• snax23@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      21 hours ago

      dont be! Tolkien was an anarcho-monarchist. Something like monarcho-socialism but more radical, with highly symbolic but powerless monarchs and lots of good ritual, combined with anarcho-federalism and Mutualism

        • snax23@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs)—or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people.”

          -J. R. R. Tolkien

        • snax23@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          from that thread , see emperor norton or notes on Tolkienism

          Tolkien’s anarchism was a decentralized voluntary association where one would swear fealty to a king and issues became common and local among people. This system was reminiscent of the Shire in his books. He supported monarchy because it acted as an involuntary position based on the catholic principle nolo episcopari. He believed this would avoid the cutthroat nature of party politics and leave the king as a figurehead that has respect and authority through voluntary exchange and respect for the monarchs position in the tradition of the country.

  • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The line of stewards were kings in all but name as a hereditary monarchical position with all the duties and authority of the king. They theoretically had to give up power if a member of the royal family ever came back to claim the throne, but Aragorn wasn’t exactly chomping at the bit to do so and only took over after Denethor killed himself with his two heirs being either dead or too injured to lead. The stewards had ruled Gondor for over a thousand years and a well liked one could have easily gotten the people behind them to reject Aragorn’s claim and formally taken the title of king.

    • Hoimo@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      17 hours ago

      The people rejecting a rightful claim to the throne is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a pure bloodline and a big sword, not from some farcical democratic ceremony.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Here’s the thing.

    He named it even. Please read about Thing/Din of the old germans, it’s basically a simple democracy.

  • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    The shire was founded under the rule of the king of arnor, as a semi independent shire. So aragorn was technically king of the shire.

    • faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Until the beginning of the Fourth Age when King Elessar (Aragorn) makes it a free land (still under protection)

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 days ago

    Every time I see this meme, I’m reminded of this, which basically argues that the shire is just a specific type of feudal system, that looks like a place of rulerless plenty because the main characters are mostly that systems informal equivalent of nobility.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      So Pippin and Boromir were in nearly the same position, but with wildly different stakes. Huh.

      Both Samwise Gamgee and his father, Hamfast Gamgee,

      Oh god I snorted vodka. Hamfast?

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Full disclosure: I have not read your link yet, but I intend to.

      How can a gardener be nobility? Frodo, definitely could see. But then there are the Tooks and Brandybucks going out and stealing produce and foraging for mushrooms? Not exactly nobility activities.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sam wasn’t, and the article goes into that. He was, in fact, one of Frodo’s tenant farmers and thus part of the Baggins family’s social support network. Hence why he becomes Frodo’s ‘batman’ during the Ring Quest.

        As far as the childish mischief of Merry and Pippin, in the books it’s mushrooms only, actually. And Merry and Pippin are actually much higher-ranking than Frodo, who’s a mere ‘gentlehobit’. (They are, however, also much younger; Pippin especially is barely out of what Hobbits consider childhood.)

        Pippin is the son of the Thrain, the closest the Shire gets to an actual leader and nobility, as it’s his job to ‘stand in’ for the absent King. Merry is the son of the Master of Buckland, another very powerful and very old family in the Shire.

      • RedSnt 👓♂️🖥️@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        But then there are the Tooks and Brandybucks going out and stealing produce and foraging for mushrooms? Not exactly nobility activities.

        Another way of looking at it is that they don’t have to work and is using their past time doing crime just for kicks. That kind of dickishness sounds very much like that of the spawn of nobles.

        • Ecen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          And to add to this, yea Sam is the only one in the Fellowship who isn’t a Maia, heir to the king/steward, heir in a noble family or just rich enough not to have to work, and actually has a normal job.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        Remember, they are still pretty much children in Hobbit society. Both the Tooks and Brandeybucks hold fair bits of land, it’s just their wild kids running around giving the farmers trouble. And of course there’s never any real consequences for them beyond a slap on the wrist.

  • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Look Tolkein liked monarchy, what can you do about it. The Shire is still an anarchist commune, when it’s not on fire

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m not sure it really fits the bill there. It had a largely-ceremonial hereditary monarchy (which Pippin inherits from his dad about 15 years after the ring was destroyed) which can call assemblies to discuss matters, an elected mayor (which Sam served as several times over after the ring), and law enforcement in the form of the shiriffs. Tolkien does describe it as “hardly any” government, yes, but to me it seems perhaps unsurprisingly more like a miniaturised version of the British system

      • Phineaz@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean, medieval communities were often somewhat self-managed due to the simple fact that judicial courts were far away, and the local bailiff had to enact the laws. Every-day law was mostly on a by-case basis, and if they didn’t notice or care, there was no law.

      • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        They have a healthy system of vegetable competitions and scowls to keep the order.

        That’s all most neighbourhoods and small groups need.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Only because they were a client state of Arnor and their militant successors, the Rangers of Dunedain! Who keep all the “riffraff out.”

          The Shire is a redlined suburb, wake up sheeple.

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t think that’s true, is it? I think Gondor had a small handful of kings before the line was broken and had a long string of stewards. Didn’t Isildur sail from Numenor and establish Gondor himself? So, one single king, right?

      • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, isildurs nephew led the line of kings in gondor for two thousand years before the plague and civil war weakened gondor and it ended when the witch king nazgul killed the last king of gondor.