A People's Emperor?

[Commiekirby]

Thought I might as well start a thread on here about something I've been discussing with a friend of mine for awhile.

While at first, it sounds pretty crazy and impossible to many from both sides of the political landscape, the idea of a Socialist Monarchy per se has always brought some intrigue to my thoughts on government.

While traditionally, Monarchy serves the very few on top and strictly opposes egalitarian thought (e.g Russian Empire, German Empire, Ottoman Empire) what if the system kinda took a literal sharp turn and the people more or less elected a leader at the start of a kingdom that would represent the Proletariat? Thus in the ideal thought of Monarchy, the nobles of the royal family selected would go down throughout the Kingdom's or Empire's history and prioritize the people above themselves or just national glory. The system of oppressive classes obviously would be taken down, society while revolving around the "People's Monarchs" would be implementing a Socialist system and taking care of the needs of the citizenship while still observing royalist theories such as hereditary rule and nationalist like policies.

While I've given more a very rough idea on it, what would be others thoughts on this? I don't subscribe to the ideology, I'm more or less curious about outside opinion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And why are hereditary rule and nationalism good things in your opinion? :confused:

[Prometeo liberado]

When Im alone at night, with thoughts of my little pony and the unnerving sensation that when I do open my laptop something like this may pop out at me, I cry. Alone I cry because this thread exsist. And my little pony dies a thousand deaths as well.:sleep:

[MustCrushCapitalism]

There's no reason for a monarchy to exist under socialism. You also have to keep in mind that a monarch, absolute ruler or no, is not representative of his or her individual interests, but the interests of the bourgeois class which he or she represents. There'd probably be an anti-monarchist revolt led by the bourgeoisie if he or she didn't.

[Raúl Duke]

I believe there may have been examples of this before, although not so socialist.
Mostly monarchs with populist tendency and rhetoric of representing the people, the nation, etc.
I'm guessing Napoleon might have been something like this.
Also Napoleon III, particularly him. The Saint-Simoneons, at least according to wiki, even called him a "socialist emperor."

But none were really socialist...

[roy]

this idea cant be anything but fantasy. it implies other fantasies too, like sios. the whole idea of monarchy is absolutely antithetical to socialism (i.e. a ruling class subjugating the people). basically, the idea of a monarchy divorcing itself from its own class interest and pursuing socialism (as well as nationalist policies??:confused:) is really just a crazy idea.

[Commiekirby]

Not the biggest supporter of either, the two just seem to go hand in hand with the Monarchist school of ideology. Though, Nationalism to a certain unique extent is fine in my opinion when it's more centered around the idea a group's unity and progress rather than being above another.

[Commiekirby]

I can agree that Napoleon III was a beginning example of the idea but even so, his own lust for power and greed drove him away from the idea of the French Revolution. Still Better than most Monarchs I'd say throughout history.

[Commiekirby]

this idea cant be anything but fantasy. it implies other fantasies too, like sios. the whole idea of monarchy is absolutely antithetical to socialism (i.e. a ruling class subjugating the people). basically, the idea of a monarchy divorcing itself from its own class interest and pursuing socialism (as well as nationalist policies??:confused:) is really just a crazy idea.
Well I didn't say it was a completely sane idea, now did I? :rolleyes:

[jookyle]

The people don't need an emperor THE PEOPLE NEED THE PEOPLE

[Jimmie Higgins]

Thought I might as well start a thread on here about something I've been discussing with a friend of mine for awhile.

While at first, it sounds pretty crazy and impossible to many from both sides of the political landscape, the idea of a Socialist Monarchy per se has always brought some intrigue to my thoughts on government.

While traditionally, Monarchy serves the very few on top and strictly opposes egalitarian thought (e.g Russian Empire, German Empire, Ottoman Empire) what if the system kinda took a literal sharp turn and the people more or less elected a leader at the start of a kingdom that would represent the Proletariat? Thus in the ideal thought of Monarchy, the nobles of the royal family selected would go down throughout the Kingdom's or Empire's history and prioritize the people above themselves or just national glory. The system of oppressive classes obviously would be taken down, society while revolving around the "People's Monarchs" would be implementing a Socialist system and taking care of the needs of the citizenship while still observing royalist theories such as hereditary rule and nationalist like policies.

While I've given more a very rough idea on it, what would be others thoughts on this? I don't subscribe to the ideology, I'm more or less curious about outside opinion.

In some later feudal monarchies the role of the monarch was supposedly to protect "the people" from the whims of the local lords. But it's kind of like turning to the Democrats to save you from the Republicans. Even when it was a mass-popular monarchy, the monarch's role was just to protect the people from excesses in order to preserve the entire structure and class order of that society.

