A Socialist Monarchy?

[Purpelia]

Ostro's definition decidedly mentioned the whole "Has no executive power nor actual authority"
That means the monarch, theoretically, has as much authority as a, say, former president in a republic.
Why shouldn't they have the right to endorse a political party then. It's not like people are sheep who follow what master tells them after all.

The two aren't really comparable in the context he talked about it because he explicitly said that the purpose of the monarch would be to serve as a focus for national patriotism. And that gives said monarch a huge amount of social capital. People stand up when he talks. They listen. Much more so than a generic political or media figure.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostro's definition decidedly mentioned the whole "Has no executive power nor actual authority"
That means the monarch, theoretically, has as much authority as a, say, former president in a republic.
Why shouldn't they have the right to endorse a political party then. It's not like people are sheep who follow what master tells them after all.

The two aren't really comparable in the context he talked about it because he explicitly said that the purpose of the monarch would be to serve as a focus for national patriotism. And that gives said monarch a huge amount of social capital. People stand up when he talks. They listen. Much more so than a generic political or media figure.

The monarch doing so would be a violation of the constitution in our society. It would prompt demands for an abdication from the parliament, which they are obliged to follow or face the consequences.

The nationalist patriotism surrounding the monarch is also on the basis of them performing their duties.

[Purpelia]

The two aren't really comparable in the context he talked about it because he explicitly said that the purpose of the monarch would be to serve as a focus for national patriotism. And that gives said monarch a huge amount of social capital. People stand up when he talks. They listen. Much more so than a generic political or media figure.

The monarch doing so would be a violation of the constitution in our society. It would prompt demands for an abdication from the parliament, which they are obliged to follow or face the consequences.

The nationalist patriotism surrounding the monarch is also on the basis of them performing their duties.

Makes sense.

[Ostroeuropa]

The monarch doing so would be a violation of the constitution in our society. It would prompt demands for an abdication from the parliament, which they are obliged to follow or face the consequences.

The nationalist patriotism surrounding the monarch is also on the basis of them performing their duties.

Makes sense.

The monarch also commonly serves as an expert on constitutional law to advice the head of government on whether actions are legal or illegal, and they frequently discuss things with them. The current monarch has the experiences and so on of every prime minister since she took office to draw upon to advise the current one on their predecessors actions and what they struggled with and so on, and this is considered private between the monarch and the prime minister.

This is mostly used for the function of state as far as i'm aware, parliamentary procedures and so on. It strikes me as useful to force heads of government into frequent meetings with a non-political figure who will be straightforward with them on what the law is and not yes-man for them.

[Tokora]

While I personally have nothing against monarchies as a symbol, the problem is that a lot of the time they horde a nation's wealth and resources and usually do everything in their power to preserve the status quo.

[New Excalibus]

While I personally have nothing against monarchies as a symbol, the problem is that a lot of the time they horde a nation's wealth and resources and usually do everything in their power to preserve the status quo.

This isn't about "would it be good in your opinion", it's "could it actually exist".

[Tokora]

While I personally have nothing against monarchies as a symbol, the problem is that a lot of the time they horde a nation's wealth and resources and usually do everything in their power to preserve the status quo.

This isn't about "would it be good in your opinion", it's "could it actually exist".

In that case than yes, but like I said most monarchs were opposed to it back when socialism was popular.

[Oppermenia]

While I personally have nothing against monarchies as a symbol, the problem is that a lot of the time they horde a nation's wealth and resources and usually do everything in their power to preserve the status quo.

And that’s more what I meant, monarchies as a symbol that are just like any other citizen only with royal titles.

[Dixie SSR]

I don't see how that could be, unless the monarch does absolutely nothing, and even then.

[NS Miami Shores]

All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.

I disagree with that. If the people cannot have private property but still can vote on things, then it can be a communist democracy.
And, I'm not talking about communism. I'm talking about Socialism.

I agree with New Excalibus, all communist socialist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property, when all the means of production are supposedly in the hands of the people they are actually in the hands of the state and their cant be any opposition to anything, creating an automatic dictatorship, while the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

[Oppermenia]

I disagree with that. If the people cannot have private property but still can vote on things, then it can be a communist democracy.
And, I'm not talking about communism. I'm talking about Socialism.

