A Socialist Monarchy?

[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.

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.

By that logic all large businesses are socialist.
The Board of Directiors is literally a bunch of people with power sitting in a room, trying to build and manage a real life RTS base.
Just replace the CEO with a king.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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.

Why then, have most, or at the very least a fair amount, of Socialist societies had an autocratic government structure?

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

By that logic all large businesses are socialist.
The Board of Directiors is literally a bunch of people with power sitting in a room, trying to build and manage a real life RTS base.
Just replace the CEO with a king.

there needs to be a certain baseline promotion of equality and anti-capitalism

also, you need to be an actual government

I mean, you can literally buy your way to the top (change ownership of a corporation with money) in a corporation

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

My theory is that people's political views are mainly affected by two factors. The first is that people's politics reflect what would benefit them personally the most. So if you are doing nicely in your society you will want things to stay the same, if you aren't you will want it to change.

The second factor is your parents' politics and how well you got on with them. If your parents were left wing hippies and you got on well with them, you are likely to share their political views. If you didn't get on with them, you are likely to choose the political views the polar opposite of theirs.

Living in a palace, surrounded by servants, and with lots of privilege is likely to lead to conservative political views as you don't want your cushy life to disappear. But there is a possibility the some heir to the throne could get on so badly with their parents that they could become a socialist to spite them. Though I suspect the tension between their lifestyle and their politics would be rather bad for their mental health.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

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.

By that logic all large businesses are socialist.
The Board of Directiors is literally a bunch of people with power sitting in a room, trying to build and manage a real life RTS base.
Just replace the CEO with a king.

Yeah, that's literally how the Soviet Union was managed (just replace the CEO and board of directors with a Premier and Politburo). The internal mechanics of any business are fundamentally socialist.

[Dumb Ideologies]

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

One ship sinks, another one rolls out of the docks uwu

[Infected Mushroom]

By that logic all large businesses are socialist.
The Board of Directiors is literally a bunch of people with power sitting in a room, trying to build and manage a real life RTS base.
Just replace the CEO with a king.

Yeah, that's literally how the Soviet Union was managed (just replace the CEO and board of directors with a Premier and Politburo). The internal mechanics of any business are fundamentally socialist.

You mean inherently capitalist? It’s all about profit and competition.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

By that logic all large businesses are socialist.
The Board of Directiors is literally a bunch of people with power sitting in a room, trying to build and manage a real life RTS base.
Just replace the CEO with a king.

Yeah, that's literally how the Soviet Union was managed (just replace the CEO and board of directors with a Premier and Politburo). The internal mechanics of any business are fundamentally socialist.

Every boss I ever had seemed to regard himself more as an absolute monarch by divine right.

[Infected Mushroom]

Yeah, that's literally how the Soviet Union was managed (just replace the CEO and board of directors with a Premier and Politburo). The internal mechanics of any business are fundamentally socialist.

Every boss I ever had seemed to regard himself more as an absolute monarch by divine right.

Socialism will teach them...

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

Yeah, that's literally how the Soviet Union was managed (just replace the CEO and board of directors with a Premier and Politburo). The internal mechanics of any business are fundamentally socialist.

You mean inherently capitalist? It’s all about profit and competition.

INTERNAL mechanics, not external

[Infected Mushroom]

You mean inherently capitalist? It’s all about profit and competition.

INTERNAL mechanics, not external

People are paid hugely differential salaries; plus there’s no pretension of equality whatsoever (in fact, pure inequality and status is celebrated)

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

INTERNAL mechanics, not external

People are paid hugely differential salaries; plus there’s no pretension of equality whatsoever (in fact, pure inequality and status is celebrated)

People in Soviet Russia were paid hugely differential salaries, plus there was no pretension of equality whatsoever (in fact, pure inequality and status was celebrated)

[Washington Resistance Army]

Every boss I ever had seemed to regard himself more as an absolute monarch by divine right.

Socialism will teach them...

No it won't, they'll just change their title.

[Infected Mushroom]

Socialism will teach them...

No it won't, they'll just change their title.

I was hoping they would get purged Mao style, preferably by formerly oppressed office drones and interns

[Impaled Nazarene]

Socialism will teach them...

No it won't, they'll just change their title.

Speak of the devil...

[Caracasus]

Firstly you need to define the two terms. Are we talkig monarchy where the monarch is just a figurehead or where they have some degree of power.

Secondly what do you mean by socialism? Do you mean a social democracy like Sweden or do you mean socialism as in working towards collective ownership of the means of production?

[New Excalibus]

Firstly you need to define the two terms. Are we talkig monarchy where the monarch is just a figurehead or where they have some degree of power.

Secondly what do you mean by socialism? Do you mean a social democracy like Sweden or do you mean socialism as in working towards collective ownership of the means of production?

I believe what he meant by Socialism was the economic system also known as leftism, or rather, communism.
He's suggesting a Marxist-Leninist nation governed by a monarchy.
I don't personally know if his leader rules or reigns, I don't believe he ever specified.

