POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Chesterton is not feudalist.

Basically. The authority of lords/princes was occasionally justified in the medieval period, but it was often very legalistic. Like the medieval scholars that were pouring over the Roman law. They argued about where the authority of the kings came from because they were genuinely trying to piece together the legal order, since so many still believed that medieval Europe was just a continuation of Rome. One big debate was over whether the so-called "lex regia" represented a concession or translation of power, which was a debate about whether the people had given up their power to the king/princeps or had merely granted it with the right to revoke it. Both sides essentially believed that the source of kingly power was in the willingness of the people, so they actually held a common ground in taking for granted that political authority wasn't rooted in some frivolous power over others. But in differing over whether that right still lay in the people or was now held by the king they ultimately came to the split we recognize as being about whether some kind of social cohesion and order is what legitimates sovereignty, or some kind of popular justice.

But in the case of oaths of service and whatnot I don't think anybody was really questioning the justice of it. Here is a knight here is a lord, or a peasant and a lord, or whatever, and they agree to a relationship of service. It was as normal as a contract, where the question of right came in was where people disputed something like a lord's right to service, maybe through suggesting the rights they claimed were in conflict with the customary rights of the peasants or whatever.

Attached: lex regia.png (1781x96, 36.51K)

>"We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as sort-of-executive officer for the week--"
>"Yes."
>"But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting--"
>"Yes, I see."
>"By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--"
>"Be quiet."
> "But by a two thirds majority, in the case of more major--"
>"Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!"
> "Order, eh? Who does he think he is?"

Attached: dennis.jpg (800x443, 30.74K)

Because you've comically oversimplified the historical and social arrangement which, for the majority of history, were not at all concerned with the King but rather with the Aristocracy and the Church. The point of Feudalism is to feed, house, and provision horsemen for the purpose of the enforcement of Christianity upon a foreign people, there are no kings required in this.

It's worth noting that "a merchant" here is a retailer.

Plato’s Republic was written before feudalism existed and what it advocates for is closer to communism than feudalism.

Read de Maistre, Burke, bits of Chesterton and Belloc, and de Tocqueville. You’re more likely to find what you’re looking for if you search for “monarchist” and “reactionary” texts.

Ok, prove it

None of these seem to be feudalists and most seem incompatible with it..

>The point of Feudalism is to feed, house, and provision horsemen for the purpose of the enforcement of Christianity upon a foreign people, there are no kings required in this.
You're right of course, Sir Larpalot, feudalism has nothing to do with kings and land grants in exchange for fealty.

There is no such thing as “a feudalist.” These authors all famously argue in defense of certain aspects of premodern, feudal society. Figure the rest out yourself. I’m not going to spoonfeed you any more.

Past and Present.

Thank you.

>Why is it with the thousands of books in the world there is not a single pro feudal one?

Because feudalism sucks and is gay

Kinda based

It was same in Europe, people who don't really produce anything were seen as bottom of the hierarchy.

For Hoppe, Short History of Man very explicitly supports medieval european feudalism and argues that the following stages of absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy were degenerations on the way to modern democracy. That said, he argues more for the de facto separation of powers between lords, kings, and the church; not much about support for caste structure per se, for that you'd probably go to the first half of Evola's Revolt book.

Attached: E1122NkXoAABpnN.png (1080x574, 1.47M)

No it wasn't.

Thank you I'll check it out though by all accounts it seems to be anarcho capitalist.

Weber isn't pro-feudalism you idiot. Have you even read Economy and Society?

>which viewed merchants as beneath peasants since in their view they produce nothing of value and merely move goods.
Yes.jpg

>Do you know a pro feudalist philosopher?
Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard

>Merchants lower than peasants
Based

>viewed merchants as beneath peasants since in their view they produce nothing of value and merely move goods.

Attached: cat-white-thumbs-up.jpg (240x240, 5.95K)

Not sure why this gets called feudalism, it's really just a kind of central authoritarian structuralism, if you want to use modern academic terms. Feudalism is the specific legal custom related to holding land in exchange for potential military service, which can exist within the same structure, but is not necessarily the same as it was in Europe, which was derivative of Roman landholdings (manors) and Germanic Männerbünden and legal customs surrounding the master-subject relationship (which started off as more of a relationship than a proper legal custom).

reddit

>If the king is no longer content to be the first of the Kshatriyas [the Hindu noble caste], that is to say the head of the nobility, and to play the 'regulating' role to which he is entitled as such, he loses what essentially constitutes his raison d'etre, and at the same time opposes himself to the nobility of which he is but an emanation and as it were the most complete expression. Thus we see royalty, in order to 'centralize' and absorb in itself the powers that belong collectively to all the nobility, enter into a struggle with the nobility and work relentlessly toward the destruction of the very feudal system from which it had itself issued. It can do so, moreover, only by relying on the support of the third-estate, which corresponds to the Vaishyas [the Hindu equivalent of the bourgeoisie]; and this is why we also see, from the time of Philip the Fair, the kings of France beginning to surround themselves almost continually with the bourgeoisie, especially such kings as Louis XI and Louis XIV, who pushed the work of 'centralization' the furthest, the bourgeoisie moreover later reaping the benefits of this when it seized power during the Revolution.

>Let us add that temporal 'centralization' is generally the sign of an opposition to the spiritual authority, the influence of which governments try to neutralize in order to substitute their own. This is why the feudal form, the one in which the Kshatriyas [the Hindu aristocratic caste] can most completely exercise their normal functions, is at the same time the one that best seems to suit the regular organization of traditional civilizations such as that of the Middle Ages.

