Communist Monarchy

[Comrade Nymoen]

What do people in here think about Monarchy and Communism combined? Does it work, why/why not? What about Monarchy in general?

[jullia]

Is it a serious thread?

Well i think the two concept of monarchy and communism exlude by nature the other. I don't see how you can conciliate the two.

[Futility Personified]

Communism, a classless, stateless society.

A monarch, the hereditary head of the state. (because god says so)

[Comrade Nymoen]

Is it a serious thread?

Well i think the two concept of monarchy and communism exlude by nature the other. I don't see how you can conciliate the two.

Yes it is a serious thread, in my opinion it doesn't work. Just wanted to hear from other peoples point of view.

[Sentinel]

Indeed, is this a serious thread? In other words, should I move it to the learning forum or the trashcan?

Obviously communists oppose monarchy?

[Asero]

Comrade Nymoen, explain what you mean by "monarchy" and "communism."

[Comrade Nymoen]

Indeed, is this a serious thread? In other words, should I move it to the learning forum or the trashcan?

Obviously communists oppose monarchy?

People view communism diffrently, some might like the idea of a Communist Monarchy country, some may not.

[Hrafn]

I personally support necrocracy. Long live the DPRK.

[Comrade Nymoen]

Asero, by monarchy i mean that one person rules one country, while the power goes inheritance, and not elections.

[Zoroaster]

Communism and monarchy are two very different things. Communism has, historically, been an anti-monarchist movement (or at least, has tried to). Monarchies have historically been anti-communist.

[Comrade Nymoen]

Zoroaster. Exactly, thats why I am wondering what people thinks about mixing them. In my opinion monarchy should be abolished.

[Palmares]

You know, this makes sense. I was talking to this guy at a new age festival, and he said Stalin was the bastard child of a Tsar. And supplanting him amongst the Bolsheviks was a means to reinstitute the monarchy incognito, and without bloodshed. I did question him on that latter point, but he didn't seem to register it. He then went on to say all royal families had contingency plans where they had also supplanted members, such as their bastards (more expendable), into fringe groups in case political power swung their way. He even told me he was a royal, bastard of course, supplanted into the new age scene in case they ever started to weld any political power.

Wait a minute... this is the stoner talk thread right?

[Rafiq]

What do people in here think about Monarchy and Communism combined? Does it work, why/why not? What about Monarchy in general?

Such things cannot be mixed and matched at will. And indeed neither monarchy or communism had risen because people thought they were good ideas in a vacuum - it was because real social, historical circumstances either made them either possible, or consequential. Some, among them Kautsky, have argued that ancient Sparta was a proto-Communist society, though I could see how this is contestable.

But to put it bluntly: Under what circumstances do you think there would ever be a Communist monarchy? How is the context for this even possible? Is Communism supersedes bourgeois-democratic society, then to estabilish a monarchy would be a concsious desicsion. The question is why?

Communism is generally and has always been, if we assume it has existed in such epochs, predisposed to oppose hereditary rule. Even during Muntzer's rebellion in Germany, the title of Emperor was not sought out to be abolished, but elected by all citizens regardless of their relation to property. Now the reason being, of course, that hereditary rule tends to signify hierarchical family-based relations of private property with hereditary rule being the highest manifestation of legitimizing such relations.

With some exceptions of course. When Marx, politically incorrectly spoke of oriental despotism, hereditary rule was present but leaders took on a divine, almost sexless role in which they were "above" society. This is apparent in Emperors of ancient China, rulers of the Near East (i.e. Persia, Egypt) as well as in present day North Korea. I have yet to see an argument attributing North Korea with the characteristics of an 'asiatic mode of production' but I'm sure it would make a good discussion. Regardless, what is apparent is that like ancient societies, North Korea is composed of rigid social hierarchies which ideologically compose a "harmony" of the whole.

Conversely Communism is by nature democratic - what I mean by this is not simply the spectacle of democracy with elections and so on, but manifests the active rule of mass will - or in the case of pre-mutated Stalinist states, at least the illusion of it. It's clear that - for example, even someone like Stalin took the characteristics of a democratic leader in that at least formally, his relatives were not above the law - Stalin would regularly engage his political and ideological opponents in arguments (as though one is arguing with an equal), was engaged in his cult of personality in that he referred to himself in the third person, designating that he subtracted his own ego from it - would regularly clap for himself after speeches like any good Communist and so on. At least formally, North Korea's transition to dynastic rule signifies the utter formal acceptance of class antagonisms and the absence of any form of continual struggle - a facade that virtually almost every Stalinist state did. And it's an interesting phenomena. The dulling of the ruling Communist party does indeed tend to create, irregardless of geography, a kind of harmonic despotism, as evident in China with the integration of confucian philosophy into state doctrine.

[Comrade Nymoen]

Under what circumstances do you think there would ever be a Communist monarchy?"

I dont think it ever will, But if a communist party would get power in for example Norway, they have to mix.

[Creative Destruction]

I've only been here for around a year, but I don't remember seeing so many Stalinists sign up and pollute the forums in such a short amount of time.

[Tim Cornelis]

You presume that 'communism taking power' involves a communist party assuming power within the framework of the bourgeois state. Communism abolishes the bourgeois state. It will overthrow liberal democracies including constitutional monarchies.

[Comrade Nymoen]

I've only been here for around a year, but I don't remember seeing so many Stalinists sign up and pollute the forums in such a short amount of time.

Well, give us a welcome!

