Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #1 
Socialism and monarchism isn't incompatible, because it is possible to be a socialist without being a Marxist. A society is an organism, and all parts of an organism must be treated well. Employers exploiting workers must be prohibited. The workers must be allowed to form trade unions and to strike in order to defend their rights. I'm opposed to free-market capitalism. I support strong state regulation of the economy, but I'm not opposed to private enterprise. I support university education and health care being free of charge, strong public welfare systems and state ownership of public utilities and natural resources. I like social democracy as an economic system, but I dislike contemporary Western European social democratic parties, because they are globalists, who support mass immigration, closer European integration and liberal cultural policies.
andrujsh

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #2 
Thank you for introducing this topic.  The term socialism has been waved about a great deal in the last few years (I am writing from the US) but I wonder what people mean when they say it.  What I gleaned from your statement that you see socialism as government involvement and/or management of the economy, as well as a strong welfare presence?  I ask because I think that real discussion takes place when we define our terms.
__________________
Andrew J. Shaffer
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrujsh
Thank you for introducing this topic.  The term socialism has been waved about a great deal in the last few years (I am writing from the US) but I wonder what people mean when they say it.  What I gleaned from your statement that you see socialism as government involvement and/or management of the economy, as well as a strong welfare presence?  I ask because I think that real discussion takes place when we define our terms.

Yes, socialism is an economic system, which is about state control of the economy and public social welfare systems. In USA, socialism is often confused with Communism, but social democracy is a form of socialism too. Communism is about abolishing private ownership of the means of production, while social democracy accepts private enterprise, while supporting state regulation of the economy and supporting the establishment of public social welfare systems.
In addition, other forms of socialism exists.
Libertarian socialism is about abolishing private ownership of the means of production, like in Communism, but libertarian socialism is opposed to Soviet-style Communism, because they want the workers to control their companies directly, while state-appointed managers ran the companies in USSR.
Fabian socialism is a version of socialism, which originates in Great Britain. It is quite similar to social democracy, but Fabian socialism is non-Marxist, while mainstream Western European social democracy is a moderate version of Marxism. Fabian socialism reject class struggle. Fabian socialism wants socialism to be introduced from above by legislative reforms rather than by working-class struggle against the capitalists. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of independent India, was a Fabian socialist. He didn't support abolition of private enterprise in India, but he introduced heavy regulation of private enterprise. 
Arab socialism, a version of socialism developed by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a former president of Egypt, is inspired by Fabian socialism. Nasser supported a mixed economy, where the state owns banks, heavy industry and foreign trade, while agriculture, artisanry, small industry and domestic trade remains privately owned. Nasser rejected Marxism, because he rejected atheism and class struggle. He wanted socialism to be nationalist and to accept Islam. A lot of Arab governments emulated Nasser's Arab socialism, including Gaddafi and Hafez al Assad, the father of the current president of Syria.
I'm a Fabian socialist. I reject class struggle, because I consider the nation an organism, and all parts of the organism must be treated well. I reject cultural Marxism, which is about atheism and opposition to monarchies and nationalism. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #4 
I think something like Distributism is preferable to either socialism/social democracy or neoliberalism. That is, an economic system built around subsidiarity, family, and community.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I think something like Distributism is preferable to either socialism/social democracy or neoliberalism. That is, an economic system built around subsidiarity, family, and community.

What's wrong with social democracy as an economic system? I don't support subsidiarity. I prefer state regulation of the economy. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #6 
I dislike social democracy because it is based on centralised state bureaucracy and has little regard for family, community, faith, etc.

I think all traditionalists tend to valur highly subsidiarity, because they value highly family, community, localism and regionalism, etc. There are some variations in intensity, of course, but it is an attitude we find almost as much in supporters of more autocratic or traditionalist societies as we do in supporters of more limited, constitutional, or liberal ones. You find it in European counter-revolutionaries, like Bonald or Maistre, or in Chinese Confucianism as in Burke or Disraeli. I don't think autocratic monarchies were about directing all aspects of social and economic life from the centre. These societies were still a patchwork of local and regional variations, as well as other social divisions. To the degree a monarchist or monarchy did become overly totalist, I think that was, and is, a mistske. If we are to have strong traditional families and local communities, these must need have a degree of authority and autonomy. To replace these lattet with officials of a totalist state, even if that state is a monarchy, is a mistake.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I dislike social democracy because it is based on centralised state bureaucracy and has little regard for family, community, faith, etc.

