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?