For the sake of continuing this argument, let us temporarily say that we all agree that monarchism and socialism are not contradictory, that they are not incompatible, and that they could indeed co-exist within the same political system. What, then, would be the actual point of having monarchism and socialism together? What purpose can they serve, what benefit do they offer to one another? In order to answer that question, let us first declare that monarchism is a means, and that socialism is an ends.
<...>
In a fully realized communist society, for example — after the revolution and after the abolition of state, class, and currency has been accomplished — a monarch could serve as an example of the “ideal communist citizen”, a positive icon for the people to look up to a shining illustration of how they should act and treat one another, or perhaps serve as some sort of “elder” or “wise person” for the commune, offering non-binding advice regarding major decisions; such a monarch is one that “uniquely leads” the people, rather than “rules” or “commands”.
<...>
Finally, there is one last quibble that many socialists will have with monarchism: Succession. No matter how much or what kind of power a monarch has, many socialists will state that it is unfair that a person should have that power, based merely on the fact that a parent was the previous monarch. Indeed, simple hereditary primogeniture succession has proven itself disastrous for thousands of years now. The first-born child (often, the first-born male) inheriting the throne regardless of their competence often ends up disastrous; some absolutist monarcho-socialists, of course, may disagree with this assessment, even so.