII and his successors (especially Elizabeth I) effectively created the modern eras first police state in order to root out Catholicism and eventually centeralized power in the three kingdoms so hard that the parliament holds all the power, effectively keeping any monarch that wants to reign hostage.
The Jacobites, the Carlists, or French Legittatmentism seem to advocate for something similar to Tolkeins ideal; localism, Catholicism, and Traditionalism. That's probably a shallow view, but history has notable examples of great monarchs, a good, healthy portion of mediocre, and a greatest hits of terrible ones.
Very profound and insightful work of scholarship. Thank you and keep up your great work!
Thank you!!!
Tolkien was an anarchist, more than an a monarchist.
He saw authority as something consensual, albeit as something that people should respond to when it's legitimate.
His basis for the monarchist half was his form of Catholicism, very much a Burkean sort of Conservatism...ironic given that Burke was protestant, but still the belief in the ability of institutions to organize society around old tropes that guys like Burke and Tolkien felt dependent upon.
But, ultimately, he wanted the spontaneous order of a free society.
The Shire is mostly run anarchically, with the "government" mostly amusing itself, and settling disputes when asked to, while mostly people govern their own lives.
And that's how his successful "kings" run things, as well.
The bad "kings" are the ones who actually wield their authority where it's not welcome.
It's like Lao Tzu's admonition, that the more the rulers meddle, the worse things get.
An important pro of monarchy is also that the people who would be chosen to help the King to rule would be chosen based on their merits, competencies and wisdom and not on recommendation (that again, can be easily corrupted and manipulated).
constitutional monarchy of meritocracy vs. monarchy which is primarily run by noble birth of aristocracy and their nepotism
@@aljonserna5598 Just to play devils advocate, nepotism isn't always bad. It allows people to have multiple generations to learn statecraft by directly asking their close family members and they have more to lose than an elected politicians because in an ideal model-I would like to emphasize, an ideal model-their failure will bring ruin on their families; the worst thing an elected politician has to worry about is not being remembered well or in the rare case jailtime.
@@kzizzles8329 but nope, that isn't what often happens, but true it'd be good if it's an introduction starting in lesser offices or even get a job faster than the rest of the applicants but no, they get assigned to important offices even without earning the right (competence through experience) to be in that position
@@aljonserna5598 That is precisely what happens. The vast majority of monarchs in the last 5000 years of recorded history are either good or benign. Just as the vast majority of home owners are good or benign. Make mistakes, but also some improvements.
Can you make a vídeo about that did toliken think and Hate about other genres besides of fantasy like science fiction adventure Mystery and even horror?
The only time he used the word hate to my knowledge was to describe Frank Herbert's Dune but again other than that particular work of fiction he never wrote that he loathed science fiction or action adventure mystery or horror in fact his children particularly Robert recalls how his father weaved scary stories out of his hat before they went to bed involving orcs, dragons and other things that bump in the night.
I love your videos dude they are soo interesting and cool keep up the great work!
Thank you so much!!!!
Enjoyed your essay. Made me think.
Most of the philosophers mentioned regarding democracy is correct. If society can't produce an educated populous, for whatever reason, democracy is a system that eventually will lead to tyranny due to a combinations of manipulation of knowledge and self rationalized short term interests that supersedes that of the general society. Why do you think authoritarian/dictator populist leaders main strategy always is try to come up with ways to undermine and suppress information, epistemology and destabilize the trust between institutions and the populous? If the people can't be trusted to make an informed rationalized decisions of what's better for themselves in the context of society as a whole and will chose by emotional rationalism instead, then another means of governance must replace it. (Emotions are very easily to conjure by appealing to different fear scenarios that plays into the authoritarian/dictator leader's interest) This is what the authoritarian/dictator populist i striving for. Removing the desire/practicality internally for such a system, as well as destabilize and wreck any democratic system externally that have implemented it so that it doesn't inspire their own population to try and implement it themselves This is one the massive challenges the world will have to deal with as AI compositions will become more and more prevalent and better. We're just a hair away from people not being able to tell fact from fiction as AI will be able to write pseudo scientific books, creates fake videos, fake speeches, fake news articles etc, at a much faster paste then humans will be able to dismiss it. Then this material will be used for references for the next wave of fake facts. This means we're coming to an end of reliable information and with that democracy will become more dangerous then useful. At some point in the very near future we have to chose, do we want the internet as it is or do we want democracy.
