Does anybody here know any significant arguments from the left in favour of monarchy? Or in defense of it? I read that an early Swedish social democrat broke from the Gotha program and wrote in his party program that kings had historically done politically significant contributions in property and power structures, as opposed to the bourgeoisie. I can't find that particular party program, so I'd like to find things written in the same vein.
Socdem are not really leftists, more like the left-wing of the Capital.
Monarchy, either constitutional or just as a figurehead, can only be defended as a pragmatic stance. It's always been like this, it works nicely, it unites the country, it gives a nice folklore, the ceremonials look nice, you name it - all are pragmatic answers.
There is not a single purely theoretical reason for a Marxist to defend Monarchy. In fact, most of them would hang the King to give the Revolution a symbol.
Monarchy is even spookier than nationalism
Not just Marxism. The entire damn left.
Is impossible because in purely materialist terms monarchy is when everything even the state is private. And outside of that all monarchist you meet will make arguments from the most dense ideology possible, some of them defend the idea of the state being privatized, other think a monarch could work in a liberal state and other are just dumb and just like the pomp and glamour. Absolutely no monarchist will ever defend monarchy on economic grounds or materialist grounds.
Why would those in favour of a stateless society ever advocate a head of state. What a silly proposition.
Everyone is a king or a queen in sovietopia!
Kim Il Sung is the only good of the korean dictator
korea shows what happen when you trust royalty to much
I personally enjoy the pet monarchs some european parliaments have to some degree, but the media phenomena surrounding them needs to go. Perhaps guillotining every last monarch would be a good solution.
Monarchism is the belief that government should be ruled by heredity. That monarchs can do good things is irrelevant, the social structure of a monarchy with its hereditary caste of rulers is incompatible with the abolishment of class.
Constitutional monarchs are powerless relics, and are functionally no different from the bourgeoisie that actually control their governments.
Pragmatic reformists could invoke national spirit. Which would be denounced by Marxists and Anars as spooks, not entirely without reason.
Aristocratic """Socialism""" is something Marx mentions briefly in the Manifesto, but I'm not aware of any theoretical exposition of it.
Democracy doesn't work.
Socialism without democracy is a de facto monarchy.
If you're a logical thinker you'll eventually end up becoming a traditionalist but most will stagnate and belive in whatever ideology (let it be right or left wing) that makes them feel better.
How can a classless society have a ruling family, which is essentially the ruling class?
Simple, make everyone in society royalty!
The Montagne Blanche
Kirill Vladimirovich/Nikolai Trubetzkoy/other Mladrossists/Eurasians
Closest we got is High Torries and friggin distribuists.
See Kim dynasty and tankies cult of idol worship
Norodom Sihanouk, who sided with the Khmer Rouge, both while they were in power and when they were in exile being funded by burgers
Finaly a honest Rose
Probably some early Utopian Socialist were pro-Monarchy, but outside of that I doubt any socialist is pro-Monarchy.
Not even leftist, apply yourself
Can't find anything
Pure ideology, liberals at best
Interesting, never heard of them before but we could get along.
cambodian history is too complicated.
THE INCANS WERE MONBOL
Every brother and every sister is a tsar.
you made those up, didn't you