Attached: Rene-guenon-1925_(cropped).jpg (215x270, 12.85K)

Anarcho capitalism inevitably leads to feudalism. Operationally they're practically the same.

No it doesn't and no they are not. Nor is it on topic for pro feudalist thinkers.

It is
What embodies the following definition
>A system based on contractual obligations that are at best enforced by honor because no higher legal power exists to enforce them. No monopoly on violence exists
Both feudalism and Anarcho capitalism fit that definition.

This describes neither. Stop shitting up my thread you desperate tryhard.

Lmao you're a fucking retard then.
Stop shitting up Yea Forums then you reddit midwit.

>pic
Merchants and artisans are the engine of the economy, bureaucrats and militarists are a liability.

Specifically before the 11th century and the crusades they were generally at the bottom of the hierarchy.

>Plato’s Republic was written before feudalism existed and what it advocates for is closer to communism than feudalism.
Pretty sure what OP means by "Feudalism" is organizing society in a hierarchy of different classes/castes, which Plato fits the bill for. Also it's not close to Communism at all. The Kallipolis is structured into three castes, the first are the Artisans, the producers, which would be analogous to the proletariat, then above them, lording over them is what a Communist would regard as a parasite class, the Auxilliaries, or the warrior class. And finally, you have what is really an extention of the warrior class which are the Guardians, the philosopher rulers. Only the Auxilliaries and Guardians would have a community of goods, communal living, etc. But for the lower class of producers, there was private ownership. You can make obvious parallels to communism (ignoring that Plato's community of goods entail literally all private items, including personal items like clothes, would be shared with every, and Marx was only really speaking about ownership of the MOP) but this system is clearly more "feudal" than communist.

>Pretty sure what OP means by "Feudalism" is organizing society in a hierarchy of different classes/castes
No I actually mean feudalism. It's so mindboggling to me how virtually no thinker ever tried to make a defense of feudalism

So you specifically mean the system reciprocal legal and military obligations derived from vassalage and lendings of fiefs and the manorialism of peasants? That was a system that simply organically occured in medieval western-central Europe, it never needed any philosophical justification. I don't really know what you're looking for. Japan never had feudalism, either. It was a semi-feudal system of decentralized governance by local lords, is that what you're looking for? The likely reason there never was any political philosophy agitating for this exact system was because by the time people started creating these ideologies, feudalism had already ceased existing centuries ago.

What about works by Evola and Guenon? I mean that fits

I have also LaRouche stuff, since this is a weird politics thread

>artisans under peasants

Yes that certainly fits weird political philosophy. Feel free to lay it out. As for Evola I'm not sure where he discussed if ever Feudalism.

Here

Attached: Screenshot_20220415-075940_kindlephoto-153837601.png (461x367, 101.07K)

Different person here, but I think you’re ignoring a crucial distinction which explains why there are no “feudalists,” but there ARE medievalists, integralists, Guelphs, reactionaries, etc.
The people in medieval Europe didn’t see society as a thing that could be organized according to different political ideologies. To them, society was an organic whole, not a malleable project. It was also incredibly complex and variegated, with overlapping and particular jurisdictions based on specific customs tied to specific places and people, passed down through the centuries.
The reductive label, “feudalism,” to describe this incredibly diverse society is a retronym. The people who lived in this society didn’t recognize themselves as “feudalists.”
For the people who see value in the medieval society, precisely in its organic, religious character, are for the most part against the idea that society is a grand project, over which we can just apply “feudalism.”

If you would like a good, recent book which gets what was good in the medieval society, has a tremendous wealth of primary sources, and shows rather than tells, I would pick up Andrew Willard Jones’ *Before Church and State.* One of my more adventurous, left-wing friends even enjoyed it.

> Men do indeed speak ill of those occupations which are called handicrafts, and they are rightly held of little repute in communities, because they weaken the bodies of those who make their living at them by compelling them to sit and pass their days indoors. Some indeed work all the time by a fire. But when the body becomes effeminate the mind too is debilitated.

Integralists you say?

Like Adrian Vermeule and P. Edmund Waldstein?

>but there ARE medievalists, integralists, Guelphs, reactionaries, etc.
Can you give examples for these?
Very good post overall. When I started the thread I was thinking primarily in regards to economics or the economic-political entanglement at least.

>Why is it with the thousands of books in the world there is not a single pro feudal one?
Any pro-cryptocurrecncy book is prett much advocating for feudalism with computers.

There really isn't much of bureaucracy in feudal administration or military. Local lord oversees his lands and holds a small military force.

Yes, they are contemporary examples. I vastly prefer Fr. Waldstein to Dr. Vermeule, but I’m not an integralist in the strict sense, and maybe someone who is would disagree.

See the other post in this reply for some contemporary integralists. Guelph is a pejorative term for a (usually Italian) Catholic reactionary, maybe I shouldn’t have used it. Others have given good examples of medievalists and reactionaries: Chesterton, De Maistre, Donoso Cortes, etc.
If you are interested in economics, you might want to read up on Corporatism (which does not mean “rule by corporations,” as it is used in vernacular). Gladden Pappin has written some recent material on it.

An important point that I want to make here is that (in my humble opinion), the people who really “get it” tend to not focus on politics, or focus on it in a specific way (I.e., not the way in which we apply some scheme or theory on society, which is a modern, secular tendency, even when it wears Catholic, pre-modern clothes). Some examples of the good way are Willard-Jones, De Koninck, Del Noce, Rosmini, and the Popes.

Thomas Aquinas

Feudalism is based on myths and religion

Yes, in a way. Historical materialism is wrong.