the queen 'needs more money'

[scarletghoul]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8615892/Queen-needs-more-money-to-maintain-Royal-homes.html
while the government is taking money from the poor, in full knowledge that it could make 40,000 people homeless ..


Queen needs more money to maintain Royal homes

The Queen has asked the government for more money to deal with a growing backlog of repairs to Buckingham Palace and other royal residences, newly published accounts reveal.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01902/ADCC4A_1902445c.jpg The cost of repairing the crumbling facade of Buckingham Palace is £3.5 million Photo: ALAMY






5:30AM BST 06 Jul 2011

The monarch currently receives £11.9 million a year from the public purse to maintain and repair her homes which include Windsor Castle and St James's Palace.

But because of a pay freeze she can only carry out emergency repairs to the buildings and says she will need more money to stop the royal households from falling into disrepair.

The current budget means that while a £3.5 million repair to the crumbling facade of Buckingham Palace had gone ahead, other key projects had been forced to be put on hold.

These included replacing lead and slate roofs, refurbishing state rooms and overhauling antiquated heating systems.

Officials at Buckingham Palace claimed that as well as the postponing projects, the Queen had tried to balance the books with increased revenues from her estate.

"However, these initiatives alone are unlikely to be successful in averting the growth in backlog in future years and further funding will be required in due course," it concluded.
The claims were outlined in the Queen's Official Expenditure accounts for the year to April.
They show that the cost of supporting the monarchy fell by £1.8 million in the last financial year to £32.1 million, equivalent to a saving of three pence per person.
Thanks to a slight reduction in staff – from 111 to 106 – and a pay freeze, the Civil List spending fell from 14.2 million to £13.7 million throughout the year.
Property management dropped from £15.4 million to £11.9 million and maintaining website and press relations remained about the same at £500,000.
However Royal travel costs rose from £3.9 million to £6 million in 2010/11.
This was mainly due to a one-off repayment of £1.5 million from the trading in of the Royal helicopter keeping costs down last year but was also due to an increase in fees for using RAF aero planes.
This resulted in the royal household chartering more private planes increasing travel fees by £600,000.
The report listed journeys costing £10,000 or more by air or rail.
These included £356,253 for the charter flight costs of the state visit of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh to the United Arab Emirates and Oman in November.
The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall's trip to India as part of an official Foreign Office visit in October cost £298,089 in charter flights.
The Duke of York's charter flight travel in April last year as part of an official UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) and Foreign Office visit to Italy and central Asia cost £121,810.
Sir Alan Reid, keeper of the privy purse, said the fall in spending had been achieved through increased income generation, deferral of property maintenance and a pay freeze for staff which will continue this year.
But he warned that it would be "very difficult" for expenditure to reduce "very much further" without having an effect on the royal household's work to support the Queen and the long-term health of the estate.
"The Queen is very keen that the royal household should continue to reduce its expenditure in line with public expenditure reductions," he said.
"The decrease in expenditure is due mainly to increased income generation, the deferral of property maintenance expenditure and the implementation of a pay freeze.
"This pay freeze will continue on to this year."
He added: "Over the past five years, the Queen's official expenditure has reduced by 19 per cent in real terms and while the royal household will continue to identify efficiencies, it will be very difficult for overall expenditure to reduce very much further without impacting on the royal household's activities in support of the Queen and the long-term health of the estate."
The accounts do not include the cost of providing security for the Royal family.

[bcbm]

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/14400/14403/guillotine_14403_lg.gif

[agnixie]

So, I guess the glorious people's republic just lets official buildings go to shit. (As much as I'm opposed to a monarchy, the "more money" is for things a republic would still be paying for).

Also I don't know where you live, but unless it's a shantytown, 3.5 million pounds isn't paying for 40,000 people's rent even for a month.

I'm more curious about the doubling in traveling costs...

[JustMovement]

What the queen needs is a swift kick in the arse...

