Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Socialism is an economic system wherein the means of production are socially owned by the workers, as opposed to privately owned by capitalists. let us now ignore the concept that all monarchs must necessarily be landed nobility lording over peasants in a feudal system; even though such is the historical precedent set for monarchs, such a system does not necessarily have to be the case in a monarchy. Let us instead think of monarchs as being people who possess “unique sovereignty” or who are “uniquely first” amongst all citizens of the nation, or who are some sort of “beginning” for the politics of a nation, whatever that may be. They are not necessarily “rulers”, but can instead be “leaders” or “governors” or “commanders”. None of this necessitates the possession of land or estates, and none of it contradicts the definition of socialism as “public ownership of the means of production”. What, then, would be the actual point of having monarchism and socialism together? What purpose can they serve, what benefit do they offer to one another? In order to answer that question, let us first declare that monarchism is a means, and that socialism is an ends. Finally, there is one last quibble that many socialists will have with monarchism: Succession. No matter how much or what kind of power a monarch has, many socialists will state that it is unfair that a person should have that power, based merely on the fact that a parent was the previous monarch. Indeed, simple hereditary primogeniture succession has proven itself disastrous for thousands of years now. The first-born child (often, the first-born male) inheriting the throne regardless of their competence often ends up disastrous; some absolutist monarcho-socialists, of course, may disagree with this assessment, even so. However, if we were to make too extreme of a move into an elective monarchy, we run the risk of the position of the monarch seeming more like just the position of a president or a chancellor or a chairperson— perhaps a president for life, but still a president. After all, how can the office of the monarch be a “unique” position if any citizen in the nation can possess that position? What would make it any different from an elected chancellor-for-life? I have seen the following solution raise ire among both socialists and monarchists both, and thus I do not expect every reader to exactly be infatuated with it, but it is what I believe to be the best compromise between the need to be able to choose the next monarch for competence and the need for the position of the monarch to be “unique” enough that it doesn’t simply devolve into a republican office: A semi-elective monarchy. Firstly, a “royal family” must be chosen — typically in a democratic fashion, though not necessarily — whose present living members best fit the purpose that society has established for the monarch, whether it be a parliamentary regulator, or a model citizen, or whatever else have you. Secondly, all children in that family will be raised from birth in order to be a proper candidate for the office of monarch, though they may obviously “disinherit” themselves at any time if they do not wish to have to bear the burden of being a member of “royalty”. Thirdly, upon the death, resignation, or removal of a monarch, an election will be held — directly democratic, parliamentary, or maybe even an electoral college system or any other myriad forms of the democratic process— to determine which viable candidate from the “royal family” will take the newly vacated office of monarch. As with all democratic processes — especially considering the history of the elective monarchies of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth — there is always a risk of corruption, nepotism, or other faults with the vote. However, the ability to manually elect the most competent candidate to the office of the monarch — a candidate groomed from birth in order to foster that said competency — far outweighs the potential for corruption, which can always be regulated with voting standard laws and such. Such a system, I believe, eliminates both the problems with hereditary primogeniture succession — where-in an incompetent first child may take the throne — and the problems with fully elective succession — where-in a person who may not necessarily have the education and training to be an optimal monarch is elected to the throne. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why I defend Monarcho-Socialism o 1: Main Issue with Republics: It doesn’t take Social Class into Account which: a: prevents Class Consciousness.** Democracy presupposes an already existing Class/Group Equality, however only a Communist Society is capable of enacting Classlessness, therefore when put in place in an environment as dependent on Socio-Cultural Capital as the political sphere it leads to assumption of the rank of citizen over the rank of worker. This actively deprives people of realizing their “power” and becoming conscious of their Social Class, effectively dulling the collective might of the Proletariat. b: incentives people to against their Class Interests.** Since a person’s citizenship is taken ahead of their worker status, the people assume that Social Change comes from the implementation of policy. Wrong. Social Change comes from collective action which can only be headed by a Conscious Proletariat with the goal of seizing the means of production. The appropriation of the Polis isn’t required to attain the betterment of Material Realities, it is required to defend the already acquired Material Reality. That’s why it is quick to defend Capital interest ahead of anything else, it is what it was made to do. A worker’s participation in the Democracy Process goes against their fundamental Class Interest, the betterment of their material reality. c: acts as a mask for the Elite Class.** All human hierarchies tend to become increasingly less welcoming to change over time. The Pareto Distribution applies to the State as well. Over time the creation of a small Elite Class that is in control of most of the Polis is inevitable, regardless of system. Democracy serves to muddy the waters and present the system as equal and fair. Those unaware of this will believe that any inequality is derived from lack of merit, not systemic flaws, thus making the system unaccountable. 2: My Solution: Implement an Absolute Monarchy because: b: It creates a Class-based Society.** Initially, the concept of a Class-based Society should turn off most people. Rightfully so, it can lead to a form of prejudice that is detrimental to humanity and against Marxism’s main goals. However, I believe that a state is required and the state’s main goal is oppression. We can only be unshackled once Communism arrives, as any other system that presents itself as liberating is false. If we have to choose the shackles that are put in place, we should choose those who unify us best. Our voice under Monarchy can only be heard collectively, which symbolizes and accurately represents our equality as people. C: It allows for the creation of Class Cooperation.** The existence of an inherent Elite Class leads us to find one of two things, that we should remove the state or that we should increase its power. I believe in the latter, as the removal of the state removes the entity that defends our newly earned Material Realities. The people’s Class Interest rests in the economic sphere, continuous betterment of Socio-Economic Conditions while allowing for maximum freedom. The monarchy’s Class Interest is the only reliable option, as it solely rests on the political sphere and it doesn’t interfere with the people. As long as they are sure of their power and status, they’ll have no reason to interfere. As long as people’s material realities get bettered, they have no reason to complaint. If one side fails, the consequences should be vital, as people are quick to discard moral duty if it benefits them. D: It puts the Elite Class on a pedestal, for good or bad.** The glorification of the Monarchy can be seen as the evolution of Classism, but it works as a both a crown and a noose. If everything is going find the nobility will be center stage in the nation’s news, but if something goes wrong, they’ll be the first to be accused. Anything other than Absolutism leads to a division of responsibility when harm to the people is done. The spotlight puts them accountable. My bit (What I like): Businesses sectors (mining, steel, telecoms etc.) should not be run or directly state controlled. Corporations, private companies or bourgeoisie controlled sectors are terrible as the controllers are only in it for a profit and the workers pushed and broken. You have the owner and the poor. Directly state run sectors are also bad because it’s a select group controlling the entire sector and usually make decisions for what they might think is what the proletariat want but is not. And it hardly ever works because the state might not know as much about the sector as they do about their own government job. “Advisory sectors” are my proposal. Instead of anyone/any body “running” sectors there should be a set of around 3 people voted for by the workforce of that sector to act as representatives. They will tell the state what the people genuinely need. The representatives will need to have 5ish years of experience in that sector and work at least 5 hours in the sector among the workers. That’s so that there is only the proletariat and nothing else (except the monarch themselves). But even the monarch would have worked for a while before they were elected.