A Socialist Monarchy?

[Second Empire of America]

Monarcho-communist gang! My nation isn't really that but more of a command econ monarchy

My nation had a Communist Emperor for 17 hours. (Technically Acting Emperor, as the current Emperor was undergoing surgery following an assassination attempt by the Brazilian government, the Empress was off hiking in Hawaii and could not be reached, and the Crown Princess was 17 years old. This left the position of Emperor to our Foreign Minister, who coincidentally happens to be a Communist.)

[Thanatttynia]

Polite notice to some posters that General is an OOC forum (:

[Strength and Order]

I never liked socialists, but I could at least respect them for their passionate dedication to the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Until I read this thread. Does no one believe in ideological purity anymore? Apparently not.

If you want to mold your NS nation into a 'socialist monarchy', sure, go ahead, that's fine, whatever, you can do whatever you want. But if you honestly, unironically, truly believe - in real life - that socialism and monarchism are not mutually exclusive, then you shouldn't consider yourself either because frankly you demonstrably have not even the faintest idea of what either system stands for. This is just like all these nations I keep seeing where people try to blend capitalism or democracy with fascism, and just as appalling to look at.

If you don't fully understand an ideology in it's purest form, please, don't try to emulate it and certainly don't try to mix it with a system it was quite literally founded in opposition of. Do some research first so you can ensure an accurate representation, not some bizarre mixture of conflicting principles. Unless of course ridiculous absurdity is what you're going for. But to answer the question more directly; if you want to know how socialism and monarchism work together, just ask the Romanovs.

Socialism is not compatible with monarchism without both systems having their core tenants being violated, and thus to even attempt to implement a socialist monarchy would abolish any actual connection such a bastardized system would have with both socialism and monarchism at once. NSG amazes me sometimes. Next thing you know someone is going to come in here and say libertarianism is compatible with autocracy.

[Dark Socialism]

I never liked socialists, but I could at least respect them for their passionate dedication to the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Until I read this thread. Does no one believe in ideological purity anymore? Apparently not.

If you want to mold your NS nation into a 'socialist monarchy', sure, go ahead, that's fine, whatever, you can do whatever you want. But if you honestly, unironically, truly believe - in real life - that socialism and monarchism are not mutually exclusive, then you shouldn't consider yourself either because frankly you demonstrably have not even the faintest idea of what either system stands for. This is just like all these nations I keep seeing where people try to blend capitalism or democracy with fascism, and just as appalling to look at.

If you don't fully understand an ideology in it's purest form, please, don't try to emulate it and certainly don't try to mix it with a system it was quite literally founded in opposition of. Do some research first so you can ensure an accurate representation, not some bizarre mixture of conflicting principles. Unless of course ridiculous absurdity is what you're going for. But to answer the question more directly; if you want to know how socialism and monarchism work together, just ask the Romanovs.

Socialism is not compatible with monarchism without both systems having their core tenants being violated, and thus to even attempt to implement a socialist monarchy would abolish any actual connection such a bastardized system would have with both socialism and monarchism at once. NSG amazes me sometimes. Next thing you know someone is going to come in here and say libertarianism is compatible with autocracy.

People already support Libertarian Autocracies on NSG

[Infected Mushroom]

I never liked socialists, but I could at least respect them for their passionate dedication to the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Until I read this thread. Does no one believe in ideological purity anymore? Apparently not.

If you want to mold your NS nation into a 'socialist monarchy', sure, go ahead, that's fine, whatever, you can do whatever you want. But if you honestly, unironically, truly believe - in real life - that socialism and monarchism are not mutually exclusive, then you shouldn't consider yourself either because frankly you demonstrably have not even the faintest idea of what either system stands for. This is just like all these nations I keep seeing where people try to blend capitalism or democracy with fascism, and just as appalling to look at.

If you don't fully understand an ideology in it's purest form, please, don't try to emulate it and certainly don't try to mix it with a system it was quite literally founded in opposition of. Do some research first so you can ensure an accurate representation, not some bizarre mixture of conflicting principles. Unless of course ridiculous absurdity is what you're going for. But to answer the question more directly; if you want to know how socialism and monarchism work together, just ask the Romanovs.