[JustMovement]

To agnixie, the Queen has a shit load of properties and is incredibly wealthy. She could easily do these repairs out of her own purse. But its the taxpayer that pays for her shit while she doesnt have to pay tax unless she feels like it.

[agnixie]

To agnixie, the Queen has a shit load of properties and is incredibly wealthy. She could easily do these repairs out of her own purse. But its the taxpayer that pays for her shit while she doesnt have to pay tax unless she feels like it.

Aren't her properties supposed to be taxed to 100% or something? Or is it just the part of it they owned when that deal was signed with parliament in the 18th century and they're basically cashing in?

[JustMovement]

Aren't her properties supposed to be taxed to 100% or something? Or is it just the part of it they owned when that deal was signed with parliament in the 18th century and they're basically cashing in?

To be honest Im not sure. I know that she has massive personal wealth, and I was under the impression that this was subsidised by the state, but I could be wrong.

[jake williams]

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/14400/14403/guillotine_14403_lg.gif
Win and a half.

[Ocean Seal]

Why are there still Royals? I don't get it. I thought that we did away with them during the French revolution. Dammit, don't they know that no one likes them. They get free shit, for doing absolutely no work, and then people complain about welfare? How does this happen? When it comes to slashing programs, why isn't the first reasonable solution, hey how about cutting the guys who earn millions of pounds for just being there? But instead its no cut the NHS or cut welfare.

[agnixie]

To be honest Im not sure. I know that she has massive personal wealth, and I was under the impression that this was subsidised by the state, but I could be wrong.

Arguing against the monarchy based on its costs is honestly missing the point - even if she was like the danish queen (which is the poorest ruling family in Europe and one of the poorest in the world, although they're still millionaires), it would still be the reinforcement of a hereditary caste system, and it has no justification even in bourgeois democracy except as a holdover. It's still a reminder that much of what is the UK is basically her private property and everything is more or less rented/lent through privilege from her, and was "earned" by the sword (on second thought it's also a demonstration of the formation and ties of property and the state). And she doesn't cost much more than any other bourgeois head of state, so it's not exactly a brilliant approach.


When it comes to slashing programs, why isn't the first reasonable solution, hey how about cutting the guys who earn millions of pounds for just being there?
The british budget for 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_budget) - it's a ridiculous fraction of the lot. It would make a lot of noise and accomplish fuck all. Basically it would look a lot like the Necker ministry (which similarly made a lot of noise about cutting royal household expenses, which it indeed did significantly, only it was a fraction of the french budget and it didn't touch the main issues)



Why are there still Royals? I don't get it. I thought that we did away with them during the French revolution.
Wrong country, plus you may have missed the part where France had an emperor in 1804, a king again in 1815, and an emperor again in 1852.

[danyboy27]

i dont understand, the royal family have already a good bunch of assets, why are they in need of money?

[JustMovement]

agnixie, of course I agree 100% with you. Republicanism is the common sense position and it doesnt even need to be argued, however I find it doubly grating that she is to cheap to fix buckingham palace herself eventhouh its supposedly the royal palace. Its like the cherry ontop of the steaming pile of shit that is the monarchy.

[Ocean Seal]

Wrong country, plus you may have missed the part where France had an emperor in 1804, a king again in 1815, and an emperor again in 1852.
Agreed, it was more of an emotional point here. Not saying that Britain got rid of its royals, but the idea that with the French revolution we discovered that they were no longer necessary.

[Geiseric]

I'm not from england or anywhere where there is a monarchy, i guess the president is kinda like a monarch. Actually he's alot like a monarch in a different sense, he serve s the same purpose as the royalty in england i'm guessing. Basically a political celebrity who tries to do stuff he thinks will work in a populist point of view, he tried to do the same shit as roosevelt in the depression in raising taxes, maintaining imperialism, and limiting capitalists from being too fervent but he failed due to the increased political power of modern day republicans who as we know own the oil companies. anyways royalty in england i'm guessing is as useless as the president here.

