Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the guy who be short
I also refute that Anarchy could ever take the form of collectivism. Anarachism should not be considered as a form of socialism or communism. As Somalia shows, absolute abolition of any form of control leads to capitalism (which I believe Tolkien mentions disliking, though I may be wrong).
|
Spain in the 1930s. Anarchists there were exercising collectivism. I suppose the correct term for that attempt at a practical application of Anarchy as a collective 'system' would be Anarcho-Syndicalism. There is also Christiania in Denmark, and there are various religious communities whp have operated for hundreds of years on something og an Anarchist basis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Squatter
In a modern democracy it's possible to make nobody actually responsible for anything, yet still concentrate power into the hands of a few people. I'm not saying that Tolkien was right, but I can understand why he might have held his views.
|
Its clear that this was something Tolkien did 'see', that democracy may not be as wonderful as it is held up to be. There are choices given to us but these`are very limited choices and it is not altogether clear if those people up for election really are there for the good of the people or are doing it in order to gain the power to pursue a personal agenda.
I've recently realised (and quite shocked myself in the process) that the last thing I want to see in the UK is a president and a republic, as I know that the leader we would get would as likely as not be some 'charismatic' business leader, who would then go on to utilise the status brought by the position to make even more money. I feel more comfortable with the latest in a line of monarchs who have little or no 'agenda'.
This I think is what Tolkien was getting at with his attitude to monarchy and 'democracy' (and the super-state or nanny state); he could see that even democracy can feed into the hands of the power and money hungry, as we must still have 'leaders'.
I wonder if Tolkien's ideal of a leader is something entirely different to a Prime Minister, a King (or Queen), or a President? In Aragorn we see something of his ideal, but we do not see all that much of this man's actual Kingship. Instead we see his military leadership and his leadership of the Fellowship after Gandalf has gone. To me it seems he idealises the
practical leader.
Though again, this begs the question of whether Aragorn's skill would shine through in quite the same way had he been say the fifteenth in a long line of Kings in a stable country.
Tolkien really sidesteps the issue of Politics as much as possible, only venturing into that territory to show how power corrupts? Which brings us back to those Anarchists...
