NationStates

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I mean isn’t North Korea technically a a socialist monarchy?

To be honest, while it is basically communist, it’s not quite. It’s kind of it’s own ideaology.
I pretty sure that this has happened due somewhat of the abandonment from the USSR

may not be a good source, I just know that it exist

Socialism is an economic system. So yes, a country with a monarchy can have a socialist economic system.

Kustonian Puppet wrote:

Oppermenia wrote:Hi.
I very much consider my nation Socialist in many aspects. However, in factbooks I have said that there is a royal family in my nation. Out of that, a topic of discussion was brought up to me about whether a Socialist system can co-exist with a Monarchy.
Which, I sort of think so. The whole system would have to be very specific for it to work, but I think it's theoretically possible.
I do acknowledge the class difference that would entail, but the way I see it:
There are different forms of Socialism. Just the word Socialism can embody many different things at once, and we have to consider what form of Socialism we're talking about. I consider my nation more of a Social Democracy, but one that leans more Socialist. So, maybe there's a form of Socialism where a royal family can work, like maybe a less extreme type with more class differences.
I did research this, and I also found people on forums separate from this one that such a system could exist this way:
The people collectively own the industry. However, the Monarch and the royal family simply represents those people. Not above nor below the people, but representative of the people. And, to ensure the Monarch doesn't abuse their position, the people can do referendums and democratic checks and balances to keep the Monarch in check.
Or:
A figurehead that represents the people, and really has no place in government.

I think that if it's a complex and specific enough, then it could work in theory.
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.

Socialism actually can coexist with a monarchy, although there are few examples of this since many socialists have advocated the abolition of the monarchy. The socialist Labour party in the UK under Elizabeth II is one example. Another example is Tsarist Russia and the short-term Kerensky government of the State Duma.

I doubt the Labour party would be happy with the continuation of the monarchy in perpetuity.

Ardoki wrote:Socialism is an economic system. So yes, a country with a monarchy can have a socialist economic system.

You are making the mistake of thinking of these systems as lego blocks that can be mixed and matched. Secondly, socialism is not just an economic system – Marx was fairly explicit when he explained that THE only way to bring about socialism is to instill a dictatorship of the proletariat -- which is fundamentally incompatible with a monarchy. The very existence of a monarch be they elected or not implies some kind of inherited wealth or privilege, an elite, which is exactly what socialism was trying to abolish.

Socialism and monarchies cannot usually exist in principle, although in practice there are all kinds of hybrid political and economic systems attempted. Lesotho was a good example of a monarchy with a ruling party that espoused socialism. They controlled parliament, although the king still had far-reaching executive powers. The end result was that all the political rhetoric coming out of Lesotho and all foreign policy was controlled by leftists, while in reality the economic system in the country did not change at all. The economy remained dependent on remittances from the capitalist system in South Africa and large scale commercial agriculture controlled by a select few South Africans. While the country was being run by people who identified as socialist ideologues but were prohibited from implementing their philosophy in all but in name. I should point out this placed Lesotho in the unique position of being a nominally socialist country that was in effect an absolute monarchy.

Kartofian wrote:

Ardoki wrote:Socialism is an economic system. So yes, a country with a monarchy can have a socialist economic system.

You are making the mistake of thinking of these systems as lego blocks that can be mixed and matched. Secondly, socialism is not just an economic system – Marx was fairly explicit when he explained that THE only way to bring about socialism is to instill a dictatorship of the proletariat -- which is fundamentally incompatible with a monarchy. The very existence of a monarch be they elected or not implies some kind of inherited wealth or privilege, an elite, which is exactly what socialism was trying to abolish.

It’s possible a monarch can be a political elite, but not an economic elite. And, I think Marx’s ideas of socialism are a little extreme. There are less extreme, more transitionary forms of socialism that could possibly have a Monarch as a head of state

Oppermenia wrote:

Kartofian wrote:You are making the mistake of thinking of these systems as lego blocks that can be mixed and matched. Secondly, socialism is not just an economic system – Marx was fairly explicit when he explained that THE only way to bring about socialism is to instill a dictatorship of the proletariat -- which is fundamentally incompatible with a monarchy. The very existence of a monarch be they elected or not implies some kind of inherited wealth or privilege, an elite, which is exactly what socialism was trying to abolish.