[Zanthorus]

...with the French revolution we discovered that they were no longer necessary.

There was this funny little period of English history from about 1642-1660 during which there was a Civil War between King and Parliament which ended in the execution of the former and during which Republican sentiments became widespread in some sectors of society particularly among the ranks of the parliamentarian New Model Army. Finally the country was ruled by Cromwell's protectorate before the eventual restoration of the Monarchy in 1660. A lot of the intellectual currents and ideas that led up to the American war of independence and the French revolution can trace their origins to the conflicts in English society during this period, for example the concept that no-one should be subject to taxation without representation, and that men are endowed with natural rights from birth which cannot be revoked by accident of history. Republicanism and chopping the heads of royalty are not confined to the French (In fact the war of independence came before the French revolution, although the dynamic of that conflict was slightly different to both the British and French examples because it was a conflict against a foreign power rather than between political forces in a single nation).

[Geiseric]

The american bourgeois considered themselves to be british, and were basically saying we're british rich people ourselves! Why don't we get to say how much money we would want to give? It wasn't meerly as progressive as most people think, it was switching a foreign tyranny for a domestic one, driven by populism.

[Shropshire Socialist]

I'm not from england or anywhere where there is a monarchy, i guess the president is kinda like a monarch. Actually he's alot like a monarch in a different sense, he serve s the same purpose as the royalty in england i'm guessing. Basically a political celebrity who tries to do stuff he thinks will work in a populist point of view, he tried to do the same shit as roosevelt in the depression in raising taxes, maintaining imperialism, and limiting capitalists from being too fervent but he failed due to the increased political power of modern day republicans who as we know own the oil companies. anyways royalty in england i'm guessing is as useless as the president here.

Except we can vote out a President...

Seriously, I don't see why the state has to fund the royals. Brenda is a very rich woman, and can easily support herself and Stavros.

Harry and William work (albeit part-time) for the RAF, while Charles earns off the Duchy of Cornwall estates.

As for the rest they should get a job like everyone else.

I yearn for the day they are replaced with an elected President, but doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Except we can vote out a President...

I yearn for the day they are replaced with an elected President, but doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Under such circumstance, you can change their face, but not their politics.

[Triple A]

You british pesants have the duty to support people that do nothing and wouldnt piss on you if you were on fire.
Are you pesants daring to challange people above you and above the law because...they were born?

[agnixie]

Further digging tells me that were a bourgeois british republic not to seize royal estates in bulk (which would be relatively justifiable, as the honors of Cornwall and Lancaster are feudal holdovers, although admittedly that's true of much of Britain's property anyway), Buckingham palace would still belong to the republic. The other residences vary - the two mentioned in the article would belong to the state as well.

Also what Takayuki said - a british republic would have the exact same politics it has had for the past two centuries, monarchy or not. Even if electoralism actually worked, the chances of this changing anything in the UK would still be inexistent.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Why are there still Royals? I don't get it. I thought that we did away with them during the French revolution.

The 'funny' thing is that even up to today, the president of France is also the co-prince of Andorra. So basically France still has a monarch, although it is an elected monarch (but not by the people whose country he rules).

[Tim Finnegan]

Aren't her properties supposed to be taxed to 100% or something? Or is it just the part of it they owned when that deal was signed with parliament in the 18th century and they're basically cashing in?
This sums it up quite well:

_2IO5ifWKdw

Also, while it's true that a republican Britain would still have to maintain these buildings, the difference is that it will also be able to turn them over to full public use, rather than the extremely selective, limited use that we get today. The Louvre no doubt costs a few quid to maintain, but that money isn't going to furnish the luxury home of of an insulting anachronism, which isn't nothing.


