Compatibility of Republicanism and Anti-Communism [OOC]

This is something I get a lot - well not that much but I see it enough to bug me - the idea that it's silly, illogical, hypocritical or otherwise paradoxical. More importantly it's not just something you hear from the left, it's not just something you hear from monarchists, it's even something I hear from friends in SACTO.

But the following post I will try to rationally explain why anti-monarchy (republicanism) and anti-communism/socialism/radical leftism are by no means mutually exclusive. I'm not going to try and argue why communism fails or why monarchies are evil or why you should adopt pro-market capitalist republicanism; but rather just explain that simultaneous opposition to both ideologies is quite possible and fully logical...

1) Opposition to the New Order is not support for the Old Guard and Vice-Versa

This point is pretty much as straightforward as it sounds, just because an individual or group opposes the institution of monarchy does not mean they are in support of a communist or radical socialist ideology; and vice-versa.
Now this should be obvious, but unfortunately that's not the case for any side. Any well-versed anti-communist/socialist has likely been in a debate bringing up the crimes of the Soviets or Castro regime just to get hit with a barrage of tangent info about how bad the Czars or Batista were (yes I know Batista wasn't a monarch but it will tie into my argument so bear with me). It's pretty much "OMG if you hate the Soviets you must love the Romanov Dynasty!" Which is not only false it's also a logical fallacy

Now people on the left aren't the only ones guilty of this, there are plenty of monarchists who throw this out too. "OMG you don't like the French Monarchy? You must love the Jacobins!"

Let's go back to the examples of the Cuban and Russian Revolutions I mentioned. Now, while the Russian whites did include tsarist elements, they were also comprised of elements who initially fought to usurp the crown prior to fighting the Bolsheviks. Even better with Cuba, almost all Escambray Rebels and Florida-based exile militias who fought Castro's rule had previously fought Batista. Just because historically monarchies and communist's have bumped heads often, doesn't mean that opposing both simultaneously is either irrational, impossible nor unheard of.

2) Monarchy and Socialism are not mutually exclusive

Ever heard of Wang Mang, the proto-socialist emperor of China?

While real world examples of definitive socialist monarchies or royal socialists are exceptionally few and far between (for understandable reasons); the ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Looking at a hypothetical example: By definition a socialist seeks the public control of the means of production. Now, if the state is the public which is a representation of the people; so in an authoritarian socialist state the means of production are owned by the state, and who is the head of state? Could it be... A King? A Queen? A Duke? An Eaorl?

"OMG Inyur! That's a bad example blah blah blah authoritarian socialism blah blah blah absolute monarchy blah blah blah my specific brand is different!"

Well I say your not entirely wrong, perpetual nay-sayers; but I'm not done!

Now, another example: So in a constitutional monarchy, the royal or other head of state is effectively just a figurehead with some minor power; usually less than or secondary to an elected legislature. So what if that legislative is run by a majority of socialists, communists and other radical leftists? Well you still have a functionally socialist state with a monarch head of state! Even better, that monarch isn't inherently bound by birthright - or whatever silliness they choose their kings by - to adhere to a traditionalist or conservative doctrine. What if His Majesty happens to be in favor of the redistribution of wealth?

These are just a few examples - and it's worth noting that NS II is vast, colorful and I have run into plenty Pink Crowns in the five years I have been on here - but the point is that if its not impossible to be both monarchist and communist, then it's no means impossible or outlandish to be both anti-communist and anti-monarchist.

3) Ideological Strawman argument

This might sound similar to Point 1, and it is a bit related, but it is that the absolute assumption I brought up in point one can be and often are based upon strawman arguments derived from ideological bias.

For example: A communist or radical leftist sees themselves as fighting a revolution against what they believe to be a caste system favoring the "bourgeoisie class"; ergo anyone fighting radical leftism must then be acting for said "bourgeoisie class".
Henceforth, to said communist/socialist it becomes illogical or hypocritical to support the bourgeoisie by opposing leftism while also acting against the top class.

Opposing example: A monarchist sees the monarchy as the defenders of tradition, the natural and historical leaders and guardians of their nation/people, while communists and radical leftists are seen as natural enemies of the nation and its people and culture; ergo anyone against the crown must then be acting in favor of said national enemy.
Henceforth, to said monarchist it becomes illogical or hypocritical to support (whether intentionally or unintentionally) said enemies of the nation while also advocating the removal of the main institution opposing such national enemies.

The problem is that both these assumptions are strawmen. [Most] people don't oppose communism and socialism because they love the so-called "bourgeoisie" or more recently "The 1%!"; they do so based on a reasons of economic viability and individual liberty. Because such strawmen pre-conceived notions about opposition to given ideologies exist, it leads the false conclusion that opposition to one cannot be opposition to another...

Closing Remarks

Well I hope I did a decent job of explaining the plausible, rational and historically present compatibility between opposition to the two mentioned ideologies. For some of you this is like "lol duh dude" and I'm certain I might still get TG's starting with "Well ackutuahlly...!" but yeah it is what it is.

As a final note I want to point out you would be hard pressed to find an openly anti-communist American who if sent back in time to 1776 wouldn't have fought the English crown just as they would any hypothetical communist threat (assuming they aren't just all talk). Colombian soldiers battling the FARC, one of the largest marxist rebel groups in Latin America up until very recent developments, trace their lineage back to Símon Bolivar's revolutionaries ousting the Spanish crown, hardly any of them (if any at all) could be expected to support a return to Spanish rule just because the FARC & ELN are a bunch of card-carrying communists. Those pesky Escambray rebels I love to bring up; if they didn't like Batista and didn't like Castro you think they would suddenly want to be ruled by foreign royals again just because Fidel and Raul are commies?
The more you think about, the more sillier this idea that anti-communism and anti-monarchism are incompatible becomes!