When I was young, I was very definitely Leftist. I completely agreed that large international corporations are the source of ultimate evil. I disliked George Bush Jr for his interventionism abroad. I believed that Military-Industrial Complex is out of control. Overall, I agreed in most things with your average Democrat, and with the Democratic Party as such.
Now for the punchline: I still agree with all of the above. What differs is my understanding of the problems, as well as my response to them.
Back then, I believed that the state – government – has to be the one to put the end to it. Laws have to be made to punish corrupt cronies, government has to oversee the corporations and to regulate the market.
But as time passed, I realized that the above is wrong. Centralizing more power in hands of the government is not the answer, because government is much more likely to help the corporations than to attack them (else who will pay for the election campaign?). More power in hands of the government does nothing to counter corporations – instead, it acts as a bait that only draws them closer in.
And even if corporations are somehow restricted, doing so would merely replace one problem (unaccountable corporations) with another (unaccountable government). While as a Leftist I believed that the problem lied in the nature of power – namely, in corporate power – now I realize that the problem is in accumulation of power – that is, in centralization of authority.
As such, I no longer believe that more governmental control is the answer. After all, large corporations – which should be the main target – can easily bypass said control, and even if they get caught by some happenstance, they can easily afford to pay off penalties. All that government control achieves is to restrict, penalize and even destroy the small and medium business, which should form the basis of the healthy economy.
Instead, corporations have to be prevented from growing too large. And this requires not centralization, but rather decentralization of power. National autarky instead of international dependency, localized businesses, and localized government with only limited influence of national government and no influence of international structures of power. A system, in other words, that is most similar to the municipal system of the Roman Republic, as opposed to the centralized system of the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union. Even beyond that, government should be restricted in its ability to influence the society.
But restriction in the extent and powers of the government has automatic implications for the society as a whole. No longer would people be able to rely on the nanny state to do everything for them. In fact, even influence of laws would be minimized. And the only way to replace government and its laws is with the organic structures of power – structures of power and social rules that are natural outgrowth of the society and its development. In other words, tradition.
But if government as such has little influnce in day-to-day life, then democracy makes no sense. Elected government, no matter its source (typically fraudelent elections, which Left is so fond of – look at the “elections” in Yugoslavia in 1945), imagines that it has the “mandate of the people” – and thus can do anything it likes to the people. It is ironic that democratic government is much more likely to turn authoritharian than a traditional premodern monarchy – and, due to greater extent of the state apparatus, it is also much more capable in doing so. But it is true.
And so I became a monarchist.
Now to be clear, my support for the monarchy does not mean that I support any type of monarchy. Absolute monarchy is out of the question. My personal ideal is a federal / confederate monarchy with significant influence of individual regions, provinces and even cities and towns. Something similar to Holy Roman Empire, in other words, rather than Louis XIV’s France. Latter did everything modern government does, by concentrating political and economic power in his hands and awarding it to his cronies. But a “democratic” government is due to its nature and, ironically, distribution of power, both much more opaque and more difficult to restrict.