Good arguments against monarchies?

[Red Commissar]

I'm curious to hear from those of you knowledgeable about Republican movements about solid points against monarchies, particularly the sugarcoated constitutional monarchies. While I know in the end the ruling class rule in either way, I want to hear some arguments that have been used to advance this. And I'd like to see something more than monarchies being a relic or a drain on the coffers.

[Honggweilo]

http://www.republikeinen.nl/

somewhat leftwing non-aligned republican organisation in the netherlands

you can babelfish it :p

[Demogorgon]

They can turn very nasty when the establishment feels threatened. The 1975 Constitutional Crisis is the classic example when it comes to Westminster monarchies. Granted that wasn't the Queen herself acting but her Australian Representative in her name, but it was an unelected person using power drawn from a hereditary source to dismiss an elected Government.

[maskerade]

why should taxes pay for people to be better than the rest?
just seems like such an absurd concept to begin with. but i guess history and culture are the justifications, as per usual

[Sasha]

just look at the last thing the USA had that was close to an monarchy, the Bush family, all the arguments you need

[Red Commissar]

The argument I generally get is that the monarchies in Europe are harmless and don't do anything, and people shouldn't go about removing them. Arguments like GW Bush and presidential families would just lead them to exclaim that it wouldn't be much different on another system. I'm taking a look through the Dutch article to see if I can gleam anything useful.

[Nolan]

Why have one? It makes absolutely no sense in the modern world.

[Red Commissar]

Of course... but some seem to see them as harmless and not worth removing.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Of course... but some seem to see them as harmless and not worth removing.
some monarchies seem harmless?

british tax payers(which is primarily the working class*) pay to feed and clothe those worthless leeches on society that serve no purpose at all.

same with pretty much all currently existing monarchies.

the only monarchy that seems to still have actual state power is Saudi Arabia... and american tax payers(*) are the ones feeding and clothing those worthless bastards who also happen to serve no purpose but being american puppets.

how is taxing a worker to pay for some useless figurehead harmless?

In this picture, probably enough to pay for any budget shortfall in the UK. (hyperbolic i know but seriously)
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/parlymt/parlymt03.jpg

[Red Commissar]

some monarchies seem harmless?

british tax payers(which is primarily the working class*) pay to feed and clothe those worthless leeches on society that serve no purpose at all.

same with pretty much all currently existing monarchies.

the only monarchy that seems to still have actual state power is Saudi Arabia... and american tax payers(*) are the ones feeding and clothing those worthless bastards who also happen to serve no purpose but being american puppets.

how is taxing a worker to pay for some useless figurehead harmless?

In this picture, probably enough to pay for any budget shortfall in the UK. (hyperbolic i know but seriously)
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/photos/parlymt/parlymt03.jpg

I'm just voicing a common sentiment that those who apologize for monarchies, "constitutional" or absolute. I don't need to be convinced about these things, people I talk to may need to however- that's why I'm interested in hard stats about them.

[BrazilianTrotskyist]

A good argument?
They are monarchies...? :laugh:

[Sir Comradical]

The bodies of royalty are probably more efficiently used as a substitute for coal since they incinerate a lot better.

[graymouser]

Monarchies are a fail-safe measure for the ruling class. They basically exist so that, in a social crisis or revolutionary situation, if necessary the monarchy can impose itself as a force "above" society and save the capitalists. This could take different forms, as pointed out with the 1975 crisis in Australia it might mean dismissal of a government, or it could go further against (bourgeois) democracy when that mode of government is no longer serving the bourgeoisie. And in Britain, for instance, the limits to which the elected government can go are sharply limited by the authority of the Queen. There are plenty of good reasons to abolish the monarchies in every country. After all, why would the ruling class pay good money for them if there weren't?

[JacobVardy]

For an old school critique try Tom Paine.

"One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION."

"England since the conquest hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones: yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honourable one. A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm

[gorillafuck]

just look at the last thing the USA had that was close to an monarchy, the Bush family, all the arguments you need
The Bush family was not at all a monarchy.

