A socialist monarchy?

I've actually proposed this very kind of scenario; I was thinking, Hapsburgs or some other Catholic monarchy in southern Germany. In the wake of the 1848 revolutions, some Catholic monarchy--not necessarily the monarch himself, but some high-ranking royal, say the crown prince, gets involved with a bunch of Jesuits who engage in a debate with Marx himself and cook up a kind of Christian Hegelianism heavily influenced by Marx's economic ideas, to patch up the social conflicts in their realm and at the same time manage a dirigiste economic policy meant to grow the realm's economic standing. Recognizing the Marxist economic concepts but asserting that a suitably enlightened and compassionate monarchy has the authority and duty to manage the show so as to both maximize useful growth and ensure that the working classes get their fair share. It would be socialistic to the extent that the monarch recognizes the workers get to have a say in the process, via legalized and regulated unions or via a bureaucracy that the workers can recognize does listen to their concerns and advice. But the idea is top-down, not bottom-up; the monarchy recognizes it has to get ahead of the curve and not let the commons develop the pressure themselves lest they get the idea they can run the show without the help of a king. A Catholic monarch with much clout in the Vatican, such as the Hapsburgs, could leverage the Papacy blessing it despite its Red, atheistic antecedents and suitably "baptize" it in Medieval Catholic doctrine; suitable precedents can doubtless be interpreted from Thomas Aquinas and the like.

Certainly Marx himself often looked to medieval examples when framing his concepts of the labor theory of value.

Hard Reds like Marx would reject and scorn the idea of course; the question is, could the monarchy deliver results good enough to build up solid support for the regime in the working classes without alienating the middle and upper classes? It's a tightrope to walk, but in addition to the incentive to preempt radical revolution the regimes I'm thinking of were at an economic disadvantage in the Victorian age; continental economists, Germans in particular, were quite critical of the British economic schools of laissez-faire and keen to consider alternative approaches. Besides avoid revolution the goal would be to achieve economic development and thus military security.

I happen to think Marx had a very solid understanding of capitalist economics and so this kind of top-down management looking at it through the lens of the labor theory of value, modified to support class society by defining the duty of the propertied and managerial classes as delivering superior results for the shared benefit of all thus justifying their high share of it could work and might result in a higher level of development in places like Austria-Hungary, and at the same time check the disruptive ambitions of reactionary elements and preempt the equally disruptive tendencies of labor radicalism.

I can't claim I think it would have been terribly likely but the OP here is an open invitation to get the scenario off my chest, and yes I do think that it might have worked. The hard part is getting the monarchy to try it, and then to competently follow through.
 
Presumably, then, a monarchial socialist ideology would have to view the monarch as the embodiment of the proletariat. The means of production are collectively owned by the people, in whom sovereignty resides; however, that sovereignty is delegated to the monarch, who holds the means of production in trust for the people and manages the economy for the greater good. The monarch would, in doctrinal terms, be a servant of the people, much as a party secretary or president might be, and his power to rule would be contingent upon his exercise of that power in the collective interest.

The setup would probably have to include an oversight mechanism to ensure that the monarch is actually wielding his power in trust for the people rather than for his own gain, and the king would be subject to impeachment as an elected ruler would be.

This obviously wouldn't be a monarchy with elaborate court trappings and etiquette, or one where the king would be entitled to live in unearned luxury, but it could conceivably be hereditary. Possibly the ruling family might be seen as the only ones who are above class politics, or maybe the king himself could be the one who conceives and implements the socialist system and believes that his family is the best placed to do the job. Or a more religious socialism could replace the divine right of kings with the divine right of the people as represented by a king. Or, in an alternate Middle East, socialism might develop out of an idealized version of ancient Egypt, in which the Bronze Age palace economy is viewed (through an ideological lens) as a proto-communist system in which land and resources were owned by the state and overseen by the pharaoh.

Very good, except that in my understanding don't socialist leaders generally live in "unearned luxury"?

Sure, they don't OWN the palace, but just traditionally live there.
 
If North Korea is socialist, then the word "socialism" has no meaning and we should stop using it.

The North Korean government has almost TOTAL CONTROL of the North Korean economy so how is NOT socialist? That is what Socialism is about government control over the economy. North Korea is probably the most socialist country on the planet!
 

karikon

Banned
The North Korean government has almost TOTAL CONTROL of the North Korean economy so how is NOT socialist? That is what Socialism is about government control over the economy. North Korea is probably the most socialist country on the planet!


