Anarchy and Aristocracy

[Anonymous]

You say you have leanings towards anarchism in politics yet so many of your heroes, especially in Sword and Sorcery books, are aristocrats. Any thoughts on why. I wondered if it was the genre, but if you compare with other writers eg. Fafhrd and the Mouser are almost archytypal peasant and prole and Conan, like his creator is a working class boy made good. But Elric goes the opposite way and leaves his throne of glory to suffer in the world of men, and there are all the other dukes and princes, even the End of Time people are titled. Is this coincidence or are you a secret aristocratophile?

[L'Etranger]

It can't be these chaps' good manners that appeal to you, can it? After all, some in the assortment you've created really cry for a stripping of their privileges for their ignoble conduct, eh?

L'E

[Michael Moorcock]

I think I'm more an anarchist than I am a believer in inherited power.
Whether it be a title or a presidency. Or even the head of a corporation!
You'll note that my books almost always end with a straight 'Don't follow leaders' message (cf Hawkmoon for instance). I am a populist democrat to my boots, even though I understand the problems of a populist democracy (George Bush getting elected, for instance), and would not have anything any other way. I do, however, believe in education and
sophistication and that the media's job is to provide that whenever possible, rather than play to the worst elements in a society (such as xenophobia). My arguments against a populist democracy are just that -- arguments. I want the media to take on a better job of educating the population to the subtleties of political decisions, to the need for positive diplomacy over war-making and so on. Most of my aristocrats, you might notice, either get pulled down or step down... They rarely get replaced with other aristocrats (OK, Queen Flana...).

[Michael Moorcock]

You're right, Etranger. There's also a large question about abuse of privilege! In terms of the best kind of populist democracy, I have actually come around to the idea of a constitutional monarch in recent years, only because such a monarch can represent the whole State in a way that elected presidents cannot. A deal with such a monarch (as with the Magna Carta) tends to have lasting consequences! I'm also inclined to support,these days, a traditional House of Lords (i.e. an unelected second chamber, which is free of political alignment) mostly because Tony Blair's alternatives simply don't look any better. But by and large,
though I have several good friends who have traditional titles, I'm more inclined towards tumbrils and guillotines than crowns and privilege. Not that I'd go so far as the Terror, any more than my hero Tom Paine, who was, you'll recall, run out of Paris when he tried to stop them beheading the King.

[M-A_19]

Mike wrote:

In terms of the best kind of populist democracy, I have actually come around to the idea of a constitutional monarch in recent years

Even a rabid republican like myself cannot deny that there are some attractive concepts in a monarchist system. In particular I like the idea of having one person prepared from birth to rule the country and having absolutely no choice in the matter.

Was it Douglas Adams who said that anybody who is capable of getting themselves elected as president, should on no account be allowed to have the job?

[/quote]

[Michael Moorcock]

It was Raymond Chandler (via P. Marlowe) who said that policing is like politics, it demands the best and attracts the worst.

[DeeCrowSeer]

Even a rabid republican like myself cannot deny that there are some attractive concepts in a monarchist system. In particular I like the idea of having one person prepared from birth to rule the country and having absolutely no choice in the matter.

But what if that one person was so unhappy upon the throne that he decided to wander other lands and leave his people in the hands of an untrustworthy cousin... can you imagine what sort of trouble that would bring about? :)

As a subject of a constitutional monarchy, I have to say I don't have a problem with the system in principle... but the Royal family always seem to produce university graduates who join the armed forces. I realize that this is the "tradition", but it would be nice (just once) to have a prince who decided to drop out and direct an off-Broadway production of Rent or something. Break the cycle... think outside the (royal) box!

It would also by nice it they stopped insulting foreigners and shooting defenceless animals (or wringing their necks, as the case may be). To be fair, they seem remarkably sane considering the roles they've been given to play, but I really wouldn't want any of them in my "back yard". They're nice for the tourists though!

Ooh, the current theory appears to be that celebrities are "the new aristocracy". Discuss.

D...

Edit: Whilst tapping out the above rant late last night, I'd forgotten about Prince Edward, who actually did go into the theatre and then tried to run a TV production company... which I suppose shows some evidence of imagination... but his theatre work was with Andrew Lloyd-Webber, so it doesn't count. Also, as far as I can see, the only TV programmes he made were about the royal family themselves, so they don't count either.

