A Socialist Monarchy?

[Oppermenia]

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.

[Second Empire of America]

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.

[Wawakanatote]

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

[Oppermenia]

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.

I was actually thinking that, too. I totally agree with that. That socialism is an economic system and a monarchy is a government system. I forgot to include that.

[Oppermenia]

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

[New Excalibus]

All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.

[Thanatttynia]

It's definitely possible, though in the long run, if we take the goal of all socialism as merely acting as an intermediary stage between capitalism and communism, untenable. Governments under monarchies have pursued socialist policies before. I think of myself as both a socialist and a monarchist, they're certainly not inherently incompatible.

[Oppermenia]

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.

[New Excalibus]

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.

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.

[Oppermenia]

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.

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.

[Second Empire of America]

All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.

Nepal and Moldova had democratic elections where communist parties won. If the people elect a government, that government is a democracy, regardless of whether what the people want is good or bad.

[Oppermenia]

Guys, in my opinion, a socialist system could exist with private property. Like, you do own the car and the food you eat and buy with your own money, but the government has the power to control the economy.

[New Excalibus]

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.

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.

[S i t k a]

All communist societies are dictatorships, you cannot have democracy without private property.

Not true in theory. There are plenty of 'communist' systems based on democracy. I can't think of an example of this happening in real life, granted, but a lot of things on NS haven't happened in real life.

To get back to the topic, I think socialism and monarchy can coexist in certain situations. For example, a nation with a monarch that is mostly a figurehead such as the UK (I say mostly because she technically has some involvement with the law, but that's a different topic) could elect a socialist government. The new government would likely reduce the privileges of the monarchy, but it's entirely possible that it would let it keep its titles etc. so the monarch could continue to be a unifying figure.

It also, of course, depends on your definition of socialism/communism. More authoritarian or radical varieties would probably never keep a monarchy in any sense, democratically elected or not.

On a different note, I don't find myself in General that often, so if I ever sound stupid I'm sorry.

[Oppermenia]

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.

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.

[New Excalibus]

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.

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.
Anywho, let us not fill this forum with our quarrel and get back to the point.

[Thanatttynia]

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.

Private property and democracy are two entirely separate and unconnected concepts.

[New Excalibus]

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.

Private property and democracy are two entirely separate and unconnected concepts.

Actually, it kind of takes a freedom away from the citizens, since all land is owned by the state.
But still, technically democratic.

[Wawakanatote]

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

Democratic Socialists today are just Social Democrats now, but even then most Democratic Socialists don't support monarchism. (An example of of a Demsoc would be Allende and Chavez)

[Thanatttynia]

Private property and democracy are two entirely separate and unconnected concepts.

Actually, it kind of takes a freedom away from the citizens, since all land is owned by the state.
But still, technically democratic.

Yes, technically democratic. All political systems take away some freedoms from people. By this logic, there has never been a democratic state in existence ever. If we restrict democracy to mean this, the term becomes useless.

[S i t k a]

Private property and democracy are two entirely separate and unconnected concepts.

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.

[New Excalibus]

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.

True, it really all depends on what system you're using with socialism.

Yeah, we all have no literal evidence on this and are all saying "well, sort of..." I'm pretty sure I've screwed up billions of things in this thread.

[Cedoria]

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.

[Kustonian Puppet]

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.

[Thanatttynia]

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.

You don't have to believe everyone is completely equal to be a socialist, you just have to advocate for common ownership of the means of production. And, I mean, people very clearly aren't all equal. We should work towards minimising harmful inequality but it's always going to exist on one level or another. Having a constitutional monarchy with little to no real power isn't an example of harmful inequality, and you have to weigh up the effects of this limited inequality with the other effects of having a constitutional monarchy, many of them positive.