Fantastic video! Not gonna lie, Tolkien's political (or rather antipolitical) thought has influenced my own views greatly. His letters in general contain much wisdom and offer fascinating insight into the great man himself.
His observations turned out to be true. Modern democracy feels like a thinly veiled oligarchy.
But how do we get enlightened, benevolent people at the top of the state, and these people don't get corrupted by power?
An interesting discussion, I think another important factor not fully discussed is the concept of wealth/poverty which are intrinsically linked to power or the lack of power respectively. I would have enjoyed a conversation between Tolkien and somebody like Iain M Banks, both had visions of their respective ideal civilisations embedded in their writings. In my opinion both authors aspirational writings have a lot in common, with regard to intent, or the thinking behind the concept, insofar as they wish for a better society without corruption. I wouldn't go as far as to say that they are romanticised visions, but that they wouldn't work in the real world, or at least the one we are currently living in. looking at both monarchies in Tolkien's case and 'Post-scarcity' societies in Banks writings (The Culture) I can see how they could work, but it would be dependant on Acton's dictum "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" not ringing true in Tolkien's case. Bank's utopia would be similarly vulnerable given how Marxism has played out in history. Obviously Banks was about 30 too late for the conversation to take place but it would have been interesting all the same.
We Iranians know, we ended our monarchy and now we pay for it every day
You have a democracy now? Lmao
@@animeking17 How is a pisslamic totalitarian regime democratic? 😂
@@dapperduncle1972 are you 0 iq? You're crying on a video crying about democracy. It's not like you guys ended monarchy and established a democracy
But wasn't the Shire a democracy? They elected Mayors didn't they? And they were showcased as the most ideal country of all.
(Mind you, they had to be protected by the Rangers and the King)
They where part of kingdom of arnor but after the destruction of arnor they kind of became a democracy yes .. in a way
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -H.L. Menckin
Interesting. Like the 'see the politician, but not the backer...or the backer of the backer'.
Was there one thing Tolkien didn't hated at this point ?😅
No. He even hated you!
@@nekiyia I bet he would have 😆...
Tolkien was obviously correct in his beliefs.
That's interesting, I wonder what people will one day say after seeing my work once it is finished.
Not to mention that, as illustrated by the story of Domacles, if a king, emperor, etc, *does* go corrupt, the people can easily *kill* him & replace him with a *new* one of stronger morals who understands his position better. I've understood that ever since I first heard the story, & with all of Tolkiens fears about *any* type of democracy, even a *Republic* , which has *non* democratic elements built in to *restrain* the democratic ones, being proven *right* , there's been a *rise* in the number of monarchists, even here in America; & I'm one of them. Long live the king!
Imagine going into a family home of a hobbit and stealing their songs and stories and mass marketing then to the masses without permission. From how far and wide would hobbits be hunted down. Thats pop music today 2008 and on.
Even while speaking of religions angels and hell tolkein was paid. That is the problem with the current world. When you can go into someone elses house and rob them and publish these things vonpletely depriving the writer or whatever you like to call them. Its insanity. Democrats truly are the problem.
Excellent video, beautiful dog.
Thank you!!
Great idea for a video!
I love how the dog in background is paying attention to the video as well
Your dog winked at me...
He's literally me
Same except for his Semitiphilia
Heheh... Could not be more wrong, but I should guess this content is for delusional narcissists, among others.
I remember a quote I found while reading through his letters where he says something to the effect of “my preferred political organization would probably be monarchy or anarchy, if it’s a monarchy we stick him in the palace and give him all he wants and hope he leaves us alone”
And if its a democracy instead of 1 person, it’s 51+%
While Tolkien talks about the many weaknesses of modern representative democracy as it came to be in the West (and especially Britain), one should remember that the original Greek democracy was not like this - people were selected for offices at random, and the most important votes were taken by all citizens (i.e. in a referendum). Also all of these democracies were localist city-states with small populations (and even smaller number of voting citizens).
Yes ancient greek democracy was a direct one.
