ZAROVE wrote:ACTUALLY, in a properly run Monarhcy ( NOT a Monarhcy in which the Monarch is a figurehead and the Democraticlaly eleced Cmmons controls everything) you can't have Socialism precicely becauseof the definition you just posted.
if the Crown owns everything, then its owned by a single person, the reignign Monarch. Its not owned "By the people".
Irt also precludes Cooperative management.
The Crown would own the company and appoint its heads, either directly, IE, the Queen would choose hwo runs it, or indireclty, via lower level maagers doign the workaday hiring for reginal areas or to fill up roles in the company.
In the end, it'd be a sort of "Crown Monopoly" if the Crown took over all of the means of Manufacture and distribution, not a Socialist modle. After all, the Crown woudl own and operate the businesses on its own perogative, not cooperatively in a Democraric Framework.
. . . well, there's a difference between "ownership" as it is demarcated on paper and the reality. "Ownership" may be a formal relation only, even in social terms, and not really allocate any control over whatever it is that's supposedly "owned" by someone. In this sense we could understand a "socialist monarchy" as just a particular, inheritable type of socialist dictatorship, couldn't we? The King holds rights over everything but ostensibly only acts in the general welfare, only in the best interests of all his subjects. And really, that's how monarchy's generally understood right? In that sense, it's akin to socialism since, in theory at least, the King or Queen IS the state, the personification of the state itself, and not really a "private" person at all.
Thus the King or Queen may say . . .
We are not amused
And therefore, the economic system based on monarchy isn't really "private"ownership at all, either.
I personally find the whole idea of "ownership" a bit baffling anyway. Clearly, "ownership" is a perception - or maybe a pretension - or maybe a comfortable illusion - and nothing more. Especially "ownership" of land. Like any human being could ever really own any part of the planet. You own some dirt? - no, it'd be more accurate to say the dirt "owns" you since all you are is a part of it.
Met, your makign several mistakes. They are common.
1: You assume that a Monarchy is a Dictatorship. This is not True. Why is it thatwhen I tell peopel I suppoert Monarhcythey think I want a society with no rights or privladges and in which we are all Slaves to the Crown?
2: That somehow Monarhcies operate in one particular way. The Truth is ther eis no single form of Govenrment called mOnarhcy. Even the Standard idea that a Monarhcy reqires a Hereditary Head of State isn't True. The Holy Roman EMpire was not Hereditary until the itme of the Hapsburg Monarchs, but rather each new EMperor was chosen by a COnclave. The Papacy is another exampel of a sort of Elective Monarchy. The Kings of ANcient ROme before the Republic were themselve elected from the ranks of the COmmon men of Rome and elevated tot he Monarchy by the Plediasite.
3: Socialism is about creating a Social Democracy
. Unless the King is Elected by the peopel form the ranks fo the common man, its not goign to be Socialist. SOcialism seeks to abolish class distinctions, which is a prt f its central message. A Truly Socialist Society woudl operate ont he premise of Equality, in which all people in the society are viewed as beign fo the same rank and class. It is a society in which the workers run the means of production and get to keep the means of their labour, at leatsin theoory, whilst givign back to the society as a whole in the form of Govenrmentally provided services.
The Theory rests on Communal ownership of the means of Manufacture and DIstribution, in which the people own everythign collectively.
Under the type of Monarhcy you jhust mentioend (WHich sint even the type I advocate byt he way) the King woudl own everything. Even if its just on paper, its pretty well established that its not owned "By the people". If the Monarch has to ostentatiosuly only perform actiosn for the welfare of all, and if the peopels elected representitives actually make all the CHoices that hapen, then what is the Monarchs actual Role? It would appease neither Monarhcists nottr Socialists, becuase the Socialists woudl want the Crown Abolishe dint he ame of Democracy, while the monarhcits woudl want the crown given real pwoer and to be allowed to be independant of the Parliment.
4: An Absolute Monarhcy maked the Crown identical withthe State. Not all Monarhcies are Absolute. And even then, not all Absolute Monarhcies make the Crwon identical withthe State. A Feudal Monarhc owned the Government of his Kingdom, or Feif if a Lord, but wa snot Identical with it. Of coruse Feudalism also did nto really have a State to speak of...
5: Even if a State exists, the King or QUeen wudl be seen as the Owner of the State, NOT as beig the State themselves. The Monarhc remaisn a Private Individual.
6: If the Crown owend all the Businesses and every mean of Manufacture and DIstribution, in a sort of Monopoly, and was independant in how such things were actually run, and not reliant on the "Advise" of the Prime Minister, or boudn tot he "WIll of the peopel" VIa their elected Representitives, if the King coudl just up and declare the way things woudl operate, it woudl be nothign at all like SOcialism.
Socialism relies, as I said above, on Social Democracy. The idea of cooperative Ownership also means that those who work at th variosu jobs have a voice in how those jobs are run. The Theory is that they will be part of a Union and will vote int he regulations imposed on workers, how many hours orkers will be permited to work, and what will be prodiuced.
If a Monarch rules instead, an if the peopel arent routinely vitign in a Union on how the Fatory or DIstribution centre is run, then its still not really Socialism.
The King woudl be mroe liek the Owner and proprietor of the COmpany. The workers woudl be his Employees. They woudl nto be "Co-Owners", and woudknt have a say in how the Fatories or stores are managed. The King makes hose decisions.
Thats not Socialism.