Also what Takayuki said - a british republic would have the exact same politics it has had for the past two centuries, monarchy or not. Even if electoralism actually worked, the chances of this changing anything in the UK would still be inexistent.
True, but anything to challenge the now-institutionalised assertion that white upper-class Protestants are just plain better than everybody else would be welcome in and of itself.

[agnixie]

This sums it up quite well:

_2IO5ifWKdw

Also, while it's true that a republican Britain would still have to maintain these buildings, the difference is that it will also be able to turn them over to full public use, rather than the extremely selective, limited use that we get today. The Louvre no doubt costs a few quid to maintain, but that money isn't going to furnish the luxury home of of an insulting anachronism, which isn't nothing.

That was actually my point all along - complaining about the amount when it's overall peanuts in a government budget looks trite. Pointing out the recipient of said amount, no matter the amount, otoh: perfectly fine, she symbolizes a lot of things I've already listed upthread :p

Also the inheritance tax added on top is rather interesting.

[Pretty Flaco]

I would think the conservative elements in British politics would be more inclined to want to get rid of the Queen's privilege.

But I guess budget cuts don't count there. :rolleyes:

[Principia Ethica]

Poor Queen. . .having to beg for welfare monies :(
/sarcasm

[Tim Finnegan]

I would think the conservative elements in British politics would be more inclined to want to get rid of the Queen's privilege.

But I guess budget cuts don't count there. :rolleyes:
Pretty much. The utility of the monarchy as an ideological tool far outweighs its cost to the bourgeoisie- or, at least, enough of them buy into all that pomp and ceremony that they believe it to be so. Richard Seymour has a good piece (http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/11/note-on-wedding.html) on that whole set-up.

[Robocommie]

I think Buckingham Palace would make a fantastic history museum for the London masses.

[Hebrew Hammer]

If the queen needs more money, I have some ways she could earn it. ;)

That foxxx.

[Queercommie Girl]

If the queen needs more money, I have some ways she could earn it. ;)

That foxxx.

Please don't indirectly ridicule sex workers. I think sex workers should be considered as actual workers like those in other professions.

[scarletghoul]

way to scoop up all the easy rep after i laid the groundwork, bcbm

[Jose Gracchus]

(In fact the war of independence came before the French revolution, although the dynamic of that conflict was slightly different to both the British and French examples because it was a conflict against a foreign power rather than between political forces in a single nation).

This is pretty misleading, actually. Many American States were torn by internal civil war between the Royalists and Patriots within the context of the greater American war of independence; the Southern States in particular. The English-speaking population of Canada is basically descended from the expelled 'Tories' which lost the American revolution at home. Ontario (then Lower Canada) was founded to accommodate them. Overall though, you are right that its context as a war framed as a struggle for home rule from an imperial metropole, as well as its origin as New World settler colonies, gave it a considerably different dynamic.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Please don't indirectly ridicule sex workers. I think sex workers should be considered as actual workers like those in other professions.

I wasn't, if anything, I was implying that if the queen of England and the colonies wants some extra cash, then she can do an honest job and 'day's work' for it like everyone else and in this case, sex work, due to her being a fox (joke) instead of feeding off the labour of the proletariat like a parasitic tick.

[SacRedMan]

http://radionewz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/TrollQueen.jpg

"I need money for my lulz!"

[Red Future]

I would think the conservative elements in British politics would be more inclined to want to get rid of the Queen's privilege.

But I guess budget cuts don't count there. :rolleyes:

As a UK resident I can tell you that removing the Queen is not an idea found to be popular in the Conservative Party especially in its more rightward elements.

See the Daily Mail or Express

[Pretty Flaco]

As a UK resident I can tell you that removing the Queen is not an idea found to be popular in the Conservative Party especially in its more rightward elements.

See the Daily Mail or Express

So the Queen's role is looked upon as being too traditional to ever consider getting rid of?
Here in the US, some of the right wing doesn't seem to care at all what they cut as long as it saves money. Except for any business related expenses that is.