I agree with New Excalibus, all communist socialist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property, when all the means of production are supposedly in the hands of the people they are actually in the hands of the state and their cant be any opposition to anything, creating an automatic dictatorship, while the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

I respectfully disagree with you.
If the people vote on decisions on means of production as opposed to the state deciding it, then that’s not a dictatorship.
And, the only reason people think of socialism being a dictatorship is because past socialist states have been dictatorships. However, true socialism isn’t meant to be a dictatorship.

[NS Miami Shores]

I agree with New Excalibus, all communist socialist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property, when all the means of production are supposedly in the hands of the people they are actually in the hands of the state and their cant be any opposition to anything, creating an automatic dictatorship, while the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

I respectfully disagree with you.
If the people vote on decisions on means of production as opposed to the state deciding it, then that’s not a dictatorship.
And, the only reason people think of socialism being a dictatorship is because past socialist states have been dictatorships. However, true socialism isn’t meant to be a dictatorship.

Yes, I know true socialism isn't meant to be a dictatorship, but it becomes an automatic dictatorship, thier must be a state to administer it, and if you cant oppose collective property than it is not democratic, you cant oppose anything, that is why true communism or socialism has never been really practiced by the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and others.

In Cuba you can vote in the elections all you want, but you cant oppose any government measures supposedly decided by the legally registered non governmental socialist organizations of the socialist masses, the Cuban communist party does not govern the nation, does not choose, select, appoint or elect the government, it only guides the nation and the people in the democratic principles of the revolution for life, like the Committes for the Defense of the Revolution CDRs.
While the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

[Oppermenia]

I respectfully disagree with you.
If the people vote on decisions on means of production as opposed to the state deciding it, then that’s not a dictatorship.
And, the only reason people think of socialism being a dictatorship is because past socialist states have been dictatorships. However, true socialism isn’t meant to be a dictatorship.

Yes, I know true socialism isn't meant to be a dictatorship, but it becomes an automatic dictatorship, thier must be a state to administer it, and if you cant oppose collective property than it is not democratic, you cant oppose anything, that is why true communism or socialism has never been really practiced by the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and others.

In Cuba you can vote in the elections all you want, but you cant oppose any government measures supposedly decided by the legally registered non governmental socialist organizations of the socialist masses, the Cuban communist party does not govern the nation, does not choose, select, appoint or elect the government, it only guides the nation and the people in the democratic principles of the revolution for life, like the Committes for the Defense of the Revolution CDRs.
While the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

I see what you're saying.
But, if it were up to the people whether to install socialism or not, then it wouldn't be a dictatorship, as the people wanted it. If they could referendum it, then it's not a dictatorship anymore.

[NS Miami Shores]

Yes, I know true socialism isn't meant to be a dictatorship, but it becomes an automatic dictatorship, thier must be a state to administer it, and if you cant oppose collective property than it is not democratic, you cant oppose anything, that is why true communism or socialism has never been really practiced by the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and others.

In Cuba you can vote in the elections all you want, but you cant oppose any government measures supposedly decided by the legally registered non governmental socialist organizations of the socialist masses, the Cuban communist party does not govern the nation, does not choose, select, appoint or elect the government, it only guides the nation and the people in the democratic principles of the revolution for life, like the Committes for the Defense of the Revolution CDRs.
While the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

I see what you're saying.
But, if it were up to the people whether to install socialism or not, then it wouldn't be a dictatorship, as the people wanted it. If they could referendum it, then it's not a dictatorship anymore.

I post this respectfully, the problem is most people due to human nature would not agree with real socialism for life as in forever, that is why the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and other nations imposed communist socialism through revolutions, then became automatic dictatorships since you cant oppose anything, I have no doubt that you are a nice decent person with good intentions and beliefs.

[NS Miami Shores]

Yes, I know true socialism isn't meant to be a dictatorship, but it becomes an automatic dictatorship, thier must be a state to administer it, and if you cant oppose collective property than it is not democratic, you cant oppose anything, that is why true communism or socialism has never been really practiced by the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and others.