[Adil3tr]

The bodies of royalty are probably more efficiently used as a substitute for coal since they incinerate a lot better.

I've grown wuite amused by your witty comments. Also like you're sub-name-thing.

[Peace on Earth]

The argument that we should leave it alone because it is harmless (which is wrong in itself) is backwards, in my opinion. No institution, funded by the public, should be in place unless a definate and convincing argument for its existence, without mentioning its current existence, can be brought forth.

[Nolan]

Does it really matter all that much?



“People think they have taken quite an extraordinarily bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy. (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/people_think_they_have_taken_quite_an/326211.html)”

[MarxSchmarx]

The money argument is interesting, but I'm not entirely convinced it is any more of a waste than other trappings and ceremonial crap we bestow on republican heads of state:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/opinion/10kristof.html

Actually among the best arguments I heard against a constitutional monarchy, is that the individuals selected to be monarchs are systematically and rather unfairly deprived of their human rights by accident of their birth - most significantly the right to choose their own vocation and livelihood, but quite a few others as well. Even with all the palaces and the material compensations, frankly we used to have a word for this as a concept - slavery.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can't constitutional monarchs be offset somewhat by non-hereditary elections? There have been rare cases of elected monarchs, and if they abdicate, someone else can take over.

Essentially have a ceremonial president-for-life position that can be abdicated.

[Kiev Communard]

The best argument against the monarchy is that it is no longer performs even those small executive functions it has discharged earlier. For instance, while it may be argued that before 1832 the King of Great Britain had power and functions akin to modern U.S. President and therefore could (theoretically) claim that his positions and lavish expenses are "justified" by his role in the governance, after that time (and especially since Queen Victoria) the British monarchs just turned into glorified parasites, not performing any meaningful executive functions whatsoever.

[MarxSchmarx]

Can't constitutional monarchs be offset somewhat by non-hereditary elections? There have been rare cases of elected monarchs, and if they abdicate, someone else can take over.

Essentially have a ceremonial president-for-life position that can be abdicated.

Maybe. In fact something like this exists in some countries, for example the president of germany or the governor general of Canada.

[Red Commissar]

A good argument?
They are monarchies...? :laugh:

Monarchies are rooted in nationalist sentiment. It's not easy to go on those routes.


Monarchies are a fail-safe measure for the ruling class. They basically exist so that, in a social crisis or revolutionary situation, if necessary the monarchy can impose itself as a force "above" society and save the capitalists. This could take different forms, as pointed out with the 1975 crisis in Australia it might mean dismissal of a government, or it could go further against (bourgeois) democracy when that mode of government is no longer serving the bourgeoisie. And in Britain, for instance, the limits to which the elected government can go are sharply limited by the authority of the Queen. There are plenty of good reasons to abolish the monarchies in every country. After all, why would the ruling class pay good money for them if there weren't?


For an old school critique try Tom Paine.

"One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in Kings, is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION."

"England since the conquest hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones: yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honourable one. A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense3.htm

The issue is that I think Paine's description was more applicable to monarchs of his time. It's not really the same with monarchs today.


Does it really matter all that much? *Engels Quote*

I know. I acknowledged as much back at the beginning


While I know in the end the ruling class rule in either way, I want to hear some arguments that have been used to advance this [Republicanism].

Liberal democracy just creates a different ruling class. As far as I see it in countries where a constitutional monarchy arose, it was an agreement between the new and old ruling classes to prevent a revolution. Before the French Revolution went into overdrive, there were members of the Third Estate that weighed the possibility of transforming France's government into something like the UK's at the time.


The money argument is interesting, but I'm not entirely convinced it is any more of a waste than other trappings and ceremonial crap we bestow on republican heads of state:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/opinion/10kristof.html

Yeah, that's why I don't want to take it in that direction. United States is compounded by the fact that the US president is effectively both Head of State and Head of Government.