Atleast when america started only land owning citizens could vote because they had a stake in the country I get thats changed but imo it works better
What a smart man, summarized the problems with democracy perfectly, also in a democracy it's not who votes that matters it's who counts the votes
He was saying this at a time when (for the most part) democracy was pretty tame and decent and worked well. That was because most people in western nations pretty much felt the same way with only minor differences. White, Christian, patriotic... Now in our hardest times with mass immigration, an almost 50/50 split between religious and Athiest, extreme idealogical versions of both Marxism and Capitalism controlling the mainstream parties etc.
Makes u wish for a king or a caeser to rise up
I'm impressed. Well done.
I think I'll just post that most people's view of monarchy is of rather centralized states. However, centralization in England and France and other places was a gradual process. Centralization of course didn't ever happen in Italy until the rise of Nationalism. A centralized nation-state that has a democracy vs a centralized nation state that has a monarchy obviously don't differ much in their level of centralization. A key feature of monarchy and feudalism is that they were often decentralized. And in the age of democracy, not too many countries have meaningful Federalism. I think the U.S., Australia, and Mexico? And even these, I know the U.S. the best, its arguable that Federalism has been greatly reduced in favor of a largely centralized state.
In short, I'm saying that a more interesting discussion to be had than monarchy vs. democracy. Is decentralization vs centralization.
And monarchy in history had much much more widespread decentralization than we ever see anywhere today in our lifetimes.
To begin: some people will never see Tolkien's thoughts beyond Jackson's (admittedly quite good, if not wholly accurate or perfect) movies. Worse, people will grow up thinking Amazon's series conveys Tolkien's thoughts.
... I would love to know why anybody could possibly downvote this video...
Thanks to (Tolkien's letters, but also the summary in) your videos, there is a clearer channel to those thoughts; and you do a wonderful thing. Thank you.
Plato was right
You can't criticise democracy in Tolkien's way without being blind to the simple fact a king is just the most recent of a line that at least started with mass murderers and most likely was shaped to have the mindset similar to those past mass murderers.
Excellent analysis. I agree with everything you say Tolkien believed - except the idea that monarchy is the solution. That’s crazy. You only have to look at history to see that doesn’t fix any of the problems he is citing.
Right, because families born into absolute power who get treated like minor gods surely wouldn't be corrupt, and would be in touch with what the common man needs.
I think a better way to execute his idea would be to select leaders from a pool of people that we think may have the qualities necessary, and to mandate that guiding the nation is their responsibility.
Their wealth and power is tied to the wealth and power of the nation, if the nation prospers they prosper, if the nation declines they decline. Thus monarchies can best be trusted to act in the interests of the nation as a whole.
@@costakeith9048 ideally yes. Historically, there have been tons of corrupt kings and emperors that put their desires over the needs of their people. Being born into that kind of wealth and power tends to breed a sense of entitlement.
@@jasepoag8930 I think you are failing to distinguish between the needs of the people and the interests of the nation, very often the needs of the people need to be sacrificed for the interests of the nation and one of the weaknesses of democracy is that this can be very difficult to accomplish under such a system.
Based Tolkien.
Sounds like Tolkien wanted a king bound not by constitution, but by "old customs, rights, usages and laws" as C S Lewis puts it.
Honestly I've had similar thoughts to Tolkien myself and hearing more of his thoughts felt enlightening. I've thought for some time now that it is far easier to ensure the goodness and competence of a single person than a whole host of them. The skinnier the hierarchy pyramid, the easier it is to monitor it and hold those in it accountable. A system or set of traditions meant to raise good kings, be it by heritage or most likely some other method, is easier to establish than an apparatus to monitor and crack down on the whole host of whatever smooth-talkers and puppets that got themselves elected. That said, the biggest flaw in monarchy certainly is succession, which isn't an easy one to fix. Too few candidates (be they hereditary princes or otherwise) for king and you become vulnerable to plots that would wipe them out to gain or retain some powers. Too many candidates or some kind of candidate selection body, and you run into chances for corruption again. It's not an easy one to solve, and Tolkien is right when he says that all systems are flawed and have their vulnerabilities. Democracy typically has smooth transitions of power, but huge potential for corruption in the long run. Granted even kings need men below them, but they typically need far less than a democracy would and monitoring from top to bottom is easier.