In Cuba you can vote in the elections all you want, but you cant oppose any government measures supposedly decided by the legally registered non governmental socialist organizations of the socialist masses, the Cuban communist party does not govern the nation, does not choose, select, appoint or elect the government, it only guides the nation and the people in the democratic principles of the revolution for life, like the Committes for the Defense of the Revolution CDRs.
While the so called communist socialist leaders live like this, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

I see what you're saying.
But, if it were up to the people whether to install socialism or not, then it wouldn't be a dictatorship, as the people wanted it. If they could referendum it, then it's not a dictatorship anymore.

I post this respectfully, the problem is most people due to human nature would not agree with real socialism for life as in forever, that is why the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and other nations imposed communist socialism through revolutions, then became automatic dictatorships since you cant oppose anything, I have no doubt that you are a nice decent person with good intentions and beliefs.

[Oppermenia]

I see what you're saying.
But, if it were up to the people whether to install socialism or not, then it wouldn't be a dictatorship, as the people wanted it. If they could referendum it, then it's not a dictatorship anymore.

I post this respectfully, the problem is most people due to human nature would not agree with real socialism for life as in forever, that is why the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and other nations imposed communist socialism through revolutions, then became automatic dictatorships since you cant oppose anything, I have no doubt that you are a nice decent person with good intentions and beliefs.

Yes but in a scenario where that is the case then it’s not a dictatorship

[NS Miami Shores]

I post this respectfully, the problem is most people due to human nature would not agree with real socialism for life as in forever, that is why the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and other nations imposed communist socialism through revolutions, then became automatic dictatorships since you cant oppose anything, I have no doubt that you are a nice decent person with good intentions and beliefs.

Yes but in a scenario where that is the case then it’s not a dictatorship

The problem is most persons are individualists to agree with a collective socialist system for life, that is part of human nature.

[NS Miami Shores]

I post this respectfully, the problem is most people due to human nature would not agree with real socialism for life as in forever, that is why the Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, China, Mongolia and other nations imposed communist socialism through revolutions, then became automatic dictatorships since you cant oppose anything, I have no doubt that you are a nice decent person with good intentions and beliefs.

Yes but in a scenario where that is the case then it’s not a dictatorship

The problem is most persons are individualists to agree with a collective socialist system for life, that is part of human nature.

[Oppermenia]

Yes but in a scenario where that is the case then it’s not a dictatorship

The problem is most persons are individualists to agree with a collective socialist system for life, that is part of human nature.

I'm not saying, though, that people would agree with Socialism.
I even have problems with socialism just as I have problems with capitalism.
Socialism sounds good in theory, because people get what they need. But, you have to sacrifice economic freedoms.
Capitalism is good and works in theory. It can allow people of low social status to rise up by starting businesses, and getting wealthy. A free market can further help that, too. However, a free market isn't always fair. In the U.S., for instance, it's become something where still only people that are already wealthy can contribute to society.
I don't agree with either of these systems. I'm not capitalist nor socialist, but something in between. As I said, I agree more with Social Democracy.
I don't want a system that has worked for years as capitalist to all of a sudden change to this "utopian and egalitarian" theory. It just wouldn't work.
I think that there should be a system with free market capitalism as a basis for the economy, but with Socialist reforms that can keep capitalism from becoming an oppressive system instead of what it was meant to be. Like, the people have the power to democratically regulate the economy, or something like that. A system that with capitalism at its foundation, and a dash of Socialism, can make it more fair for everyone.

[Cedoria]

Its very simple really.

Step 1: A person is declared a Monarch and given absolute power

Step 2: The person implements socialism (with the one exception being that a single royal family with special status is recognised)

Done.

If by implement socialism you mean kill themselves and their heirs before the people have a chance to do so then yes.

Pretty much what happened in Nepal to be honest...

[Kustonia]

Yes but in a scenario where that is the case then it’s not a dictatorship

The problem is most persons are individualists to agree with a collective socialist system for life, that is part of human nature.

Individualism creates social isolation and leads a society to complete social barbarism. We need community if we expect to have any sort of identity and meaning.

Egalitarianism is what people are usually opposed to, not socialism. People are inherently different and are not equal or "the same" which is against human nature. Socialism is about cooperation and the collective ownership of the means of production - which would allow people to have the same opportunities and ensure the virtue of justice is thoroughly implemented between different people.

[Cedoria]

You'd have to name what you think are the benefits of constitutional monarchy before I answered that, otherwise I'll go off on a tangent answering things that may not be relevant.

