Monarchy under socialism

[Dimentio]

One thing which is quite peculiar with the United Kingdom, is that the state is still nominally feudal. Yes, you read it right. The queen is the official owner of all land in Great Britain and she could also technically suspend the parliament). In short, she has almost as much power as Malte.

Anyway, Britain is obviously not feudal, but capitalist, and so I wonder if the content of the laws really matter.

Theoretically speaking, a socialist society could still officially build upon the backbone of bourgeoisie laws (heck, if all property is owned by syndicates, unions or a technate, then the bourgeoisie property laws could actually legitimise the socialist order).

Also theoretically, since we are looking forthe basis of society and not the superstructure, such institutions as the monarchy and the church, which seems to be fairly independent from the basis of production (as their continued existence under capitalist conditions are proving) nothing is saying that a socialist state cannot keep a monarch as an official figurehead.

The most pragmatic thing to do would be to rather try to cone these institutions into cooperation than to outright devastate them (and probably enrage the people). In fact, the revolution could be a lot smoother if we still officially keeps some symbols from the old era to give an impression of continuity.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The most pragmatic thing to do would be to rather try to cone these institutions into cooperation than to outright devastate them (and probably enrage the people). In fact, the revolution could be a lot smoother if we still officially keeps some symbols from the old era to give an impression of continuity.

Sorry, but socialist revolutions at a minimum must be republican on the political level.

As for the retention of bourgeois institutions, the most important type would be the corporation (and on this economic level they would NOT be symbols, since their organizational structure allows them to perform economic actions with superior "business sense" than bureaucratic ministries - refer to the Putin government as the most notable example :( ). :)

Now, back to the political level: I suppose we could have a strictly ceremonial "president for life" figure (positions based purely on bloodline need to be eliminated, even if they generate lots of tourist $$$). :D The actual presidial (yes, that's a word) functions would be performed by a standing body of the "legislature" (plural in my proposal, with the Congress electing the Supreme Soviet, which then elects the Central Executive Committee of the Supreme Soviet).

We could also have an equally ceremonial "premier" (think "Premier Stalin" or "Premier Khrushchev") figure apart from the "advisory" council of the state administration (with the actual chairing of that council being done by someone else).

Most importantly, we could also have an equally ceremonial party "Chairman" (think "Chairman Mao") figure! :D

[Seriously, I'm not comfortable at all with any of those three political positions, even if ceremonial.]

[piet11111]

i prefer the romanov treatment but thats just me i think.

[Dimentio]

I say it is indifferent whether it is a republic or not. In practice, a lot of socialist states has actually degenerated into despotisms or monarchies (Syria or DPRK for example).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Who says they were socialist to begin with? Like Soviet Russia under even Lenin, state-capitalist relations took over.

[Dimentio]

Yes, but that would probably have happened independent of whether or not Nicky had been shot. I am unsure if the bolsheviks really intended to kill Nicholas II just for the sake of it (Yekaterineburg was quite threatened).

[Red Economist]

the monarchy in the Uk is still in power because the bourgeoisise so totally took control during and following the english civil war (1642-1651). it is part of the bourgeoisise state of the UK and will fall with the bourgeosise state upon the completion of a socialist revolution in the UK.

monarchy and socialism are generally incompatable. monarchy- as you have pointed out- is a feudal political system. socialism and communism are built on the rule by the majority, and even a ceremoinal role for a monarch is incompatable with 'true' or proletarian democracy.

only a 'socialist' movement led by the Bureaucracy or the middle classes, such as the labour 1945 government could ever consider allowing a monarchy under socialism.

[FireFry]

Yes, but would the crown support a socialist revolution? Would the Queen go up to the mic and say thanks to all her homeboy comrades for all their excellent work? I doubt it. Unless you put a kalishnikov up to their spinal cords, but that's not the type of thing we want in a post-revolutionary socializing society.

[Holden Caulfield]

they have no place, they take millions in tax money each year to make themselves slightly richer, and live in towering monuments of former despots,

they own large tracts of land, on top of this,

plus Prince Charles, eco warrior, takes private jets everywhere!! wankers, the lot of them, get them in a room with plastered walls and i'll do the rest

[Dimentio]

It is not the matter of what you rhink, but of what a significant part of the population thinks. If 80% of the population wants a cucumber or a sheep as the head of state, give em it.