I think all traditionalists tend to valur highly subsidiarity, because they value highly family, community, localism and regionalism, etc. There are some variations in intensity, of course, but it is an attitude we find almost as much in supporters of more autocratic or traditionalist societies as we do in supporters of more limited, constitutional, or liberal ones. You find it in European counter-revolutionaries, like Bonald or Maistre, or in Chinese Confucianism as in Burke or Disraeli. I don't think autocratic monarchies were about directing all aspects of social and economic life from the centre. These societies were still a patchwork of local and regional variations, as well as other social divisions. To the degree a monarchist or monarchy did become overly totalist, I think that was, and is, a mistske. If we are to have strong traditional families and local communities, these must need have a degree of authority and autonomy. To replace these lattet with officials of a totalist state, even if that state is a monarchy, is a mistake.

I support state-controlled welfare systems, because that's the most efficient way of helping the poor, and I support state regulation of the economy, because that's the most efficient way of preventing exploitation of the workers. But I support strong trade unions too, because strong trade unions are very important in order to fight exploitation of workers. I agree with you concerning traditional families being very important. Care for children and the elderly ought to be the responsibility of the family rather than of the state. In Kurdistan (I'm a Kurd), the traditional family fortunately remains strong.
andrujsh

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #8 
In the best of all possible worlds, I would tend toward distributism, but with some elements of socialism, or at least government intervention, in the large sectors of the economy.  Social welfare should exist, but at the lowest level possible, to allow for accountability (that is, local people should be answerable to other local people and should not imagine that there is a cornucopial honey pot sitting over the horizon.)  That being said, we live in a titanic economy, a kind of ecosystem and we must tinker with it gingerly.
__________________
Andrew J. Shaffer
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrujsh
In the best of all possible worlds, I would tend toward distributism, but with some elements of socialism, or at least government intervention, in the large sectors of the economy.  Social welfare should exist, but at the lowest level possible, to allow for accountability (that is, local people should be answerable to other local people and should not imagine that there is a cornucopial honey pot sitting over the horizon.)  That being said, we live in a titanic economy, a kind of ecosystem and we must tinker with it gingerly.

University education and healthcare ought to be free of charge and funded by the state and a strong social safety net ought to be funded by the state. Public utilities (e.g. water, electricity, gas, railroads, airports and telecommunication) and natural resources (e.g. oil, natural gas and mining) ought to be owned by the state.
andrujsh

Registered:
Posts: 7
Reply with quote  #10 
I might support college education paid for my the state, but with the caveats that only those with high grades and proven academic performance receive this help; that would eliminate the claim that some people "deserve" an education.  Also, I would say that such education must be education, not a chance to party, explore yourself, etc.  The student enters a program and completes it.  If the student changes his mind, then he needs to start at the beginning.  However, given the human (and youthful) tendency to change the mind, I would support also a year of either employment, volunteer service, or military service, a time away from home, to see new things and get ideas as to what he would like to do or have aptitude for.
__________________
Andrew J. Shaffer
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrujsh
I might support college education paid for my the state, but with the caveats that only those with high grades and proven academic performance receive this help; that would eliminate the claim that some people "deserve" an education.  Also, I would say that such education must be education, not a chance to party, explore yourself, etc.  The student enters a program and completes it.  If the student changes his mind, then he needs to start at the beginning.  However, given the human (and youthful) tendency to change the mind, I would support also a year of either employment, volunteer service, or military service, a time away from home, to see new things and get ideas as to what he would like to do or have aptitude for.

In Kurdistan, university education is free of charge, and it works well. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.