Socialism has no single definition. Although autocratic hereditary regime that practice oppressive despotism is not something socialism has been advocating.
 
Socialism has no single definition. Although autocratic hereditary regime that practice oppressive despotism is not something socialism has been advocating.

Well maybe not the hereditary bit, but oppressive despotism has certainly been advocated by socialists. Remember the dictatorship of the proletariat? Not all socialists mind, but certainly it's not a reason for rejecting North Korea as a (type of) socialist state.

Presumably, then, a monarchial socialist ideology would have to view the monarch as the embodiment of the proletariat. The means of production are collectively owned by the people, in whom sovereignty resides; however, that sovereignty is delegated to the monarch, who holds the means of production in trust for the people and manages the economy for the greater good. The monarch would, in doctrinal terms, be a servant of the people, much as a party secretary or president might be, and his power to rule would be contingent upon his exercise of that power in the collective interest.

The setup would probably have to include an oversight mechanism to ensure that the monarch is actually wielding his power in trust for the people rather than for his own gain, and the king would be subject to impeachment as an elected ruler would be.

I think this is the strongest proposal so far, by far. However, I think we'd have to be careful about some of the wording. If sovereignty is only "delegated" then it's hard to claim it's a monarchy. However, perhaps if you kept it to the monarch naturally and inherently embodying the proletariat you might get there. Perhaps this could come from a situation where nationality A was the overclass of nationality B, and a liberation movement from nationality B threw off the overclass under the leadership of the descendant of an ancient monarch. Thus nationality B can be synonymous with the proletariat, and you can combing the King as father of the nation and father of the proletariat at the same time.
 
Is there any way at all to combine monarchist ideology, with socialism to create a hybrid ideology that promotes a state rules by a monarchy but in which economic and social policies are socialist? Not necessarily Marxist-Leninist socialism, it can be any other form of socialism.

The Prussian self-understanding was kinda like this. The same sort of thing that social democrats say nowadays about the weakness of the Anglo-Saxon model and the need for managed, humane markets and stuff like that was all things the Prussians thought. Of course their version of humane and mine aren't *exactly* the same.

In a Central Powers Victorious TL, I can Germany itself moving in a steadily more welfarist direction and the bloc as a whole going more dirigiste.
 
Well one of the leaders of the Cambodian Revolution that created a Socialist State their was one of the Princes, so their's that.
 
"Napoleon III remarked: "The Empress is a Legitimist, Morny is an Orléanist, Prince Napoleon is a Republican, and I myself am a Socialist. There is only one Bonapartist, Persigny – and he is mad!"

"Emperor Napoleon III is often referred to as the socialist emperor because he gave many socialized programs to the citizens. He gave hospitals, socialized medicine, the right to unionize and strike, shorter hours, injured worker homes, a revamped prison system, and more."


I'm not sure how much of all those policies actually materialized, but Napoleon III might have tried his best to be a socialist given that he was trying to do so in the 19th Century.

The things is, how far more should Napoleon III go to make himself a widely recogised Socialist Emperor?
 
Very good, except that in my understanding don't socialist leaders generally live in "unearned luxury"?

Sure, they don't OWN the palace, but just traditionally live there.

Well, what they do and what they're supposed to do are two different things.

Even so, though, socialist leaders tend to be more discreet about their consumption - remember how the Soviet leadership would always put on a veneer of dowdiness - and this would probably go for monarchies as well. A socialist king might live pretty well behind closed doors, but an ostentatious palace or elaborate court etiquette would be out.

I think this is the strongest proposal so far, by far. However, I think we'd have to be careful about some of the wording. If sovereignty is only "delegated" then it's hard to claim it's a monarchy.

The traditional Christian concept of monarchy involved exactly that, though - the monarch's sovereignty was delegated by God. Replace "God" with "the proletariat" as the highest authority, and you have a basis for delegating the management of the state to a family of trustees.

Or else religion itself could supply the link - imagine, for instance, a variant of Christianity which believes in both the divine right of kings and collective ownership of the means of production. The king's political power would be divinely sanctioned - in fact, it could even be absolute - but he would still be subject to religious law, which would include respect for common ownership of the economic substance of the kingdom.

However, perhaps if you kept it to the monarch naturally and inherently embodying the proletariat you might get there. Perhaps this could come from a situation where nationality A was the overclass of nationality B, and a liberation movement from nationality B threw off the overclass under the leadership of the descendant of an ancient monarch. Thus nationality B can be synonymous with the proletariat, and you can combing the King as father of the nation and father of the proletariat at the same time.