I will answer, you'll just need to define it a bit more closely, if that's alright:)

Sure! I'll try to articulate my thoughts on this as well as I can, but I'm pretty tired, so apologies if it doesn't entirely make sense, I'll be happy to clarify.

I think it's useful to have an unelected apolitical ceremonial head of state since it occupies people's need for pomp, circumstance, pageantry etc. without giving such things to an elected politician such as the US President. Although that sounds fairer, I find it actually makes criticism of any such figure harder as they're moving between a partisan role as head of government (which must be criticised) and a unifying role as head of state. It also means that more deference is expected of people for their 'office'.

Keeping these things separate also means we can criticise the actually powerful and consequential head of government whilst maintaining a head of state who we can look to to provide a sense of continuity. I think one of the greatest evils of the modern world is the loss, since the second half of the twentieth century, of any of this sense of continuity, which I think is one of the reasons for the ultimate hegemony of capitalist realism. People are dispossessed of any allegiance to either the past or future and are encouraged to live completely in the present and think of only themselves and their lifetimes; having (or, more accurately, keeping) a monarchy is a living reminder that we didn't spring up yesterday out of nowhere.

As for systems in which the head of state and head of government role are separated but they are both elected figures, as in Germany or France, I think these represent a potential source of conflict between the two. I believe in strong, centralised states. Neither of these countries are that. Having a head of state be elected also lends them democratic legitimacy, of which an unelected figure has none, adding to the potential for conflict between the two offices. Conflict between the two can lead to some very ugly political situations, as we saw in Germany in the 1930s or around the world today where violent conflict can begin in political conflict between two people in these offices (Sudan.) Putin has also demonstrated, by flipping between the two offices, that having both offices be elected isn't a barrier to complete domination of the political system by any one figure.

All that being said, I think constitutional monarchies are the best way to ensure we have an unelected apolitical ceremonial head of state who is properly trained in what such a role entails. I can't think of another system under which you can get these benefits.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't support the creation or restoration of a monarchy in the modern day where one does not already exist; I think it would be hard to justify something like that since I don't believe royalty are any more special than anyone else or have more or less human rights. I just don't think that abolition of the monarchy in countries where they do still exist is either necessary for socialism to succeed or even desirable. Sorry for rambling, but as I said, I'm pretty tired haha.

Thanks for clarifying. I'll answer these with a numbered list if that's all right.

1: I'm not sure people 'need' pomp and ceremony at all. I think it's a little conceited of us to presume that 'other' people require empty rituals and mass pageantry to be won over while simultaneously holding ourselves above it.

That said, even if you DO see this as a necessity, there is no reason that a Monarch is required to fulfil it. Do not Bastille Day parades instill a sense of French Pride? Independence Day celebrations in America? May Day in Soviet Russia? None of these things had any of the empty ceremonalism of Monarchy, but they all explicitly involve appeals to pomp, pageantry and sentimentality. Those things are all possible of replication by non-monarchical governments in as good, or better, fashion.

If the argument is that Monarchs are necessary because they appeal to emotion, and Republics weaker because they appeal to reason, then I need only point out the historical trend over the past few centuries has been a decline on Monarchies, and a general rise in the number of Republics, though human reason is clearly no stronger then it ever was before.

It also seems a strange critique to make of a Republic that having an elected person (or even an unelected non-Monarch), requires that their be less criticism. Criticism of Donald Trump is rampant in America today, as it was for all of his predecessors, with the press able and willing to report on all sorts of misdemeanours. Can you say the same for Queen Elizabeth II? Or, if that comparison seems too far-fetched, her less salubrious relatives? Never have a seen or heard of an elected Republic whose officials were less criticised than the Hanoverians.

2: You mention 'continuity'. That's certainly a virtue for conservatives, who value such things. For Socialists, what use to us is served by continuity? Socialists seek the overthrow of all existing social conditions, whether by revolutionary or electoral means. No such continuity is of any use or interest to us. Any Socialist who advocates for continuity in the present world order is not a Socialist by any reasonable definition of the term. Continuity is worthless to those of us who claim to be revolutionaries, and it is not a virtue any serious Socialist promotes. The loss of continuity and archaic, unreasonable and outmoded traditions is something to be welcomed by the Socialists, not disregarded. Defending the archaic institutions of Capitalist hegemony on the grounds of continuity is, frankly, a stupid thing for us to do.