Socialism is not compatible with monarchism without both systems having their core tenants being violated, and thus to even attempt to implement a socialist monarchy would abolish any actual connection such a bastardized system would have with both socialism and monarchism at once. NSG amazes me sometimes. Next thing you know someone is going to come in here and say libertarianism is compatible with autocracy.

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.

[Oppermenia]

I never liked socialists, but I could at least respect them for their passionate dedication to the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Until I read this thread. Does no one believe in ideological purity anymore? Apparently not.

If you want to mold your NS nation into a 'socialist monarchy', sure, go ahead, that's fine, whatever, you can do whatever you want. But if you honestly, unironically, truly believe - in real life - that socialism and monarchism are not mutually exclusive, then you shouldn't consider yourself either because frankly you demonstrably have not even the faintest idea of what either system stands for. This is just like all these nations I keep seeing where people try to blend capitalism or democracy with fascism, and just as appalling to look at.

If you don't fully understand an ideology in it's purest form, please, don't try to emulate it and certainly don't try to mix it with a system it was quite literally founded in opposition of. Do some research first so you can ensure an accurate representation, not some bizarre mixture of conflicting principles. Unless of course ridiculous absurdity is what you're going for. But to answer the question more directly; if you want to know how socialism and monarchism work together, just ask the Romanovs.

Socialism is not compatible with monarchism without both systems having their core tenants being violated, and thus to even attempt to implement a socialist monarchy would abolish any actual connection such a bastardized system would have with both socialism and monarchism at once. NSG amazes me sometimes. Next thing you know someone is going to come in here and say libertarianism is compatible with autocracy.

I don’t consider myself a complete socialist. I consider myself somewhere in between democratic capitalist and democratic socialist, leaning more socialist.
And I think the two systems can co-exist, as socialism is economic and Monarchism is a governance system. Socialism is just the collective ownership of industry, while Monarchism is a royal family in power. I think that simply having a royal family doesn’t violate socialism, so long as it’s a figurehead, removed from government, and they’re treated no different than any other citizen. And, since you are not a socialist, maybe you shouldn’t lecture other people on what does and does not contradict socialism. In my opinion, it depends completely on a persons definition of socialism.
And, this thread is meant for a friendly discussion. Not attacking people for their beliefs or thoughts or opinions. And, that’s what you were doing. If that’s what you wanna do, then go to a different thread

[Thanatttynia]

I never liked socialists, but I could at least respect them for their passionate dedication to the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Until I read this thread. Does no one believe in ideological purity anymore? Apparently not.

If you want to mold your NS nation into a 'socialist monarchy', sure, go ahead, that's fine, whatever, you can do whatever you want. But if you honestly, unironically, truly believe - in real life - that socialism and monarchism are not mutually exclusive, then you shouldn't consider yourself either because frankly you demonstrably have not even the faintest idea of what either system stands for. This is just like all these nations I keep seeing where people try to blend capitalism or democracy with fascism, and just as appalling to look at.

If you don't fully understand an ideology in it's purest form, please, don't try to emulate it and certainly don't try to mix it with a system it was quite literally founded in opposition of. Do some research first so you can ensure an accurate representation, not some bizarre mixture of conflicting principles. Unless of course ridiculous absurdity is what you're going for. But to answer the question more directly; if you want to know how socialism and monarchism work together, just ask the Romanovs.

Socialism is not compatible with monarchism without both systems having their core tenants being violated, and thus to even attempt to implement a socialist monarchy would abolish any actual connection such a bastardized system would have with both socialism and monarchism at once. NSG amazes me sometimes. Next thing you know someone is going to come in here and say libertarianism is compatible with autocracy.

Ideological obsession is not something to be admired. An ideology is a useful framework for looking at the world, not something that you should bend everything you see into fitting into. Socialism and monarchy are entirely compatible; claiming that they're not betrays a clear misunderstanding of what the two concepts are. A singular example of a historical event doesn't make an argument. The most important tenet of monarchism is that there is a monarch; the most important tenet of socialism is common ownership of the means of production. What is incompatible there?

[Impaled Nazarene]

I never liked socialists, but I could at least respect them for their passionate dedication to the orthodoxy of their beliefs. Until I read this thread. Does no one believe in ideological purity anymore? Apparently not.

