A Socialist Monarchy?

[West Phoenicia]

As its your nation live the dream of how you want your nation to be.

In Star Wars Queen Amidala was voted in for a set period as her nation had a Democratic Monarchy. If you want a Socialist Monarchy go for it.

[Kustonia]

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.

2+2=4, meaning 2+2 'is the same as' 4. Equal means "the same". I support cooperation and abhor selfishness. People are different in the sense they have different abilities and talents, making equality useless and redundant. Human nature says people are different but that they do cooperate. That's what I'm saying.

[Cedoria]

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.

2+2=4, meaning 2+2 'is the same as' 4. Equal means "the same". I support cooperation and abhor selfishness. People are different in the sense they have different abilities and talents, making equality useless and redundant. Human nature says people are different but that they do cooperate. That's what I'm saying.

Humans are not equations, and I do not believe that you are truly silly enough to need that pointed out to you. People with different talents and abilities is completely compatible with egalitarianism. Is listening to an African-American colleague of my for the equal length of time I listened to a Caucasian colleague of similar skill against human nature, as an example? That's a practical example of equality, which is fairly easy to muster for any thinking person (excluding racists, but I did say 'thinking' people).

[Kustonia]

2+2=4, meaning 2+2 'is the same as' 4. Equal means "the same". I support cooperation and abhor selfishness. People are different in the sense they have different abilities and talents, making equality useless and redundant. Human nature says people are different but that they do cooperate. That's what I'm saying.

Humans are not equations, and I do not believe that you are truly silly enough to need that pointed out to you. People with different talents and abilities is completely compatible with egalitarianism. Is listening to an African-American colleague of my for the equal length of time I listened to a Caucasian colleague of similar skill against human nature, as an example? That's a practical example of equality, which is fairly easy to muster for any thinking person (excluding racists, but I did say 'thinking' people).

I was giving the definition of "equality"

If people are truly equal, there cannot be any differences. Universal equality takes a totalitarian state to completely enforce. Difference is not compatible with complete equality. If you think that people are different, then your being completely antithetical.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean isn’t North Korea technically a a socialist monarchy?

[Kustonia]

I mean isn’t North Korea technically a a socialist monarchy?

Great observation! Yes, kind of.

[Cedoria]

I mean isn’t North Korea technically a a socialist monarchy?

Not really... The fact that it is a hereditary monarchy kind of cuts against classifying it as Socialist at all...

[Cedoria]

Humans are not equations, and I do not believe that you are truly silly enough to need that pointed out to you. People with different talents and abilities is completely compatible with egalitarianism. Is listening to an African-American colleague of my for the equal length of time I listened to a Caucasian colleague of similar skill against human nature, as an example? That's a practical example of equality, which is fairly easy to muster for any thinking person (excluding racists, but I did say 'thinking' people).

I was giving the definition of "equality"

If people are truly equal, there cannot be any differences. Universal equality takes a totalitarian state to completely enforce. Difference is not compatible with complete equality. If you think that people are different, then your being completely antithetical.

Not really. People are different, but that does not preclude them from achieving legal equality by any definition, nor does it prevent me from treating different people the same.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean isn’t North Korea technically a a socialist monarchy?

Not really... The fact that it is a hereditary monarchy kind of cuts against classifying it as Socialist at all...

But I mean
Let’s assume best Korea literally does socialism exactly right except for they are a monarchy? That seems to me close enough to count. Now granted I think the Kim dynasty rules their country about as well as I run my life, but still ideologically it seems to line up

[Kustonia]

I was giving the definition of "equality"

If people are truly equal, there cannot be any differences. Universal equality takes a totalitarian state to completely enforce. Difference is not compatible with complete equality. If you think that people are different, then your being completely antithetical.

Not really. People are different, but that does not preclude them from achieving legal equality by any definition, nor does it prevent me from treating different people the same.

But their nature and the way you treat them are two different subjects. What about justice?

Would you treat a criminal and a law-abiding citizen the same? Of course not.

Would you treat an immigrant the same as anyone else? Of course not.

The differences between people are too many to count. Even the legal definition doesn't even come close to reality and the way things are legally.

[Cedoria]

Not really. People are different, but that does not preclude them from achieving legal equality by any definition, nor does it prevent me from treating different people the same.

But their nature and the way you treat them are two different subjects. What about justice?

Would you treat a criminal and a law-abiding citizen the same? Of course not.

Would you treat an immigrant the same as anyone else? Of course not.

The differences between people are too many to count. Even the legal definition doesn't even come close to reality and the way things are legally.

The latter of those two examples proves the lie. Why WOULD you treat an immigrant differently, in person to person terms? There's no logical reason for that. Nor is there any practical reason why you would.

If a person screws me over, I treat him the same as any other person who screws me over. A friend of mine from the city I treat the same as a friend from the country.

[Cedoria]

Not really... The fact that it is a hereditary monarchy kind of cuts against classifying it as Socialist at all...

