Power to the People

[Nogrod]

I'm not sure, if I'm just too easy-going with this one - all you Tolkien-connoisseurs', beat me up for a cause.

But wasn't Tolkien just a child of his time (and the understandable follow-up of his child- & adulthood - as we all are ours')? He seems to have ideas about a good community / society in line with all the basic insights of the romantic / utopian western world, from Plato and More onwards (- even clinging to Lenin?), combined with the kind of chivalric notion of a noble leader. You know, "noblesse oblige"? There are those who are more worthy, and those who are not, and the first ones should reign over the latter.

So the society is not democratic, but aristocratic (being greek, and meaning, the power of the best ones), and the romantic side of it comes from thinking, that there is a justified leader, who is pure at heart, and wise etc., eg. could take the position that is given to him at right (acknowledge the pronoun, him - it surely would not have been "her" for Tolkien!).

So, why is Aragorn the right & real heir to the throne? Because of his lineage, and because of his deeds. So we have taken one step forwards from a primitive (?) heritage-ruler -system. We combine the birth and the actions, the virtues, to a mix. So we combine the old-world heriditiary system with greek / roman virtue-ethics. As the famous sociologist, Max Weber, would have said, we combine the traditional power with charismatic power. What we come up with? The romantic hero of the 19th. century, the one that Wagner was calling for? The pure, the brave, the hero of a nation (nation itself being an idea deliberately formed by the 16th. century warlords to fight over the church, and to be called kings after that: compare to Afghan warlords of today!)?

Tolkien surely was conservative enough, not to have liked very much of democracy.

= Lalwendë
Tolkien always seems somewhat politically confused to me. I always explain it away to myself by comparing his views to those of a lot of the traditionally middle-class English people, as opposed to liberal, Guardian reading middle class people. They like tradition, and approve of monarchy, just so long as they can have 'their say'. Structures such as the police are important, but the state is not always looked upon that fondly, usually where it interferes in freedom of choice and taxes!

You seem to be at the roots of the so called basic "political-conservatism"! I don't think there is anything confusing about that. Political conservatism is propably best described in that famous phrase (at least in Finland): "home, country & religion". Now liberalism (f.ex. economical liberalism with its global markets) do not fit very well with that one. It's a new reality with money without a "fatherland", and leading to traditions needing to meet other traditions, with equal claims to be the "original ones" (bye-bye for the conservative dream of being "the only one that counts"). That sure would be a nightmare for Tolkien, and his world.

Could Tolkien stand a democratic society? Propably he wouldn't like it. (and who would like a society where Beck's & Posh are the most noteworthy people around?)

PS. Sorry, if this went too political. It was not my meaning - undestanding this is a non-political site. But this thread really calls for some "taking sides". If any-one of you find this aggressive, I'll promise to be easier with this kind of topics after this one....