If you want to mold your NS nation into a 'socialist monarchy', sure, go ahead, that's fine, whatever, you can do whatever you want. But if you honestly, unironically, truly believe - in real life - that socialism and monarchism are not mutually exclusive, then you shouldn't consider yourself either because frankly you demonstrably have not even the faintest idea of what either system stands for. This is just like all these nations I keep seeing where people try to blend capitalism or democracy with fascism, and just as appalling to look at.

If you don't fully understand an ideology in it's purest form, please, don't try to emulate it and certainly don't try to mix it with a system it was quite literally founded in opposition of. Do some research first so you can ensure an accurate representation, not some bizarre mixture of conflicting principles. Unless of course ridiculous absurdity is what you're going for. But to answer the question more directly; if you want to know how socialism and monarchism work together, just ask the Romanovs.

Socialism is not compatible with monarchism without both systems having their core tenants being violated, and thus to even attempt to implement a socialist monarchy would abolish any actual connection such a bastardized system would have with both socialism and monarchism at once. NSG amazes me sometimes. Next thing you know someone is going to come in here and say libertarianism is compatible with autocracy.

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.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Monarchy - a government in which sovereignty is embodied within a single, usually hereditary head of state

Socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Monarchy and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Monarchy is at its core a political system, while socialism is at its core an economic system. There is nothing preventing a monarchy which owns and administrates the production and distribution of goods.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

It would be like the Soviet Union except with a royal family at the center. Think of it as, something like the Saudi Arabian system except the King uses his powers to enforce socialism on the population.

The royals would control the system by putting their kin in top positions throughout the bureaucracy, the military, and the police.

[Impaled Nazarene]

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

It would be like the Soviet Union except with a royal family at the center. Think of it as, something like the Saudi Arabian system except the King uses his powers to enforce socialism on the population.

The royals would control the system by putting their kin in top positions throughout the bureaucracy, the military, and the police.

Except the Soviet Union killed the royal family and if given the chance would have slaughtered everyone's royal family.
Monarchy is by itself social inequality.
Socialism is not simply "The guberment does stuff".
Don't bring up the Labour Party either. That's the oft-forgotten liberal social democracy.
Please by all means read actual socialist literature and not just take Democratic Socialists of America at their word.
Try Camus, Foucault, Althusser, and even the grand revisionist himself Kautsky.

[Infected Mushroom]

It would be like the Soviet Union except with a royal family at the center. Think of it as, something like the Saudi Arabian system except the King uses his powers to enforce socialism on the population.

The royals would control the system by putting their kin in top positions throughout the bureaucracy, the military, and the police.

Except the Soviet Union killed the royal family and if given the chance would have slaughtered everyone's royal family.
Monarchy is by itself social inequality.
Socialism is not simply "The guberment does stuff".
Don't bring up the Labour Party either. That's the oft-forgotten liberal social democracy.
Please by all means read actual socialist literature and not just take Democratic Socialists of America at their word.
Try Camus, Foucault, Althusser, and even the grand revisionist himself Kautsky.

I mean, one example is where you implement Soviet style economic policies, but have the whole thing run by the Saudi royal family for example. Some of the rhetoric would change but the end result would be similar...

[Impaled Nazarene]

Except the Soviet Union killed the royal family and if given the chance would have slaughtered everyone's royal family.
Monarchy is by itself social inequality.
Socialism is not simply "The guberment does stuff".
Don't bring up the Labour Party either. That's the oft-forgotten liberal social democracy.
Please by all means read actual socialist literature and not just take Democratic Socialists of America at their word.
Try Camus, Foucault, Althusser, and even the grand revisionist himself Kautsky.

I mean, one example is where you implement Soviet style economic policies, but have the whole thing run by the Saudi royal family for example. Some of the rhetoric would change but the end result would be similar...

What part of that's not how any of this works do you not get?
The soviet style economy is not a base building RTS, Stalin did not left click on a worker to get shit done.

[Kubra]

It would be like the Soviet Union except with a royal family at the center. Think of it as, something like the Saudi Arabian system except the King uses his powers to enforce socialism on the population.

The royals would control the system by putting their kin in top positions throughout the bureaucracy, the military, and the police.