That could work. A "Mandate of Heaven" arrangement might also do the trick - the king would have the right to rule because he embodies the people and their aspirations, and only so long as he continues to do so.

The more I think about this, the more I think we need either a preindustrial socialism (assuming that socialist ideology is even possible without industrialization, which is a debate I won't enter) or else a radical reinterpretation of socialism in a non-Western country where traditional monarchy still has consensus support. It would have to be a socialism that wasn't shaped by 1848 and 1914 - those pretty much put paid to any notion of socialism being compatible with monarchy as we know it.
 
Has anybody here read "King Ludd" by Roy Lewis? It's a satire, yes, but quite relevant to the point and I personally enjoyed it.
More seriously, I guess that Haiti at some point comes close to qualify.

Also, I can't remember any "socialist" Arab monarchy in any meaningful sense of "socialist".
 

Incognito

Banned
Is there any way at all to combine monarchist ideology, with socialism to create a hybrid ideology that promotes a state rules by a monarchy but in which economic and social policies are socialist? Not necessarily Marxist-Leninist socialism, it can be any other form of socialism.
Here is a post-1900 idea: how about Nepal where the monarchy survives as a constitutional monarchy and the Maoists still end up in charge?
Or, in an alternate Middle East, socialism might develop out of an idealized version of ancient Egypt, in which the Bronze Age palace economy is viewed (through an ideological lens) as a proto-communist system in which land and resources were owned by the state and overseen by the pharaoh.
Interestingly enough, OTL Egypt had a nationalist movement that romanticized Ancient Egypt, promoting the idea that Egypt and Egyptians are unique due to their Pharaonic heritage rather than "just a part of the Arab people". Not sure if the movement had any socialist leanings.
 
Presumably, then, a monarchial socialist ideology would have to view the monarch as the embodiment of the proletariat. The means of production are collectively owned by the people, in whom sovereignty resides; however, that sovereignty is delegated to the monarch, who holds the means of production in trust for the people and manages the economy for the greater good. The monarch would, in doctrinal terms, be a servant of the people, much as a party secretary or president might be, and his power to rule would be contingent upon his exercise of that power in the collective interest.

The setup would probably have to include an oversight mechanism to ensure that the monarch is actually wielding his power in trust for the people rather than for his own gain, and the king would be subject to impeachment as an elected ruler would be.

This obviously wouldn't be a monarchy with elaborate court trappings and etiquette, or one where the king would be entitled to live in unearned luxury, but it could conceivably be hereditary. Possibly the ruling family might be seen as the only ones who are above class politics, or maybe the king himself could be the one who conceives and implements the socialist system and believes that his family is the best placed to do the job. Or a more religious socialism could replace the divine right of kings with the divine right of the people as represented by a king. Or, in an alternate Middle East, socialism might develop out of an idealized version of ancient Egypt, in which the Bronze Age palace economy is viewed (through an ideological lens) as a proto-communist system in which land and resources were owned by the state and overseen by the pharaoh.

That's a really eloquent way of putting it.:cool:
 

SATOR

Banned
No, you need a justification that is consistent with collective ownership of the production, which, I think, is impossible.
.

Luck has it i'm working at a fantasy setting and i wanted something similar for one of the main states. How about this: you have a divine king framework in wich the king is considered the kingdom itself personified and talks of himself using royal "we". Now in normal feudalism the king lends the land and the people inhabiting it to the nobles that administer it and theoretically care about their subjects. In this case the king ("being" the kingdom itself and thus all the means of production inside of his borders) lends "himself" to all his subjects equally, only appointing administrators. Does it qualify? In theory it's a monarchy by divine right with a comunist economy and all the downsides of both sistems.
Obviously this is for fantasy, i don't have the first idea of what would make it feasible for alternate history.
Oh! You could have the king being sacrificed every 7 years like the celts i suppose, if you want a more acient framework and POD. This also makes for 7 year plans instead of 5 :D
 
Well, I'm talking about an ideology that promotes socialism, and monarchism at the same time, and not just a country that happens to be both a monarchy and a social-democracy (and to be honest, as a social-democrat I have to say that I'm not a socialist and be "socialism" I meant something leaning a little more to the left).
Take a look at this version of Carlism.
 
Top