Monarchy

[the last donut of the night]

Today (I believe I'm right here), most of the European monarchy doesn't own land or means of production -- aside from a few castles, boats, and so on. If they don't own means of production, do we classify them as capitalists?

[Ismail]

They defend and participate in the bourgeoisie state, not to mention that they obviously hold reactionary positions. For all intents and purposes they are capitalists.

[ComradeOm]

The Western monarchies today comprise an emasculated class that really would have died out years ago if not for some historical peculiarities in the development of some bourgeois states. Despite that they still comprise a distinct class of their own insofar as their wealth is derived from landholdings or the state. What is very common (particularly so in Britain) is that many of these lords and ladies have invested considerable sums of capital in industry, which now provides the foundations of their wealth and status. In this case, and only this case, they can be considered capitalists

[Black Sheep]

Also, why do the british tolerate the existence of royalism? :confused:

[Ismail]

Also, why do the british tolerate the existence of royalism? :confused:British nationalists generally see the monarchy as representing the unity of Britain. Plus the monarchy has little actual governmental power (what little they have they're expected to just follow along with the government in power), so it's pretty much a "Good outweighs the bad" situation for them.

There's also the outright monarchists, but they're a bit nutty.

[New Tet]

I recall years ago seeing the cover of Forbes or Fortune magazines that proclaimed Her Royal Houndness, Queen Elizabeth 2, as the richest woman in world. So, if that was accurate I would surmise that they have money, property and holdings of considerable value that place her and her inbred brood among the top echelons of the ruling capitalist class.

[the last donut of the night]

Thank you guys. I come from Brazil, where we unfortunately were the only Southamerican country to have a monarchy -- and it didn't do us much good. Plus, I don't care if the monarchs have no power -- their presence is disgusting, because monarchy just comes from the idea that one family is seemingly divine to rule a nation. It's repulsive.

[Demogorgon]

Members of Royal families (not the sitting monarch themselves) will usually support themselves through business ventures and they find it very easy to do so given their position, so they fit nicely into the capitalist category. But the institution of the monarchy itself is actually a holdover from Feudal times. Their constitutional role is merely symbolic, they are there simply as national figureheads and to represent the State. Whatever the class interests of the state-the class interests of the monarch roughly.

So yes, the European monarchs are capitalist.

[Misanthrope]

The state is a capitalist entity. It is an institution of class rule. They participate in the state.

[Revy]

Also, why do the british tolerate the existence of royalism? :confused:

The Queen is seen as some "national symbol" or the monarchy is seen as part of "British culture".

Personally I think they might lean toward the side of abolishing it if Prince Charles becomes King.
o1vegW3MhjM

[scarletghoul]

Yeah for some reason people think the monarchy is good because its "tradition" and a symbol and stuff. Plus many people also believe the bullshit thing about the queen only costing us 60p or whatever it is.

Anyway the monarchy are not technically capitalists, but they do obviously function as part of the bourgeois state and need destroying.