[scarletghoul]

I think Buckingham Palace would make a fantastic history museum for the London masses.
should use it to house the homeless imo

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't see how the pseudo-feudal ruling class of Britain today is any worse in the essential sense than the capitalist ruling classes of other countries.

How are the red pseudo-"princelings" of China today any better than the real feudal lords and princes of the UK? If anything, they are probably even more corrupt and decadent. At least British princes don't have harems of wives and mistresses like their Chinese counterparts, which is adding to the problem of gender imbalance in China.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I don't see how the pseudo-feudal ruling class of Britain today is any worse in the essential sense than the capitalist ruling classes of other countries.

How are the red pseudo-"princelings" of China today any better than the real feudal lords and princes of the UK? If anything, they are probably even more corrupt and decadent. At least British princes don't have harems of wives and mistresses like their Chinese counterparts, which is adding to the problem of gender imbalance in China.

Seriously, why is everything "pseudo-" to you? Pseudo-crypto-feudalism, hither thither.

You really think the British royalty don't have countless affairs, anyway? Surely you jest! Not to mention how would the infidelities of corrupt officials have anything to do with demographic gender imbalance?

[Queercommie Girl]

Seriously, why is everything "pseudo-" to you? Pseudo-crypto-feudalism, hither thither.

You really think the British royalty don't have countless affairs, anyway? Surely you jest! Not to mention how would the infidelities of corrupt officials have anything to do with demographic gender imbalance?

Affairs yes, but nothing like what the Chinese super-elites do. I just read a news today on the Chinese internet that a super-rich bureaucratic capitalist in China literally raped the daughter of a vice-mayor (not even from an ordinary family) but the court refuses to handle the case at all, and even explicitly told the girl's family to "settle this in private".

How is gender imbalance affected? Have you ever considered how difficult it is these days for poor Chinese men to find wives? If the super-rich in China have multiple wives and mistresses, it would further decrease the number of available women in China. It's simple arithmetic, really.

I said "pseudo-feudal" because frankly it would be stupid for anyone today to think that Britain today is anything other than a completely capitalist country. Just because it still has some superficial feudal veneer doesn't mean anything. And it would also be stupid to think that capitalist France today is somehow "more progressive" than capitalist Britain today just because it has completely got rid of the royal family. Fact is, both Britain and France are neoliberal capitalist, and they are as bad as each other.

Getting rid of the royal family in Britain now isn't really going to make the country anymore "progressive" in the concrete sense. We need to get rid of the entire capitalist class.

My point is that Chinese princelings aren't really any better than the real princes of Britain. I challenge you to show otherwise. I didn't say the British royal family is "better" either in any overall or general sense.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Affairs yes, but nothing like what the Chinese super-elites do. I just read a news today on the Chinese internet that a super-rich bureaucratic capitalist in China literally raped the daughter of a vice-mayor (not even from an ordinary family) but the court refuses to handle the case at all, and even explicitly told the girl's family to "settle this in private".

How is gender imbalance affected? Have you ever considered how difficult it is these days for poor Chinese men to find wives? If the super-rich in China have multiple wives and mistresses, it would further decrease the number of available women in China. It's simple arithmetic, really.

I said "pseudo-feudal" because frankly it would be stupid for anyone today to think that Britain today is anything other than a completely capitalist country. Just because it still has some superficial feudal veneer doesn't mean anything. And it would also be stupid to think that capitalist France today is somehow "more progressive" than capitalist Britain today just because it has completely got rid of the royal family. Fact is, both Britain and France are neoliberal capitalist, and they are as bad as each other.

Getting rid of the royal family in Britain now isn't really going to make the country anymore "progressive" in the concrete sense. We need to get rid of the entire capitalist class.

My point is that Chinese princelings aren't really any better than the real princes of Britain. I challenge you to show otherwise. I didn't say the British royal family is "better" either in any overall or general sense.