Except the Soviet Union killed the royal family and if given the chance would have slaughtered everyone's royal family.
Monarchy is by itself social inequality.
Socialism is not simply "The guberment does stuff".
Don't bring up the Labour Party either. That's the oft-forgotten liberal social democracy.
Please by all means read actual socialist literature and not just take Democratic Socialists of America at their word.
Try Camus, Foucault, Althusser, and even the grand revisionist himself Kautsky.

hands off kautsky, bolshevik

[Dumb Ideologies]

I mean, one example is where you implement Soviet style economic policies, but have the whole thing run by the Saudi royal family for example. Some of the rhetoric would change but the end result would be similar...

What part of that's not how any of this works do you not get?
The soviet style economy is not a base building RTS, Stalin did not left click on a worker to get shit done.

Because of the political horseshoe, he often reich-clicked.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Except the Soviet Union killed the royal family and if given the chance would have slaughtered everyone's royal family.
Monarchy is by itself social inequality.
Socialism is not simply "The guberment does stuff".
Don't bring up the Labour Party either. That's the oft-forgotten liberal social democracy.
Please by all means read actual socialist literature and not just take Democratic Socialists of America at their word.
Try Camus, Foucault, Althusser, and even the grand revisionist himself Kautsky.

hands off kautsky, bolshevik

Who you callin bolshevik you ancap?
I'm a fucking Anarchist.

[Kubra]

hands off kautsky, bolshevik

Who you callin bolshevik you ancap?
I'm a fucking Anarchist.

Calling Kautsky a revisionist? I mean cmon man, is your favourite work on anarchism "The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky"?

[Impaled Nazarene]

What part of that's not how any of this works do you not get?
The soviet style economy is not a base building RTS, Stalin did not left click on a worker to get shit done.

Because of the political horseshoe, he often reich-clicked.

Even FDR would icepick you for that and he's not even leftist.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Who you callin bolshevik you ancap?
I'm a fucking Anarchist.

Calling Kautsky a revisionist? I mean cmon man, is your favourite work on anarchism "The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky"?

Kautsky spat on marxism. Even Luxemburg hated Kautsky. Trotsky the most famous revisionist hated Kautsky. No one respects Kautsky in this day and age for good reason
As for my favourite anarchist work? The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army.

[Dumb Ideologies]

hands off kautsky, bolshevik

Who you callin bolshevik you ancap?
I'm a fucking Anarchist.

I'm calling it now. Act three ends with them deciding to throw away all adjectives and kiss.

[Impaled Nazarene]

Who you callin bolshevik you ancap?
I'm a fucking Anarchist.

I'm calling it now. Act three ends with then deciding to throw away all adjectives and kiss.

I'd rather kiss Washington Resistance Army

[Kubra]

Calling Kautsky a revisionist? I mean cmon man, is your favourite work on anarchism "The Proletarian Revolution And The Renegade Kautsky"?

Kautsky spat on marxism. Even Luxemburg hated Kautsky. Trotsky the most famous revisionist hated Kautsky. No one respects Kautsky in this day and age for good reason
As for my favourite anarchist work? The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army.

I mean of course trotsky did, given that he saw himself as an orthodox leninist. As for Luxembourg, theoretical disputes do not make for personal disputes.
Really now, talk like a tank, walk like a tank, folks gonna call you a tank.

[Infected Mushroom]

I mean, one example is where you implement Soviet style economic policies, but have the whole thing run by the Saudi royal family for example. Some of the rhetoric would change but the end result would be similar...

What part of that's not how any of this works do you not get?
The soviet style economy is not a base building RTS, Stalin did not left click on a worker to get shit done.

The Soviet economy is literally a bunch of people with power sitting in a room, trying to build and manage a real life RTS base. Instead of moving clicking archers and tanks around you're clicking economic units around.

Now this isn't hard.

Replace the players (who are traditionally Politburo politicians/planners) with Royals.

Done.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Can such a thing as a socialist monarchy? Who knows? Best not to try and find out.

[Akaran Islands]

In theory it could exist, but it could not last. Socialism is inherently anti-hierarchal, which isn't in any way compatible with a monarchy. The political culture of a socialist society would not allow a monarchy to last.