Actually among the best arguments I heard against a constitutional monarchy, is that the individuals selected to be monarchs are systematically and rather unfairly deprived of their human rights by accident of their birth - most significantly the right to choose their own vocation and livelihood, but quite a few others as well. Even with all the palaces and the material compensations, frankly we used to have a word for this as a concept - slavery.

Interesting. Haven't heard it described that way.


Can't constitutional monarchs be offset somewhat by non-hereditary elections? There have been rare cases of elected monarchs, and if they abdicate, someone else can take over.

Essentially have a ceremonial president-for-life position that can be abdicated.[/QUOTE]


Maybe. In fact something like this exists in some countries, for example the president of germany or the governor general of Canada.

I guess this could be a step-up if the old aristocracy won't leave. Though I don't think the German President sits for life, but has a similar role of a ceremonial head of state, like the Italian President.


The best argument against the monarchy is that it is no longer performs even those small executive functions it has discharged earlier. For instance, while it may be argued that before 1832 the King of Great Britain had power and functions akin to modern U.S. President and therefore could (theoretically) claim that his positions and lavish expenses are "justified" by his role in the governance, after that time (and especially since Queen Victoria) the British monarchs just turned into glorified parasites, not performing any meaningful executive functions whatsoever.

Indeed, but they have nationalist sentiment on their side. I don't think British republicanism is even that large.

By the way, how is the sentiment of Commonwealth states towards the crown? By this I mean places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc...

[Die Neue Zeit]

The best argument against the monarchy is that it is no longer performs even those small executive functions it has discharged earlier. For instance, while it may be argued that before 1832 the King of Great Britain had power and functions akin to modern U.S. President and therefore could (theoretically) claim that his positions and lavish expenses are "justified" by his role in the governance, after that time (and especially since Queen Victoria) the British monarchs just turned into glorified parasites, not performing any meaningful executive functions whatsoever.

Even the tourism justification is overrated. France has good tourism around Versailles. :lol:

Note to comrade MarxSchmarx: That's not what I meant. The German president and the esteemed GG don't hold their respective positions "for life."

[MarxSchmarx]

Note to comrade MarxSchmarx: That's not what I meant. The German president and the esteemed GG don't hold their respective positions "for life."

I see. But what is the reason for focusing on the duration of the term? The post being largely ceremonial, it seems this is somewhat similar to the situation where you would have, say, a rapid succession of of monarchs that die.

[graymouser]

I see. But what is the reason for focusing on the duration of the term? The post being largely ceremonial, it seems this is somewhat similar to the situation where you would have, say, a rapid succession of of monarchs that die.
Well, from a revolutionary's point of view, you have the whole problem that in any kind of revolutionary situation, the monarchy would be a rallying point for the forces of reaction. Calls for the monarch to solve a pre-revolutionary crisis, or a monarch-in-exile forming the basis for a resistance, are not precisely unknown in history. A president-in-exile doesn't have the same kind of draw as a rallying figure.

But on a visceral level, I have to say any revolutionary should have enough of a connection with the great revolutions of history to feel that monarchs have no right to even the shallow pretense of rule that they do in most constitutional monarchies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I see. But what is the reason for focusing on the duration of the term? The post being largely ceremonial, it seems this is somewhat similar to the situation where you would have, say, a rapid succession of of monarchs that die.

Well you did say this:

Actually among the best arguments I heard against a constitutional monarchy, is that the individuals selected to be monarchs are systematically and rather unfairly deprived of their human rights by accident of their birth - most significantly the right to choose their own vocation and livelihood, but quite a few others as well. Even with all the palaces and the material compensations, frankly we used to have a word for this as a concept - slavery.

"Choose their own vocation and livelihood" also implies that some appointed ceremonial monarch who accepts says years later that he or she wants to remain in the position for life. It's kinda like the Papacy with all the media hype on resignations in the dying years of John Paul II and even in the current regime of Benedict XVI. ;)

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I know that there has been some talk about Kim Jong Il passing on his power to one of his sons... couldn't this be considered monarchy within a leftist (albeit, a fucked up/failed) nation?