Britain today is not pseudo-feudal, it is simply capitalist. There's no such thing as pseudo-feudal apart from perhaps during a transition from feudalism, but the existence of the royal family is not an indication of anything of this sort.

Your first story is nothing that supports your quite frankly strange idea. Corrupt scum always use their connections to get away with all sorts of vile actions, do they not? What makes your Chinese example so exceptional? The fact that the Chinese courts might be more overtly corrupt in the sense that it is obvious to everyone that they make political decisions and bend to the influence of capitalists, it is really just the same as it is in, say, Britain.

Your nonsense about how the lavish sex lives of the Chinese nouveau-riche doesn't make any sense at all. The wealth and influential in all parts of the world do this, and there is no way that it is common enough to be of statistical relevance; it's trivialising and boiling down of real material analysis, considering historical demographics, social development and so on in favour of some pseudo-individualist (to use your phraseology) nonsense where the bourgeoisie are lambasted for "stealing the women", and frankly I think it borders on sexism, and your consistent view of China as exceptionally corrupt and somehow different from other capitalist countries is frankly mistaken and to some extent makes me think of what in more tacky and ridiculous terms would be called "self-hating", in fact, China today boosts many of the features that British society did during the early- and middle of capitalist expansion and in the midst of the industrial revolution.

[Queercommie Girl]

Britain today is not pseudo-feudal, it is simply capitalist. There's no such thing as pseudo-feudal apart from perhaps during a transition from feudalism, but the existence of the royal family is not an indication of anything of this sort.


Which is basically my point, I used the term "pseudo-feudal" to show that Britain today is not really feudal at all despite the superficial "feudal veneer" like the royal family.



Your first story is nothing that supports your quite frankly strange idea. Corrupt scum always use their connections to get away with all sorts of vile actions, do they not? What makes your Chinese example so exceptional? The fact that the Chinese courts might be more overtly corrupt in the sense that it is obvious to everyone that they make political decisions and bend to the influence of capitalists, it is really just the same as it is in, say, Britain.
Quantitatively speaking China today is significantly more corrupt than Britain or even the US. There are statistical figures that show this. Read a bit more before spreading your foolish ignorance.



Your nonsense about how the lavish sex lives of the Chinese nouveau-riche doesn't make any sense at all. The wealth and influential in all parts of the world do this, and there is no way that it is common enough to be of statistical relevance;
In China it is very common, and it is indeed of statistical relevance to some extent.



it's trivialising and boiling down of real material analysis, considering historical demographics, social development and so on in favour of some pseudo-individualist (to use your phraseology) nonsense where the bourgeoisie are lambasted for "stealing the women", and frankly I think it borders on sexism,
What the fuck does sexism have to do with anything?

Do you think the fact that the super-rich can sleep with many women while the poor cannot is not a feature of capitalist society that should be criticised?

Or do you think that no matter what the socio-economic circumstances may be, men always only have themselves to blame if they can't find a wife? You don't think marriage etc is something that is determined by socio-economic factors also? :rolleyes:



and your consistent view of China as exceptionally corrupt and somehow different from other capitalist countries is frankly mistaken
China is exceptionally corrupt, more so than most Western countries and Japan. That's an objective fact.



and to some extent makes me think of what in more tacky and ridiculous terms would be called "self-hating", in fact,
Call me "self-hating" if you want, (I mean it's so "self-hating" for one to hate the ruling class of one's country :rolleyes:) but if you are defending the Chinese ruling class in any way, then I only have 2 words for you: fuck you.



China today boosts many of the features that British society did during the early- and middle of capitalist expansion and in the midst of the industrial revolution.
Yes, and 19th century Britain was indeed a more ruthless and corrupt place than Britain today, so you are proving my point.

But actually I didn't say the Chinese ruling class is worse than the British ruling class in any general sense. The Chinese ruling class may be worse on the domestic front, but they are also not as racist and on the international level China isn't an imperialist power on the same scale as the West is. So Chinese and Western capitalist ruling classes are bad in somewhat different ways, quantitatively speaking.