[contracycle]

I dont think it ever will, But if a communist party would get power in for example Norway, they have to mix.

Why?

The very suggestion is ludicrous.

[RedWorker]

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat could technically have a hereditary "head of state" role which has no authority but is rather only ceremonial.

Obviously, however, communists are against monarchy.

[contracycle]

He who does not work, does not eat. What work would this personage do to justify their keep?

[RedWorker]

He who does not work, does not eat.

Actually, this is a bourgeois/conservative principle, which goes to the extent of it being referenced in the Bible e.g. 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

Communists stand for free access to most final goods, unconditionally - only to be restricted when it is genuinely needed considering the whole of society.

[contracycle]

I'm not sure that something that appears in the bible can really be considered bourgeois, but I take the point. Funnily enough I've only ever encountered the phrase in Lenin's work; learn something new etc.

Nevertheless, I would still point out that the principle that someone can live off the labour of others by virtue of wearing a funny hat is even more ancient, and something that I, for one, am not at all keen on reintroducing.

[motion denied]

Communist monarchy is utter non-sense. Who even supports anything related to communism?

I'm all for an absolute monarchy though, none of that constitutionalist squalor.

[Creative Destruction]

this thread reminded me of Monty Python:

R7qT-C-0ajI

[Q]

North-Korea has a dynasty and calls itself 'socialist'. So that could work as a 'communist monarchy' maybe.

Maybe not.

[Red Star Rising]

North-Korea has a dynasty and calls itself 'socialist'. So that could work as a 'communist monarchy' maybe.

Maybe not.

Well, it works as a monarchy. And the Stalinist conception of communist tends to e "they are because they say they are so I support them and anyone who doesn't is a traitor to Marx." So I suppose that's a satisfactory answer for the OP.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I don't exactly know what definition of monarchy you're using, if you mean monarchy by its literal etymology, as in "one ruler" then I think that's pretty meaningless and abstract. A government system doesn't just arise arbitrarily, as if out of thin air, they are a product of real historical conditions.

If you mean monarchy as in ,say, the feudal or absolute monarchs of Europe, then one should note that this has been appropriated by the bourgeoisie. Monarchs no longer exist in their own right, the ones that possess any real power do so by being absorbed into the capitalist class. Others, like The British royal family, really just exist as a sort of commercialized cultural relic. In popular culture, this sort of monarchy is so detached from its original meaning that even mythical creatures like dragons are often associated with it. I haven't watched the series Game ofThrones, but I imagine it illustrates what I'm talking about.

In the absence of class, monarchy will probably become completely divorced from what little meaning it has left after being absorbed by bourgeois society, and will probably only exist as cute role playing by children. I don't really care if people want to play princess, call themselves King of the Universe, or wear a pretty crown, this is really the only extent to which monarchy can exist in communism. Just as monarchy can only exist today in the context of capitalist relations, so will it exist in communism only as it can in the absense of class antagonisms: conferring no power in any meaningful sense.

[Hrafn]

I haven't watched the series Game ofThrones, but I imagine it illustrates what I'm talking about.

Yes.

[contracycle]

Nnnngh... the British army still swears allegiance to the queen, not the state, and certainly not the people. There's a deliberate grey area here, in that the monarch technically still does have the ability to direct the government, it merely agrees not to do so. Those powers are in abeyance, not abolished. In a genuinely revolutionary scenario, it's still not impossible that they could serve as a nucleus around which the forces of reaction might consolidate.

This isn't what really concerns me though. Frex, if this is supposed to be an inherited position, is that descent through the male line, or the female? Does it pass to a sibling, or to a child? Do we even want to have to establish a policy on these matters? Is anything served by keeping such an anthropological relic alive, along with the all the associated concepts of divine right, inheritance, all the romantic glamour?

This seems like a big ol' can of worms best left well enough alone. If you really must have some sort of ceremonial clothes horse, I'd rather it were assigned by lot.

[jullia]

There is this theory about a communist kingdom.
http://mw.micronation.org/wiki/Theodorism

I don't know if it what you are looking for

[Thirsty Crow]

What do people in here think about Monarchy and Communism combined? Does it work, why/why not? What about Monarchy in general?
Either Stalinist going way to deep into Stalin, or troll.

Short serious: doesn't work, cannot work. That little thing about community control and direction of production for the sole purpose of satisfying human need has a necessary correlate in abolishing any kind of state, or alienated political power in cool lingo.

Hereditary mock head of no-state-at-all notwithstanding.

[Comrade Nymoen]

Either Stalinist going way to deep into Stalin, or troll.

Short serious: doesn't work, cannot work. That little thing about community control and direction of production for the sole purpose of satisfying human need has a necessary correlate in abolishing any kind of state, or alienated political power in cool lingo.

Hereditary mock head of no-state-at-all notwithstanding.

How am I a troll for asking a question about others opinion?

[motion denied]

Maybe, for one, because your signature is from Anatoly Ribakov's Children of the Arbat (which is pretty decent actually) and not really a Stalin aphorism?

[Comrade Nymoen]

Maybe, for one, because your signature is from Anatoly Ribakov's Children of the Arbat (which is pretty decent actually) and not really a Stalin aphorism?

I still don't see how that will make me a troll. But I don't care really.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Either Stalinist going way to deep into Stalin

Pretty sure that was illegal after the mid-twenties.

[Taters]

Well, usually the communist with the biggest crown is King Communism and may then mate with the other communists, but a challenger can become King Communism by winning a bout of crown-to-crown combat.