[Michael Moorcock]

I don't think anyone's arguing that most hereditary monarchs are great intellectuals. In fact that family is so thick you could build an entire house of short planks out of it. The Fall of the House of Shorte Plancke...
:)
I'm talking about the function of the monarchy, rather than the people who make it up. They don't have to do much but sign scrolls -- the BBC charter is a good example, after all. That's a deal, like the Magna Carta, between the people and the State (personified by the monarch) which
guarantees the freedoms of the BBC. We all know there's wiggle room in there, as it were, but the fundamental agreement stands. You could do it with a constitution, too, probably, if you frame it right, but it would be a bit harder to do and there's something about a personification which appeals to most of us. God, for instance, or Zeus or Aphrodite. Very good personifications, whether you're religious or not. The monarchy has a certain mythic substance, even if the reality isn't up to much at the moment.
Nice, bike riding constitutional monarchs would be even better, of course. People who somehow personified the people we would like to be.
Polite, courteous and responsible.... In that sense the Scandinavians and the Dutch have it rather better than we do in the UK.
Celebrities have always been the aristocracy. It's just that most of them used to be both at one point (Richard the Lion Heart, say, or even Robin, Earl of Lockesley -- i.e. they were given aristocratic honours, even if they started off as bent foresters). It's like English women could always marry foreigners, as long as it turned out they were really aristocrats (preferably of English origin, too) in romantic fiction.
Like bastards always claimed their dad was really the Prince of Wales (not the current one -- probably Beckham fills in better there).
And before that they were the sons of Gods. Not that I wish to offend any Christians in the audience...

[Jagged]

Re: Anarchy and Aristocracy

You say you have leanings towards anarchism in politics yet so many of your heroes, especially in Sword and Sorcery books, are aristocrats.

Of course, it's interesting that many of the classic Russian anarchists (Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Bakunin...) came from the aristocracy. Maybe because the aristocracy had the education and time to reflect upon states of affairs and think of alternatives, while the worker had enough to providing food for the family...

At least, anarchists and aristocrats have always seemed to one thing in common, that they have a general high level of intellectual sophistication. Funny thing, that.

[Dead-Air]

Elric seems like a bit of an anarchist himself for perhaps the same reasons you mention.

[Michael Moorcock]

Kropotkin's my hero and I'm very attracted to Tolstoy, though not so much to Bakunin. But if there was one person I could meet from the relatively recent past, I think it would be Kropotkin. To some extent I base my own Prince Lobkowitz on him.

[Jagged]

Kropotkin's my hero and I'm very attracted to Tolstoy, though not so much to Bakunin. But if there was one person I could meet from the relatively recent past, I think it would be Kropotkin. To some extent I base my own Prince Lobkowitz on him.

I agree that Kropotkin was probably the greatest of the anarchists ever, and his famous book of memoirs certainly give the impression of a modest and charming man. So there's something of him in Lobkowitz... that never occurred to me, but it makes a lot of sense. What a lot of delightful details we get in this forum, pard :)

[Michael Moorcock]

A friend of mine who is a pretty good geographer himself, reckons Kropotkin still has a lot to teach us about geography, too!

[zakt]

Jagged wrote:

Of course, it's interesting that many of the classic Russian anarchists (Kropotkin, Tolstoy, Bakunin...) came from the aristocracy.

Hmmm, but so did many of the classic Russian despots. Think you'd be right that luxury of time enabled a minority of them to think beyond their class interests. On the other hand in War & Peace, Tolstoy seems to indicate that the "enlightened" landowners (well, Andre anyway) were, to some extent, acting from self-interest rather than from a deep-felt love of the peasantry, who come off fairly badly, though not as badly as the nascent proletariat. Having bought my copy in 1978 or thereabouts, I succeeded in getting beyond page 102 this year and finished the damn thing - :?: does anyone think that the essay at the end adds anything to the book :?: I just got annoyed that he detracted from the sweep of the story by over-analysing. :?

Kropotkins "Memoirs of a Revolutionist" were grand though, and Trotsky's "My Life" is worth a plough through, if only to justify the radical student who (as my dad said when he took it off me and read the first few chapters) "never did a day's work in his life". :lol:

[Michael Moorcock]

It's that poor Mrs T I feel sorry for. All very well to choose a life of poverty, but what about a pension for that poor woman who must have copied out W&P ten times and got nothing but insults into the bargain.
Idealism begins at home, I tend to think.