To be fair, he's not wrong. I do agree with a lot of what he says, democracy is far from perfect. But what other system is there that can adequately govern a population of over 60 million people, all with conflicting ideas of how things should be run, what laws should be passed, what taxes should be levied and what they should be used for, etc? How else are we going to hold a bad ruler accountable, and remove them from power, if not with democratic elections? Our population has grown too big for the kind of system like The Shire to work (which also seems to depend on the people being tied to a specific place, which is no longer as common as it was), and there have been monarchs in the past who were so bad that the country revolted against them - imagine that happening now when all the civilians in the country can't hope to raise anything like the military might of HM Armed Forces (I know this always works in dystopian films, where somehow a bunch of plucky teenagers can defeat an army of professional soldiers, but I somehow doubt this will work irl :P ). It very much depends on the "right person" being on the throne, and everyone accepting it, but how do you make sure you get the "right person", and how do they get removed when they turn out to be the wrong person? Who even decides what's "right" and "wrong"? What if they're "right" for a fraction of the population but "wrong" for the rest? Obviously these questions aren't directed at you, and I'm certainly not saying "democracy is perfect and no other system should be considered!" - just food for thought. ;)
To be fair, he believed modern states are too large. He was against the existence of the United Kingdom for example, believing that its realms would fare better in their own.
@@SMiki55 exactly. Break up the countries, make the nations small and the kings power smaller
It’s exactly because the population has wildly different ideas that democracy makes a Country neurotic
There is no system that can govern that many people. The point of Tolkien's ideal monarchy is that the king does not govern all the people within his realm. Actual governance is conducted by very decentralized, local officials who keep to their localities and don't interfere with others' governance.
In theory a dictatorship / monarchy can be an excellent system. It's just that they lack the checks and balances of democracy. Once you have a king who decides to centralise their power, or advisors that are running out of money and demand tough choices be made, things can very easily slip into awful situations. And they did many many times in the past. If we look at the corruption issues in our modern democracies with scorn, we should be aware that the same corruption issues without the checks and balances of democracy could get so much worse. Dictators / Monarchs have just as many corrupting forces acting on them as democratic politicians do. Positive traditions are great and genuinely are what we need for truly harmonious and healthy societies, however they don't stop societies going the way of Numenor.
Depends on the weather. Fight the good fight.
Monarchy isn’t extreme. It’s historically the most common form of government. Sauron and Saruman aren’t monarchists. They are tyrants. A tyrant rules beyond the limits of the law and typically governs as an autocrat. A monarch is a lawful ruler with the monarchy itself serving as an institution within society that is larger than any one man. Impulses towards autocracy may manifest in the conduct of a monarch, but the institution of monarchy itself undermines such autocratic impulses.
There is nothing extreme about being a Monarchist, throughout history it has been the most common and stable form of government, in contrast democracy is something of an aberration.
Except the Hobbits. Denethor was also a monarch, just of replacement monarchy. Boromir also complained about them not being called Kings.
A man should not chose power, power should chose the man. Great quote.
I’m an American citizen, and I don’t like democracy either.
I'm getting more disillusioned with it every day.
He, Pilgrim Pass has a video saying Dune is a hard boiled not idealistic LotR.
Frank Herbert thougth like Tolkien that best ruling system is a monarchy of limited powers.
Being a Cathy it makes sense he may have been a monarchist. The Catholic Church was essentially the Spiritual And secular power of the day. The Christian equivalent of the Muslim International califate. The separation of church and state I believe is implied in Christianity. “My kingdom is no part of this world”
Why do so many great men hate democracy
Tolkiens idealism truly knew no bounds. While commendable in certain aspects, this pristine view of humanity hardly holds up in practice. A society which hardly has need of a king has no incentive to support the state and a society which needs a state will struggle with distinguishing between leaders who are worthy and those who simply want power. Aragorn is a great king because he does not claim power until he has proven himself as a leader, but there are scarcely any kings in history who have ascended in such a way. What's more, democracy as a term means more than representative democracy. The world Tolkien envisioned could have been comfortably populated by direct democracies and small city-states, but this wouldn't fit the monarchical English/european ideal he held to. Democracies aren't perfect, but those who inherent kingdoms are most often neither perfect nor good.
Edit. And for people in the comments saying democracy isn't as old as monarchy historically, y'all gonna start complaining about literacy and antibiotics too? Modernity ain't perfect, but that doesn't make archaic forms of government based on "divine right" and bowing to worthless men because they were born to the right family any good.