[BOZG]

It is not the matter of what you rhink, but of what a significant part of the population thinks. If 80% of the population wants a cucumber or a sheep as the head of state, give em it.

On a theoretical level, they should be allowed choose who they want but the reality is that the vast majority of working class people are not class consciousness at this moment. A socialist revolution necessitates a huge change is class consciousness and drastically changes human psychology. You're assuming that all that happens in a revolution is a change of ownership without looking at how much revolutions change people themselves. The reality is that a socialist revolution would be based on such a change in class consciousness that working class people would recognise the necessity of completely scrapping bourgeois society and its remaining feudal relics.

[Demogorgon]

I think it should be pointed out that things aren't so bad that the Queen is still nominally the owner of all land. At any rate, the idea of monarchy is just complete anathema for socialism. I hate to be dogmatic, but here I draw the line. Monarchy is simply inconceivable for socialist society

[Dimentio]

On a theoretical level, they should be allowed choose who they want but the reality is that the vast majority of working class people are not class consciousness at this moment. A socialist revolution necessitates a huge change is class consciousness and drastically changes human psychology. You're assuming that all that happens in a revolution is a change of ownership without looking at how much revolutions change people themselves. The reality is that a socialist revolution would be based on such a change in class consciousness that working class people would recognise the necessity of completely scrapping bourgeois society and its remaining feudal relics.

Increasing standards of life and increased rates of education and enlightenment tends to make such things quite anachronistic. To just try to openly reeducate the people to hate religion and monarchy tend to produce effects contrary to their intended purpose.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Theoretically speaking, a socialist society could still officially build upon the backbone of bourgeoisie laws (heck, if all property is owned by syndicates, unions or a technate, then the bourgeoisie property laws could actually legitimise the socialist order).

Also theoretically, since we are looking forthe basis of society and not the superstructure, such institutions as the monarchy and the church, which seems to be fairly independent from the basis of production (as their continued existence under capitalist conditions are proving) nothing is saying that a socialist state cannot keep a monarch as an official figurehead.

The most pragmatic thing to do would be to rather try to cone these institutions into cooperation than to outright devastate them (and probably enrage the people). In fact, the revolution could be a lot smoother if we still officially keeps some symbols from the old era to give an impression of continuity.
I agree, though I doubt that the conditions of the transition from capitalism to socialism would be such that people would consider it a good thing to have a sense of continuity with the old system. It really depends on various social details at the time of the revolution.

Then again, we could draw lessons from the transition from feudalism to capitalism and point out that a feeling of continuity was seen as positive by the bourgeoisie in some places (e.g. Britain), while in other places the bourgeoisie wanted to destroy anything and everything that reminded of the old order (e.g. France). It is conceivable that the same will be true of the proletariat - that in some places the proletarian revolution will destroy all bourgeois symbols and ceremonies while in other places socialist revolutionaries will rather claim to be defending the spirit of old, semi-legendary historical figures (*cough* the United States with its founding myth), and will therefore strive to preserve a sense of continuity with the past.


Sorry, but socialist revolutions at a minimum must be republican on the political level.
Republican in practice, yes, but a state can easily be a de facto republic while maintaining a powerless monarch as figurehead.

For example, Britain is indistinguishable from a bourgeois republic in practice, despite the fact that it remains nominally a monarchy. A socialist revolution in Britain will have to worry about Parliament and the Prime Minister, not about the King or Queen. (unless of course there happens to be a particularly ambitious monarch at the time who tries to take advantage of the situation to regain some political power - in that case the revolutionaries should attempt to play Parliament and the monarch against each other)


monarchy and socialism are generally incompatable. monarchy- as you have pointed out- is a feudal political system. socialism and communism are built on the rule by the majority, and even a ceremoinal role for a monarch is incompatable with 'true' or proletarian democracy.
Yes, in terms of ideology, monarchy and socialism are utterly and completely opposed to each other. Any socialist society that wanted to maintain a monarchy would have to engage in a lot of bizzare doublethink to justify such a situation.