3: "All that being said, I think constitutional monarchies are the best way to ensure we have an unelected apolitical ceremonial head of state who is properly trained in what such a role entails. I can't think of another system under which you can get these benefits."

What do you mean, properly trained? In any truly ceremonial role, any individual with an ounce of brain can learn to do such things, signing papers, dinner with dignitaries, etc. Any truly non-monarchical appointed head of state with ceremonial power can, and does, do the same. Australia's head of state is formally the Queen, but in practice, such duties are carried out by our Governor-General. If that person swore allegiance to the Constitution of Australia instead of the Queen of England, would his ability to perform his present duties be compromised one iota? Nonsense. Nothing about any of this require that a ceremonial head of state be a Monarch.

You are correct in saying that an unelected head of state has no legitimacy next to an elected figure, and this could cause constitutional problems, but this is literally the exact same problem as you get with a Monarch! A Monarch has no 'democratic legitimacy' either, by definition, and the potential for conflict with elected politicians is real. In the UK, the system usually cited by constitutional monarchists as the example, Prince Charles has repeatedly lobbied strenuously for various pet causes of his, homeopathy and weird alternative medicine solutions. King George V intervened directly over the head of PM Lloyd George in World War I to prevent the sacking of General Douglas Haig from his position as commanding officer, and also very sharply ordered his PM to stop having female suffragettes force-fed in prison after they went on a hunger strike. The constitutional monarchists would seem to think that these things don't happen. Constitutional disputes over who is responsible for what are just as likely to occur with a ceremonial Monarch as they are with any other ceremonially unelected head of state. Not only is it theoretically possible, it already has and does occur, as even a cursory glance at the historical record shows.



It seems that to advocate this system, one has to switch between arguing that the monarch has 'no real power' (whatever that means) and then immediately go on to list all the things Monarchy is 'good for'. Inevitably, stability, continuity, tradition etc. It's rather difficult to be a 'force' for any of these things without power, and, as I just showed, Monarchs can and frequently do override elected heads of state in countries where this system exists, whether for good or ill. Republics with unelected heads of state are not immune to this of course, but it's a problem that afflicts the Monarchies as well, despite the best propaganda efforts of the Royalists to have you believe otherwise.


What that leaves us with is a system where a Monarch has no power except for an enormous one, the same potential pitfalls and problems that might occur in any Republic with a ceremonial, unelected head of state, and a figure who serves as a force for 'tradition' 'continuity' and 'stability' that Socialists by their very definition seek to overthrow. How does any of this work well from a Socialist perspective again?

[Gospel Power]

You can be a monarchy without the "Socialist" title, you can have a socialist economy, but you should use only the monarchy title, because monarchy and socialism don't work together.
Socialism is an economic system. Monarchy is a government system.

[Cedoria]

You can be a monarchy without the "Socialist" title, you can have a socialist economy, but you should use only the monarchy title, because monarchy and socialism don't work together.
Socialism is an economic system. Monarchy is a government system.

Socialism can be as much a political system as an economic one. Politically, I don't think the two can reasonably co-exist.

[Cedoria]

The problem is most persons are individualists to agree with a collective socialist system for life, that is part of human nature.

Individualism creates social isolation and leads a society to complete social barbarism. We need community if we expect to have any sort of identity and meaning.

Egalitarianism is what people are usually opposed to, not socialism. People are inherently different and are not equal or "the same" which is against human nature. Socialism is about cooperation and the collective ownership of the means of production - which would allow people to have the same opportunities and ensure the virtue of justice is thoroughly implemented between different people.

Egalitarianism doesn't suggest people are 'the same'.

Also, saying 'it's against human nature' is meaningless. We know essentially fuck all about human nature. If it's human nature to be selfish, why does every man and woman not eat all the food in their house and leave their children to die of starvation? Sharing and cooperation is as much a part of our nature as selfishness and greed. If it weren't, our species would've died out long ago.

Using the 'human nature' argument is completely bogus, it means nothing, says nothing, and is absolutely not a valid critique in any way, because obviously human nature is complicated enough that it's pretty hugely circumstantial, otherwise their wouldn't be simultaneously examples of great heroism in the face of unimaginable horror and selfishness.