What Anarcho-Monarchism is Not

Perusing the web, I’ve seen many different definitions of Anarcho-Monarchism.  With some of these definitions, I feel the need to clarify my position.  First and foremost, Anarcho-Monarchism is not National Anarchism.  The confusion comes from the fact that we draw inspiration from some of the same pool of philosophers as National Anarchists – Ernst Jünger, Maurice Barrès, Charles Maurras, and Julius Evola being the most obvious examples.  We also share some of the same cultural values.  Anarcho-Monarchists are cultural traditionalists that embrace religious values, localism, and particularism, while rejecting all forms of socialist economics (not just Marxist), Leftist cultural values, and countercultural lifestyle matters.  But, and I want to stress this, we are not nationalists!  We are not tribalists, racists, or separatists.  There is a virus within rightist-anarchist movements that seeks to align with White Supremacism,  Neo-Nazism, and / or Nationalism.  This is a mistake (beyond just being psychologically contradictory) and I reject all attempts to do so.  Nationalism is a Leftist ideology; the Right is for patriotism of country and soil, but not for nation and blood.

Second, we are not monarchists.  We are anarcho-capitalists.  Free trade, free markets, liberty, and the non-existence of a centralized State are our goals.  Our position towards monarchism is simply this: if given a choice between only democracy and monarchy, we tend to agree with classical liberals that monarchy was friendlier to liberty than democracy.  Some have claimed that we would support a voluntary kingship in an anarcho-capitalist society – this is nonsensical.  Beyond the virtual impossibility of such a thing occurring, we are not monarchists simply for the sake of being monarchists.  We are Burkeans – we support a multiplicity of organic authorities in a diversity of regions.  Thus, in America for example, if an anarcho-capitalist society cannot be attained, we would urge a return to true republican-Constitutional government (or even better, a return to the Articles of Confederation).  We would not support a monarchy for America because it is completely outside the traditions of this country.  Whereas in most of Europe, we would urge a restoration of the monarchical families.  Anarcho-Monarchism is not an ideology in itself – again, we do not support a monarch within an anarcho-capitalist society (unless, of course, individuals within that region did indeed all decide to voluntarily have a king).  Rather, our position is for anarchy OR for monarchy (given that monarchy fits into the organic historical traditions of that region).

Third, we are not corporatists.  We oppose ‘Bigness’ – Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor, even ‘Big Church.’  We support laissez-faire capitalism.  However, we are sympathetic towards Distributism, Mutualism, Georgism, and even Anarcho-Syndicalism.  Though firmly aligned with the Austrian School of Economics and their free market views, we also are influenced by the ideas of Edmund Burke, Proudhon, G. K. Chesterton, and Wilhelm Röpke in that we believe that property is a fundamental aspect of liberty and that we desire more – rather than less – people to have private property and their own means of production.  This is one of the primary (among many) reasons why we rarely align with the Republican Party – that Party is too attached to corporatist markets rather than free markets.

Fourth, we are not materialists.  Again, we support laissez-faire capitalism but we do not reduce Man simply to Homo economicus.  This, perhaps, is among our larger differences with others in the anarcho-capitalist camp.  We are not, however, anti-technology nor are we anarcho-primitivists.  We are thankful for civilization, industrial progress, and the wonderful gadgets that individuals in a free society produce.  We simply tend to stress the importance of more non-material values and of simpler living.  We are lovers of the simple, free, slow, beautiful, and contemplative life.

11 Responses to “What Anarcho-Monarchism is Not”
  1. J.K. Baltzersen says:

    Interesting points, sir.
    I do not describe myself as an anarcho-monarchist.
    But isn’t this a bit possesive? Could there not be, e.g., anarcho-monarchists who are not anarcho-capitalists?

    • Jason (Admin) says:

      Sure. I don’t claim to own a monopoly on the term. Salvador Dalí actually coined the term, I believe. This is merely my opinion about what the philosophy is about. It is essentially a philosophy about radical-traditionalist libertarianism. About being an archliberal of the Extreme Right in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s words. Whether one is specifically an anarcho-capitalist (as opposed to a minarchist, monarchist, or whatever) is not of vital importance. My primary point in that paragraph was that we are not simply monarchists. We are defenders of monarchy, but advocates of anarchy.

  2. cock says:

    Why would you call your self an “anarcho-monarchist” if you don’t support monarchy?

    Of course you have nothing to do with anarchism as such, as you are a mere anti-statist.

    • Jason (Admin) says:

      I do support monarchy, with certain qualifications and reservations. As far as having nothing to do with anarchism, this is correct if your only definition of anarchism is a Leftist-socialist anarchism. Beyond my support for anarcho-capitalism (something I’m assuming you also disavow as being anarchism), I am (again, reservedly to varying degrees) a follower of Proudhon, Bakunin, Tucker, Tolstoy, and other anarchists.

  3. MRDA says:

    Do those in your camp strictly have to be traditionalists?

    • Jason (Admin) says:

      I don’t think they have to be strictly adherent to some particular form of traditionalism, but I think that in general, yes, anarcho-monarchists are inclined towards conservatism than progressivism.

  4. J.A. Moore says:

    What are your thoughts on Francis Parker Yockey and Rene Guenon?

  5. ialsop says:

    Fascinating! I LOVE it! Great job sir.

    You just gave me something to believe in, as I have been struggling for so very long to place myself on the political spectrum.
    You see, I am a believer in monarchy over democracy, but also anarchy over democracy. And I am a distributist. But MOST of all, I believe in liberty, but tradition! In morality, religion, politics, economy, art, everything, I am a hardcore traditionalist! But I also love freedom, liberty, and could not find a way to reconcile the two, simple because of all the left winger anarchists out there.
    I, however, would say that I do not support anarcho-capitalism, however I dont claim to understand the term completely. I am more distributist, rejecting all capitalism…HOWEVER your rejection of corporatism and embracing of capitalism is fascinating.

    Now my question for you is, would it be possible to use this term and belief from a different perspective, say, being an advocate of monarchy but a defender of anarchy? Odd as it seems I think that is my position.

  6. Duke says:

    This is truly amazing. I had never encountered such an accurate description of my personal views before.

    Liberty and tradition; paleolibertarian (Rothbard) and anarcho-monarchist (Hoppe) are my idols.

  7. SSJKamui says:

    On the last point. This is one of my main criticisms of liberalism. Liberalism completely ignores human “dasein” and often only sees the material side and equates happyness with material wealth. Because of this, we have things like stupid “growth” politics based on liabilities etc.

    To make it simple: You can be rich but still unhappy. (Like I once joked: If you are sad, a friend would help you. Most capitalists would sell you prozac. 😉 )

Leave A Comment



June 2012
« Apr   Jul »