Get a load of these monarchists in the comments lmao
What do you mean? Many societies had kings and queens and their people were highly supportive and unified. That cannot be said when it comes to democracy and most of your points, can apply to the critics of democracy.
@@Bensonu3o3uq Indeed democracy has many problems, but we can engage those problems in the present because of democracy. In a society where one can freely engage in politics, and where education and literacy are necessarily more widespread, one is more likely not only to produce healthy democratic thinkers but also good leaders and competent citizens who can weed out manipulative power-seekers. Why should we trust a ruler who comes to power through violence or who inherits the throne from another who did rather than seek to make good governance with our neighbors? Why not strive to build such a world if it has not yet been done?
There is a real question when it comes to how you make sure that a monarch will be a good ruler. The logic of monarchy as you present it begs the question.The existence of good rulers does not make monarchy a good system, just as the existence of good democracies does not prove that democracy itself is perfect. How do you know that you will have a good king, or that the current king is good? In a social order whose government is based on hereditary monarchy, why is the existence of good kings significant? If the king is bad, what are you going to do about it? One is just as likely to end up with a bad king than a good one, if not more so.
All the alleged problems that make democracy questionable to Tolkien(as to most major monarchists in history) are issues which can be applied to monarchy. Kings are not automatically better men, even if some have happened to be decent rulers, and the struggles to maintain democracy do not make it invalid or inferior as a system.
That is what I meant.
@@conahanbarbarian9719 This sounds sweet, but this is not how it works in reality. The mass production of education and literacy is irrelevant to stopping corruption. While education helps, educating the masses beyond necessity only makes people incredibly opinionated. We see this all around Western nations (mostly USA) where an educated population doesn't guarantee the prevention of corruption.
Moving on to the next point, all governments come to power by some form of violence. A government that isn't founded on some sort of authoritarian beliefs will never entirely survive. Violence to preserve legitimacy is not a unique thing to monarchs nor am I opposed to it.
When it comes to the existence of good monarchs, that does matter. Like good leaders in a democracy, good monarchs serve as an example of what a good leader should be. The very same questions you pose for monarchies can be said about democracy. How do you know the next set of government figures will be good? How do you know they will keep their word? To answer this question, monarchies have the advantage of merely grooming future heirs. Monarchs are usually shown to have a closer connection with the people and serve as strong figureheads in their nation. Compared to someone who serves four or maybe eight years as a politician, do you expect them to be as mature as a monarch?
What an excelent comment.
He was a Conservative Roman Catholic English man born in the reign of Queen Victoria. Of course, Tolkien would have been brainwashed against democracy. The late 19th century Catholic Church saw democracy as a threat to the church. As the Pope and the Curia were generally minor members of the Italian nobility in the late 19th century, this makes a perverse sense.
Also, Oxford, traditionally the more conservative institution, had no respect in period for democracy. Even when Tolkien was raising his children, the culture of Oxford was so hostile to democracy that Communism was more respectable than democracy.
He was typical of his time period in many ways. It's the ways he is unlike the norms of his time that make him wonderful. Much like George Washington. Neither man could ever be tolerable to the "woke."
It is amazing to me… I’ve for a long time consider myself a capitalist, but I’ve hated how government and corporations do stuff and been against them for the same time, which made me confused about my stance, as I was sure that capitalism is the most natural form of economy, yet I am unhappy about how things work socially and politically. Took me a while to finally understand that what I didn’t like about my world wasn’t the economic system, but the prevailing government system: Democracy. Yet it was still hard for me to precise what other government systems could provide that was better in any way. Tolkien presents, from what you say here, a pretty strong case for Monarchy. It’s odd, because it’s kinda idealist as well. He also shows how it can be bad, corrupt and detrimental as well. There’s a “sweet spot”. However, you can say such thing exists for democracy as well. At the end the idea of a good person with love for their people, able to make hard and cruel choices for themselves and their subjects for the sake of a better life for the majority, wether they’ve been elected or just born into it, remains a very idealistic and potentially surreal concept.
I sure didn't expect him to call himself an anarchist. Wow... but then I suppose the Fellowship didn't have a leader to dictate, and the 'least' of them were proven most vital for success. Even Gollum is involved and needed, if unredeemable, he still is given every chance and plays a role
Okay... Monarchy and democracy are not antonyms. Absolutism and democracy are, but please don't present monarchy as the opposite of democracy.
