by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:25 pm
by Second Empire of America » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:30 pm
by Wawakanatote » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:33 pm
OOC Factbook
Pro: Marxism-Leninism
Anti: Capitalism, Fascism
We do not exist under communism, but under the
primary stage of socialist development (nep/state capitalism)
Please adjust accordingly
Full Nation Name: Supranational Union of Socialist Republics
Government: Federal Intergovernmental P&E Union
Political Leaders: C.Song Liyuan, V.C.Lev Bronshtein
National Anthem: "Hymn of the Union"
by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:33 pm
Second Empire of America wrote:Socialism is an economic system. Monarchy is a government system. You can theoretically have any government system with any government type, so even though Socialist Monarchies are statistically unlikely (since almost all monarchs are rich and rich people usually don't like socialism), it's perfectly possible to have one.
by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:35 pm
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)But don't sweat too much, I have another nation with both the socialist and monarchy policies
by New Excalibus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:36 pm
by Thanatttynia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:38 pm
by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:40 pm
New Excalibus wrote:All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.
by New Excalibus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:43 pm
Oppermenia wrote:New Excalibus wrote: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.
by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:44 pm
New Excalibus wrote:Oppermenia wrote: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.
While, yes, a socialist nation could allow people to vote, still, one integral part of what democratic society is private property.
You can vote, but it's missing a very important part.
by Second Empire of America » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:45 pm
New Excalibus wrote:All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.
by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:45 pm
by New Excalibus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:46 pm
Oppermenia wrote:New Excalibus wrote:While, yes, a socialist nation could allow people to vote, still, one integral part of what democratic society is private property.
You can vote, but it's missing a very important part.
Care to elaborate? A democratic society doesn't have to have private property. A democracy more entails that people vote for government decisions. That would not be a dictatorship just because there's no private property.
by S i t k a » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:46 pm
New Excalibus wrote:All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.
by Oppermenia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:47 pm
New Excalibus wrote:Oppermenia wrote:Care to elaborate? A democratic society doesn't have to have private property. A democracy more entails that people vote for government decisions. That would not be a dictatorship just because there's no private property.
Well, what I'm saying is, a socialist society could allow people to vote and be technically democratic, but not officially democratic because there is no private property.
by New Excalibus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:49 pm
Oppermenia wrote:New Excalibus wrote:Well, what I'm saying is, a socialist society could allow people to vote and be technically democratic, but not officially democratic because there is no private property.
But, a democracy does not entail that people can own private property. Just that they vote for their government.
The reason I think you're saying that is because most democracies in history have had private property.
by Thanatttynia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:50 pm
New Excalibus wrote:Oppermenia wrote:But, a democracy does not entail that people can own private property. Just that they vote for their government.
The reason I think you're saying that is because most democracies in history have had private property.
Well, to your point, your hypothetical society would be democratic, just lack one trait.
Life would be regular, but it's still sort-of-kind-of-maybe-non-democratic-a-bit.
by New Excalibus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:52 pm
by Wawakanatote » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:56 pm
Oppermenia wrote: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)But don't sweat too much, I have another nation with both the socialist and monarchy policies
Well, there's democratic socialism, and that was meant to separate it from more extreme Marxist-Lenin ideologies. So, one could argue that something can be socialism without being marxism
OOC Factbook
Pro: Marxism-Leninism
Anti: Capitalism, Fascism
We do not exist under communism, but under the
primary stage of socialist development (nep/state capitalism)
Please adjust accordingly
Full Nation Name: Supranational Union of Socialist Republics
Government: Federal Intergovernmental P&E Union
Political Leaders: C.Song Liyuan, V.C.Lev Bronshtein
National Anthem: "Hymn of the Union"
by Thanatttynia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:57 pm
by S i t k a » Sun Aug 05, 2018 6:58 pm
by New Excalibus » Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:02 pm
S i t k a wrote:New Excalibus wrote:Actually, it kind of takes a freedom away from the citizens, since all land is owned by the state.
But still, technically democratic.
Not necessarily. Some systems have land/industry owned by the workers. Not as in 'actually owned by the state', but as in owned and managed by the people who operate them. For example, the workers in a factory or on a farm would be in charge of it. The concept's called workers' self-management.
I really hope I'm getting this stuff right. I always get nervous about getting things mixed up.
by Cedoria » Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:57 pm
by Kustonian Puppet » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:02 pm
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.
by Thanatttynia » Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:06 pm
Cedoria wrote:Not really, I find the whole concept quixotic at best, and downright giberrish at best. Either you believe people are equal, or you don't, Having a monarch of any kind, even a constitutional figurehead, invalidates that principle simply by it's existence.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bursken, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, Majestic-12 [Bot], Philjia, Spirit of Hope, Tungstan, Vassenor
Advertisement