But I mean
Let’s assume best Korea literally does socialism exactly right except for they are a monarchy? That seems to me close enough to count. Now granted I think the Kim dynasty rules their country about as well as I run my life, but still ideologically it seems to line up

Well... They're not formally a monarchy. Just practically one. If they had a formal Monarchy, I'm not sure they could be called Socialist, no. You'd have less justification in that case then you do now, and I think there's very little even now.

Also worth mentioning NK's Constitution dropped all mention of Communism about a decade or so ago.

[Phoenicaea]

mh..yai..say north Korea has "something" of socialism (communism) -the seizure of means of the production-, still some of it and its mainly something else (..a caste slavery-dictatorship as sample)

[Tokora]

I mean isn’t North Korea technically a a socialist monarchy?

It's more of a fascist monarchy really.

[Deng Xiaoping II]

mh..yai..say north Korea has "something" of socialism (communism) -the seizure of means of the production-, still some of it and its mainly something else (..a caste slavery-dictatorship as sample)

What?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

mh..yai..say north Korea has "something" of socialism (communism) -the seizure of means of the production-, still some of it and its mainly something else (..a caste slavery-dictatorship as sample)

North Korea is not communist or socialist. It follows its own ideology, Juche (translates as "self-reliance")

[The New California Republic]

I'd love to hear all your thoughts on this. Remember, there are different types of Socialism, so we have to keep in mind what kind of socialism we're talking about when we do talk about this.
Let's not make this a heated argument, but a friendly discussion.

I think that Socialism, as a precursor towards a classless society, is incompatible with a monarchy in principle. But, in the short and medium term, it is possible for the two to coexist. In places like the UK, for example, it is likely that the monarchy would coexist for some time with socialism in the event of a democratic socialist upsurge.

[Sicaris]

A socialist monarchy is impossible. That phrase itself is an oxymoron.


There’s too much conflict with the two ideals, they would never work if put together and the country would tear itself apart swiftly.

[Thermodolia]

Monarchies can't exist besides socialists, you're thinking of a social democracy. (Also, if it's not Marxist, then it's not socialist)

But don't sweat too much, I have another nation with both the socialist and monarchy policies

Oh buzz off with that “if it’s not Marxism it’s not true socialism” bullshit

[The Republic of Fore]

I believe the sultan of Brunei pays out of pocket for all of his citizens to have free healthcare. Assuming I'm not wrong, I'd imagine that's about as close as you could get.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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.

Disagree. I think collective ownership of the MoP is what most people are opposed to, not egalitarianism.

[Bharata Ksetra]

while a monarchy cannot be socialist in the marxian sense, it could still be "socialist" in other ways. the term socialism predates marx, and is not limited to marxism.

i would suggest looking into "paternalistic conservatism" which is also known as "right wing socialism", and "national syndicalism".

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

A socialist monarchy is impossible. That phrase itself is an oxymoron.


There’s too much conflict with the two ideals, they would never work if put together and the country would tear itself apart swiftly.

That's not true. Socialism and monarchy are not mutually exclusive. Let's look at the definitions of socialism and monarchy:

socialism
ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m
noun
. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
. policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More
. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

monarchy
ˈmɒnəki
noun
. a form of government with a monarch at the head.
synonyms: kingship, sovereignty, autocracy, monocracy, absolutism, absolute power, despotism; More
. a state that has a monarch.
plural noun: monarchies
synonyms: kingdom, sovereign state, principality, empire; realm
"the country is a constitutional monarchy"
. the monarch and royal family of a country.
noun: the monarchy
"the monarchy is the focus of loyalty and service"

The definition of socialism in Marxist theory opposes monarchy, however socialism in itself has nothing against monarchy. The first two definitions state that socialism is an economic system where the means of production and distribution are owned and administrated by the state or community. The government which owns and administrates the means of production and distribution can be anything - democracy, totalitarianism, monarchy etc. Socialism is purely an economic system.

[Phoenicaea]

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.

Disagree. I think collective ownership of the MoP is what most people are opposed to, not egalitarianism.

I quite agree with Xenopolis.
nevertheless, the concept "egalitarianism" has different meaning precisely between the two atlantic shores.
here it (the word "egalitarianism") is often used in captive and different ways by editorials, so we have to define it before having misunderstanding.

so, egalitarianism may have got strong opposition in classes* in an established social order (as in italy) nevertheless this is not a basis, it is not lasting as classes melt with each other.

when you have got same income amongst populace this opposition lacks in post-industrial countries, while the opposition to the collectivism (ownership of the..eccetera) resists.

you see, in main coorporations and banks nowadays the model is becoming, i believe, even closer to the central order and monopole.
still, they are not "state owned" (also when the act as they were, because of a monopole contract).

*i used the word "classes" meaning differences of a given condition, and not in the socialist, orthodox meaning of it.

[Saint Mirana of Marmoreal]

It could be possible, for the monarch is symbolic of the state, and is the sovereign state. State intervention is one characteristic of socialism, necessary to combat social injustices and the exploitation of the rich by the poor.