Sincerely from the democratic Kingdom of Sweden.
Sweden is not a monarchy
Morgoth monarchy 💪👹
@@goyonman9655
*Laughs in King Carl XVI Gustaf*
Sweden is going down the drain. Get rid of democracy and put in place a new monarch ASAP.
@@minutemansam3122
What does he do???
Now we are at the point where democracies barely have to pretend to be elected.
Tolkien was cautious about the power structures of any political system, including democracy. In his letters, notably in "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien," he occasionally discussed his political views. He described himself as a "monarchist" and had an affinity for what he saw as the ordered, hierarchical structure of monarchical and aristocratic systems, which is reflected in the structured, hierarchical societies in his legendarium. However, this preference doesn't necessarily imply a disdain for democracy but rather suggests his preference for tradition and stability.
In "The Lord of the Rings," Tolkien presents various forms of governance, from the democratic councils of the Elves to the stewardship and monarchy of Gondor, without explicitly advocating for one system over another.
It reminds me a lot of how St. Thomas Aquinas advocates for a mixed system of government that combines Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy (in that order) for the advantages of each to try and mitigate the disadvantages of each-I believe its in De regno that he briefly discusses it
I enjoy the dog just looking at him like "who are you talking to"
Democracy hate? Based!
Democracy is the perfect political system however there also lies its flaw.
The perfect system in order to work through voting requires the perfect citizens. The perfect voter will never exist.
No. It needs educated citizens who can chose good leaders.
But what does perfect even mean? Democracy would only be morally right if we were some kind of hivemind organism with no discrepancies of interest, which would obviously make voting completely pointless. In any real scenario it's just the tyranny of the masses.
There's no one competent enough, or with enough information, or with enough time to educate themself, or with enough incentives to decide on what's best for your life project better than yourself.
And no matter how educated one is, every person is different, and has different interests and outlooks on life. So even in this utopian scenario where every citizen is well versed on every aspect of politics, economy, social sciences, etc. the masses will most likely decide many things against your best interests.
That's why democracy will always be deeply flawed. @@paulodelima5705
It is not perfect, and we see it become globalism and technocratic bureaucracy that lowers the standard of living, all while they tell us how great democracy is!
@@paulodelima5705Many people are too thick to be educated. This is why we need RULERS not puppets of the people. THE PEOPLE ARE MORONS.
I would be happier as a gardener in the Shire than King anywhere else.
If people can vote to kill an ancient tree (for a new road or block of overpriced flats), or a politician convince people to destroy the tree, you can see why he would be opposed to it.
The best way to save the tree would be to start a cult and convince worshippers that the tree is sacred.
Rather be led by one Lion than a hundred Rats.
You wouldn't say that if you were a zebra
He wasn’t extreme. He was right.
Excellent presentation. Core issues here are still relevant today and feature in current discussions regarding American politics.
Very enlightening video, thank you!
Although I have to say that I believe Tolkien's metion of a language "not understood by the people" is not meant to be Democracy, it's intended to be Finance (since he's talking about the "bankers behind the backers")
I don't think you'll be too bold as to investigate Tolkien's anti-semitism (there's plenty of public evidence for that), but it's very much implied in his view of the "fuel" of democracy... financial backers with no nation, backing local puppets who only need the cash to rise to power, and people voting for the most loud and vocal of the latter (eg those with the most money) -- and there you have the backbone of his defense of Germany, a nation borne out of noble blood and ground, but cast in the gutter by massive debt owed to overseas funds...
In a monarcy one idiot rules, in a democracy multiple idiots rule.
Not necessarily true, even in a Monarchy, the King needs advisors, bankers, Lords of his own, in essence ‘backers’, Generals too and every other kind of bureaucratic apparatus that are all just as susceptible to the same stupidity.
Just as even in Democracy, there is an Elected Representative as the leader.
@@rhett3185
In a monarchy a houndred idiots rule, in a democracy a million idiots rule?
@@Leo-ok3uj yes, and that’s my point still. Monarchy is better than Democracy generally, but it’s not because it’s entirely it’s opposite.
Click bare title. And no. He didn't hate democracy. Saw flaws in all form government. You completely mislead the viewer with quotes taken out of context.