But fighting symbols, however bizzare and anachronistic they may be, is not a particularly important fight. As Serpent said, I couldn't care less if a giant cucumber was head of state as long as the position is strictly ceremonial. We must aim for socialism in practice, not socialism in symbols and ceremonies.

A socialist society would of course have to bring all the land and property of a monarch under public ownership. But if a majority of people vote to keep the royal family as a sort of glorified circus attraction and tourist trap - well, so be it. I for one would savour the delicious irony of locking up the British royal family in Buckingham Palace and forcing them to act in a sort of royal reality show.

[BOZG]

Increasing standards of life and increased rates of education and enlightenment tends to make such things quite anachronistic. To just try to openly reeducate the people to hate religion and monarchy tend to produce effects contrary to their intended purpose.

You're still assuming that the consciousness and attitudes of working class people will remain the same throughout a revolutionary period. Revolutions themselves are incredible teachers and when working class people recognise the role that the church and the monarchy will inevitably play in a revolutionary period, do you really think that they will want to hold onto them for nostalgia's sake?

[Dimentio]

You're still assuming that the consciousness and attitudes of working class people will remain the same throughout a revolutionary period. Revolutions themselves are incredible teachers and when working class people recognise the role that the church and the monarchy will inevitably play in a revolutionary period, do you really think that they will want to hold onto them for nostalgia's sake?

In Sweden, the government holds about 30% popularity. The Monarch has about 85% in popularity, because he is merely rendered a symbol. To take away the monarch would be little of the same thing as removing Donald Duck at christmas.

[BOZG]

Based on current class consciousness.

[Dimentio]

Yes, but if the majority of the people would have wanted to get rid of the monarch, he would have gone.

[BOZG]

But this isn't a revolutionary period. That is the point that I'm making. In revolutionary periods, consciousness takes a huge change and people will come into conflict with the monarchy because the monarchy will seek to defend its privileges.

[Holden Caulfield]

Yes, but if the majority of the people would have wanted to get rid of the monarch, he would have gone.

well in Britain the majority of people would like to be on the organ donors list but as the people here have shown very often they succum to sheer apathy and can't be arsed, the only reason she is still there is tradition, a tradition which costs the british workers a share of their wages to uphold

if the Queen was what the people wanted then she could be head of state, but with no privilages, and with no pomp and circumstance, and with out owning massive areas of the world,

everytime I enter into a pro-republican argument some fool always brings us that if we don't have the queen it will kill our tourist industry..what bollocks, because Versailles seems to be doing well for itself and I haven't seen any despotic or popular french monarchs walking around there recently,

[Holden Caulfield]

there is no place at all for monarchy under socialism, if the monarch is so popular let them set aside their privilages and become a representative in the parliment, or soviets or what ever would be set up in the post-revolutionary,

[Dimentio]

But this isn't a revolutionary period. That is the point that I'm making. In revolutionary periods, consciousness takes a huge change and people will come into conflict with the monarchy because the monarchy will seek to defend its privileges.

Like all Russians absolutely cheered when the bolsheviks teared down the orthodox churches.

[Herman]

Like all Russians absolutely cheered when the bolsheviks teared down the orthodox churches.

I'm sure they did, Serpent, i'm sure they did.

[BOZG]

Russia 1917 - Backwards society, tiny industrial working class with high levels of illiteracy, massive peasantry who were virtually illiterate, no education and not that far removed from the Dark Ages in their living conditions, low level of culture.

Sweden 2008 - Industrially developed country, largely working class, largely literate, high levels of education, high level of culture.


You're comparison is useless. But even using Russia 1917 as a comparison, while the Orthodox church wasn't soundly defeated, its authority was still massively challenged in terms of gay rights, women's rights, marriage and divorce, position of children in society etc. The continuing existence of the church was due to the backwards position that the Soviet Union was founded in where it had not developed a high level of production or of culture not out of some all-powerful desire to defend it.

[Dimentio]

Yes, therefore the effects could be quite more damning in Sweden. Surely, even though most Swedes do not care for the church and just likes the king because they do not know anything else, they will abhor any kind of repression on either of them, because the people have tender hearts and do not like suffering.