In capitalism monarchies that survived the transition to capitalism usually are national cultural figureheads a sort of living flags.

I don't see why, assuming worker's control of society, they would want or have need for some monarch. I don't think there's any material or practical basis for it. Leaders can claim and act to "do things for" the people - indeed modern autocrats, dictators more than kings in capitalism, often claim their policies are in the interests of the workers or rural poor, the masses in general. Communism/Socialism isn't just some pro-worker policies grafted on top of society, but a whole new democratic and cooperative reorganization of society from the bottom up. Polices and dictates from workers might be needed intitially, but once society is organized along democratic and socialist lines, workers would need "pro-worker" policies about as much as capitalists need laws telling people to get a job. So there would be no use for some central figure to make decisions - early in socialism this would hinder democracy (obviously) and later when workers have hegemony over society it wouldn't make any sense or serve any purpose.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

We already have this, it's called North Korea. Not going very well is it?

[Commiekirby]

In some later feudal monarchies the role of the monarch was supposedly to protect "the people" from the whims of the local lords. But it's kind of like turning to the Democrats to save you from the Republicans. Even when it was a mass-popular monarchy, the monarch's role was just to protect the people from excesses in order to preserve the entire structure and class order of that society.

In capitalism monarchies that survived the transition to capitalism usually are national cultural figureheads a sort of living flags.

I don't see why, assuming worker's control of society, they would want or have need for some monarch. I don't think there's any material or practical basis for it. Leaders can claim and act to "do things for" the people - indeed modern autocrats, dictators more than kings in capitalism, often claim their policies are in the interests of the workers or rural poor, the masses in general. Communism/Socialism isn't just some pro-worker policies grafted on top of society, but a whole new democratic and cooperative reorganization of society from the bottom up. Polices and dictates from workers might be needed intitially, but once society is organized along democratic and socialist lines, workers would need "pro-worker" policies about as much as capitalists need laws telling people to get a job. So there would be no use for some central figure to make decisions - early in socialism this would hinder democracy (obviously) and later when workers have hegemony over society it wouldn't make any sense or serve any purpose.
You make a great point towards the idea of it being a more ridiculous system and have to agree with you. It's a peculiar thought that kinda spun around my head for months, sure it may not have much practicality whatsoever but to me it still brings intrigue like all Government really.

In the case of many earlier Left Wing States, the people usually take comfort in that figurehead or living flag as you described it though I tend to be heavily displeased with the fact since it seems to steamroll to Totalitarian policy but I like to believe in some cases like this that some Monarchs are benevolent and would more or less reinvent the definition of Monarchy. That would be a more ideal world I'd say, where the thought process of the Right Wing Political movement was directly opposite from it's usual foundation and thus it wouldn't be even close to being called a true Monarchy focused state.

[Revolution starts with U]

^ agreed

... even if I do have a sort-of soft spot for Ceaserian populism :lol:

[Sten]

Monarchy goes against the whole concept of popular sovereignty since, by definition, in monarchies an individual is sovereign. The people should retain the ability to remove whoever they delegated their political power to, at any given moment.

Also, even if we refused popular sovereignty and had a monarch committed to building a socialist society, I have my doubts socialism can be implemented from the top.

[Rafiq]

Nice class analysis bro.

Monarchies are just as much dogs of a class as a president.

Of course Monarchies are exclusive to a specific form of culture, but what counts is hereditary rule ( as a political system ). Which is backward and Feudal (or Bourgeois) in nature.

"Popular Soveriegnty" is bullshit, but "Individual Soveriegnty"? Really? As if a single person uses whole nations to forfill his own interests :rolleyes:

That's called Great Man Idealist shit.

I love your Liberalist terminology/buzzwords

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Die Neue Zeit]

^ agreed

... even if I do have a sort-of soft spot for Ceaserian populism :lol:

Could you please leave that and all its fine print for another discussion?

[ckaihatsu]

Socialist Monarchy


Okay, so here we are having a high-tech, international discussion about why we'd want a singular "royal" person to do this "for" us??!

It's unnecessary substitutionism, at best.

[Leftsolidarity]

Read the section on "Reactionary Socialism" from The Communist Manifesto

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wasn't this effectively tried about 95 years ago? Did it turn out well?

[Sten]

Wasn't this effectively tried about 95 years ago? Did it turn out well?

You're a few years off, at best. :rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

Of all the terrible leftist schemes I've encountered, this really has to be the worst.

[Imposter Marxist]

There was only one man that could be a people's emperor, and he died in 2000, sadly. It is up to us to lead the people!