It’s possible a monarch can be a political elite, but not an economic elite. And, I think Marx’s ideas of socialism are a little extreme. There are less extreme, more transitionary forms of socialism that could possibly have a Monarch as a head of state

It's true that Marx wasn't the "father" of socialism, but there is a reason why his brand of socialism, Marxism, is the only one that survived the 19th century and became a viable political and emancipatory force. As of right - there is no socialism without Marx - so calling him too extreme for a socialist makes no sense.

It’s possible a monarch can be a political elite, but not an economic elite.

Roughly speaking, i think, a socialist would argue that economic power/influence is the basis of a persons's/class' political power. My point still remains. Secondly, socialism, at least in theory, should be democratic - the power comes from the will of the proletariat. Monarch, however, are there by divine right/martial prowess or some other reason, but never by the mandate of the people. The whole point of a monarchy is that you have a head of state who is not de jure at the mercy of the masses and their whims. Which is kinda what socialism is trying to accomplish.

A socialist monarchy would be incredibly heterodox, but wasn't entirely impossible historically. In 1930's Japan, for instance, there were several army officers who combined monarchism with socialism. The most prominent of them was the February 26th young officers, who were inspired by Kita Ikki and believed that enlightened absolutism was necessary to destroy the zaibatsu and transition to a democratic and socialist society. While the Shōwa Tennō was uninterested, or even hostile, to these ideas, his brother Prince Chichibu was sympathetic, and there's evidence that had these army rebellions succeeded, he would've replaced his brother.

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

There were a lot of non-Marxist socialist movements historically, and there still are today. Anarcho-syndicalism is probably the biggest trend of them.

there have been nobles who were sympathetic to socialist values; Tolstoy comes to mind

Must we keep gravedigging the oxymoron?

Kartofian wrote:

Ardoki wrote:Socialism is an economic system. So yes, a country with a monarchy can have a socialist economic system.

You are making the mistake of thinking of these systems as lego blocks that can be mixed and matched. Secondly, socialism is not just an economic system – Marx was fairly explicit when he explained that THE only way to bring about socialism is to instill a dictatorship of the proletariat -- which is fundamentally incompatible with a monarchy. The very existence of a monarch be they elected or not implies some kind of inherited wealth or privilege, an elite, which is exactly what socialism was trying to abolish.

Socialism was around before Marx.

No, a monarchy is the epitome of class stratification. It can't exist in a socialist system, given the objective of socialism is the abolition of class and private property. I mean, sure, nominally socialist states often had/have what were essentially less flashy versions of monarchy, but they were rigidly hierarchical state capitalist systems.
Edit: Of course, socialist parties can govern constitutional monarchies, but those aren't socialist systems.

You could just have a symbolic Royal Family

While a socialist monarchy is technically possible, it's very unlikely because socialists usually oppose traditional icons that come from a past that they view as reactionary.

You can have a socialist monarchy. Socialism refers to the government control of the means of production, and can only be achieved through a strong and totalitarian government.

Christo Pax wrote:You can have a socialist monarchy. Socialism refers to the government control of the means of production, and can only be achieved through a strong and totalitarian government.

No it doesn't.

New Excalibus wrote:All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.

First of all all communist societies are NOT dictatorships. Most communist societies are either anarchist (stateless) or pure democracies (direct democracies) examples include tribes across Africa and many Native American Tribes, and the French Revolution of the 1840s saw the Paris Commune embody ideas of communism and democracy in all aspects of life. The outliers you are probably thinking of are Cuba, USSR, and PR-China both of which were ruled as totalitarian single party states by parties calling themselves "Communist" but they practiced systems much more similar to feudalism than communism having never switched from systems of capital exhange the profits of which the states retained (instead of the private capitalists). First you must understand that Communism was a hypothesized final form of society following the successful ascendance of Socialism. For Socialism to exist workers must have a direct ownership over their own labour and an equitable share in the profits of their labours. Under capitalism workers do not own their labour they are forced to accept meager wages for their employer to claim ownership over the fruits of their labour. Socialism recognizes that they have some shared ownership due to their contribution of labour and the value it adds to an end product.

You are just completely fundamentally wrong in your entire statement. Indeed in capitalism you can have a democratic dictatorship with or without private property. Also what is private property? I wonder if you stepped into the property of a commune without invitation would you be considered an illegal alien trespassing on the private property of another collective of people or is it not private property in which anyone may access? To understand the world one must understand that very little is finite and absolute... Much lies a a multi-confirgurable spectrum. With nearly infinite combinations able to be created.

BACK INTO YOUR GRAVE, ZOMBIE THREAD!