[Phoenicaea]

it may be, i don t see why not. socialist orthodoxy is different, still we know to be unorthodox approved and official political ways and paintures (of socialism).

in priciple, i have been republican and classical liberal, so.. may not wish it, in most of cases

[Ostroeuropa]

I am a socialist and a monarchist in the British sense.

[Frievolk]

Well, if we define socialism as "workers controlling the means of production while a state exists" (the most vague definition possible) while ignoring the Marxist definition of "the transition period between capitalism and communism", and define monarchism as "the head of state is a monarch", it is theoretically possible. If I recall correctly, there is a real life application of such a thing in one of the commonwealth realms at some point in recent history (I don't however recall the country in question right now), but the traditionally applied monarchy is probably not compatible with traditionally applied socialism.

The true question, however, should be Why would you want a socialist monarchy?

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, if we define socialism as "workers controlling the means of production while a state exists" (the most vague definition possible) while ignoring the Marxist definition of "the transition period between capitalism and communism", and define monarchism as "the head of state is a monarch", it is theoretically possible. If I recall correctly, there is a real life application of such a thing in one of the commonwealth realms at some point in recent history (I don't however recall the country in question right now), but the traditionally applied monarchy is probably not compatible with traditionally applied socialism.

The true question, however, should be Why would you want a socialist monarchy?

Monarchism means the head of state and the enforcer of the constitution is a non-political entity. Political head of states tend to absorb authority over time from being an elected position and so on.
It represents the means to separate Nationalism from Political figures, by ensuring the cult of personality in existence revolves around a figure with no actual authority.

[Frievolk]

Well, if we define socialism as "workers controlling the means of production while a state exists" (the most vague definition possible) while ignoring the Marxist definition of "the transition period between capitalism and communism", and define monarchism as "the head of state is a monarch", it is theoretically possible. If I recall correctly, there is a real life application of such a thing in one of the commonwealth realms at some point in recent history (I don't however recall the country in question right now), but the traditionally applied monarchy is probably not compatible with traditionally applied socialism.

The true question, however, should be Why would you want a socialist monarchy?

Monarchism means the head of state and the enforcer of the constitution is a non-political entity. Political head of states tend to absorb authority over time from being an elected position and so on.
It represents the means to separate Nationalism from Political figures, by ensuring the cult of personality in existence revolves around a figure with no actual authority.

Yeah. But you probably can't apply the same definition you gave me here to any form of monarchism from before, give or take, the 1700s. And there were a lot of monarchies before the 1700s.

[Purpelia]

Well, if we define socialism as "workers controlling the means of production while a state exists" (the most vague definition possible) while ignoring the Marxist definition of "the transition period between capitalism and communism", and define monarchism as "the head of state is a monarch", it is theoretically possible. If I recall correctly, there is a real life application of such a thing in one of the commonwealth realms at some point in recent history (I don't however recall the country in question right now), but the traditionally applied monarchy is probably not compatible with traditionally applied socialism.

The true question, however, should be Why would you want a socialist monarchy?

Monarchism means the head of state and the enforcer of the constitution is a non-political entity. Political head of states tend to absorb authority over time from being an elected position and so on.
It represents the means to separate Nationalism from Political figures, by ensuring the cult of personality in existence revolves around a figure with no actual authority.

That's a very interesting proposal. One I didn't think about before. But tell me, what's keeping the monarch from having power by acting as a kingmaker? As in, if the monarch decides to go on public TV and say "I, like, know I'm not supposed to get into, like, politics and stuff. But, like, party X is, like, really the best choice. Like, everyone should just vote for, like, them. Ditch the other losers." And than every patriotic citizen votes for that party.

Obviously, this wouldn't be a perfect "I win" button but my point is that such a position does come with political power even if by proxy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Monarchism means the head of state and the enforcer of the constitution is a non-political entity. Political head of states tend to absorb authority over time from being an elected position and so on.
It represents the means to separate Nationalism from Political figures, by ensuring the cult of personality in existence revolves around a figure with no actual authority.

Yeah. But you probably can't apply the same definition you gave me here to any form of monarchism from before, give or take, the 1700s. And there were a lot of monarchies before the 1700s.

True enough, it's reliant on a constitutional monarchy and more specifically a crowned republic, the most restrictive subset of constitutional monarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

[Frievolk]

Monarchism means the head of state and the enforcer of the constitution is a non-political entity. Political head of states tend to absorb authority over time from being an elected position and so on.
It represents the means to separate Nationalism from Political figures, by ensuring the cult of personality in existence revolves around a figure with no actual authority.

That's a very interesting proposal. One I didn't think about before. But tell me, what's keeping the monarch from having power by acting as a kingmaker? As in, if the monarch decides to go on public TV and say "I, like, know I'm not supposed to get into, like, politics and stuff. But, like, party X is, like, really the best choice. Like, everyone should just vote for, like, them. Ditch the other losers." And than every patriotic citizen votes for that party.

Obviously, this wouldn't be a perfect "I win" button but my point is that such a position does come with political power even if by proxy.

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.