My primary point, at any rate, is that the British royal family today is certainly no worse than the Chinese "princelings" at all. And anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly very stupid.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Which is basically my point, I used the term "pseudo-feudal" to show that Britain today is not really feudal at all despite the superficial "feudal veneer" like the royal family.


Then you don't need to say "pseudo-feudal" at all. Monarchy can be just as capitalist as it can be feudalism, although it doesn't give off a sense of being "modern".


Quantitatively speaking China today is significantly more corrupt than Britain or even the US. There are statistical figures that show this. Read a bit more before spreading your foolish ignorance.

Official statistics are irrelevant. Lots of things that are by any means corrupt are legal in countless countries and do not break any laws, and are therefore never considered as corruption and not quantified.


In China it is very common, and it is indeed of statistical relevance to some extent.

I'm sure it is, it is very common everywhere that wealthy figures keep a line of mistresses on the side and try their best to abuse any hapless employees they might get a chance to sink their daemonic claws into, it is systemic and global.


What the fuck does sexism have to do with anything?

Do you think the fact that the super-rich can sleep with many women while the poor cannot is not a feature of capitalist society that should be criticised?

Or do you think that no matter what the socio-economic circumstances maybe, men always only have themselves to blame if they can't find a wife? You don't think marriage etc is something that is determined by socio-economic factors also?

Of course it is a feature of capitalist society that should be criticised, but that's also the point; this is a systemic feature of capitalism, whereas you presented this as somehow a unique feature of China.

Apart from the fact that marriage should be abolished, of course it is affected by socio-economic realities, and those with power will use it to toy with those that don't, I have not argued against this whatsoever, what I have argued against is your suggestion that this is a special issue in China. If it is a special case in China because of the existing gender imbalance, then what about the reality that the opposite is true in modern Russia?

I don't disagree that those are things that are the result of economic and social realities and that they are inherent features of capitalism, but it is quite irrelevant whether all men or women have a husband/wife, although you seem to stress this as opposed to the related abuse of power, admitted this might be a question of interpretation and not your sincere opinion--



China is exceptionally corrupt, more so than most Western countries and Japan. That's an objective fact.

Part of that has to do with the current political superstructure in modern China being comparatively undeveloped and young, and it is therefore not directly comparable to the more obscured, legalised and unregistered corruption of countries with longer advanced capitalist history, where such ruling techniques are much more refined and less likely to instil the populous with feelings of direct violation and injustice.


Call me "self-hating" if you want, (I mean it's so "self-hating" for one to hate the ruling class of one's country :rolleyes:) but if you are defending the Chinese ruling class in any way, then I only have 2 words for you: fuck you.

I'm not defending the Chinese ruling class, I am criticising you for suggesting that because the corruption and abuse, where less direct and obvious, is necessarily "less", and because of that, letting other the other scum off more easy, because your presentation gives slightly the impression that they are more tolerable because one might not see them as clearly when they work their criminal magic, so to say.

[bricolage]

My point is that Chinese princelings aren't really any better than the real princes of Britain. I challenge you to show otherwise. I didn't say the British royal family is "better" either in any overall or general sense.
Well ok, but noone actually said they were... in fact noone had even mentioned China until you did.

[Tim Finnegan]

Which is basically my point, I used the term "pseudo-feudal" to show that Britain today is not really feudal at all despite the superficial "feudal veneer" like the royal family.
Actually, monarchist ideology is quite specifically capitalistic, a tradition going right back to Burke. Modern British conservatism has, in truth, far more of the Whigs than the old High Tories about it, and they're very heavily invested in the idea of historical progress stabilised by traditional institutions and social structures. In all likelihood, monarchism would be far easier to do away with if it was out-and-out Royalism, rather than the insidious concoction that we have today.