Monarchy during /after the revolution

[Lanky Wanker]

What would happen to the queen (of England in this example, but obviously applying the idea to any country) during a revolution and/or transition into communism? I doubt we could just walk into Buckingham Palace and drag her out by the hair then kick her in the head a few times while the fluffhead guards just watch and laugh - although that is a very nice idea - so what would happen? Also, seeing as no one would own the palace after the abolition of property, what do you think it would be used for? Wedding receptions? :confused:

[tfb]

She and her children and her dog would be executed.

[Smyg]

Expropriation of royal resources, dethronement, removal of all privileges, reeducation if found to be an enemy of the revolution. Obviously. As for the Swedish royal family, I'd be in favour of execution for the king and gulag for the rest, but that's just my personal opinion.

As for palaces and such, they're both historical heritage, often excellent pieces of architecture, and good reminders of monarchist decadence. See how the Winter Palace in Leningrad was turned into a museum.

[Q]

The act of revolution is the act of the organised working class as a class-collective. As such, I'm sure that the guards at Buckingham won't be much of a problem when the time comes. In 1917, the Winter Palace wasn't stormed either; this wasn't necessary as St Petersburg was already fully under control of the Soviet at the dawn of the day. Only a handful of casualties fell that day, such was the level of organisation and preparation by the masses of the city and their organisations.

However, it is not only the queen communists oppose, but indeed all kinds of top-down hierarchies. Presidents and president-like Prime Ministers must equally be opposed and abolished. The whole capitalist state, designed to keep a tiny elite in power, must be destroyed and replaced by a state that empowers the vast working class majority. Only under these conditions can we move towards a classless society.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

She and her children and her dog would be executed.

Why would you clump a dog in with that monarchist garbage?

[Manic Impressive]

It depends on the revolution. I don't think the state can be captured militarily so there would probably be no need for an execution although the animosity towards them could be so great that people may take revenge. As for palaces and government buildings specifically Buckingham palace I can think of no better use than to immediately house as many homeless people there as possible. And if the royals want to stay and share their houses with the homeless that's fine by me.

[Zealot]

Her property would be confiscated and put into the hands of workers, she would be given a normal house and made to work a 9-5 job along with the proletariat. Or executed it wouldn't worry me but it's not necessary if we could make the "royal family" become productive members of society. And then they would eventually die and the monarchic blood would be no more. Then we can all celebrate with cigars and vodka in a true communist fashion.

[tfb]

Why would you clump a dog in with that monarchist garbage?

I've seen on the show Wishbone that a dog could become king. We cannot be too careful.

[Black_Rose]

What would happen to the queen (of England in this example, but obviously applying the idea to any country) during a revolution and/or transition into communism? I doubt we could just walk into Buckingham Palace and drag her out by the hair then kick her in the head a few times while the fluffhead guards just watch and laugh - although that is a very nice idea - so what would happen? Also, seeing as no one would own the palace after the abolition of property, what do you think it would be used for? Wedding receptions? :confused:

I don't know much about Monarchy in England. BTW, has the Queen said anything specifically that advocates neoliberalism or shows contempt towards the working class? If not, the revolutionaries should just let her live, and at worst, suffer house arrest, since she does not seem culpable for any of the excesses of modern global/financial capitalism, as she seems to be a titular figure.

[Smyg]

The queen is utterly powerless. Unlike, say, the Russian czar, who (unlike his children) totally had it coming.

[tfb]

I think the Queen used her power once in Australia. And she at least has the power to get tons of money from her subjects.

[RedGrunt]

She should be killed. Wtf.

[tfb]

Prince Charles has apparently used a secret veto a few times. Maybe the Queen has too.

[Smyg]

Secret veto? They actually have that? Shit, I was assuming they were as pathetic as the Swedish royals.

[Manic Impressive]

The queen is utterly powerless. Unlike, say, the Russian czar, who (unlike his children) totally had it coming.
That's not really true
http://www.revleft.com/vb/so-you-think-t162930/index.html?t=162930

[Lanky Wanker]

However, it is not only the queen communists oppose, but indeed all kinds of top-down hierarchies. Presidents and president-like Prime Ministers must equally be opposed and abolished. The whole capitalist state, designed to keep a tiny elite in power, must be destroyed and replaced by a state that empowers the vast working class majority. Only under these conditions can we move towards a classless society.

Of course we must get rid of all hierarchies, but I asked about the queen in particular because she's a bit of a different story from prime ministers and presidents.

To the other replies about taking her property and so on: I understand that all of this would happen, but my question was more how exactly would we get her out? I just can't picture her saying "here you go, commies!" and moving into a one bedroom apartment. LOL and the thought of her getting a job is hilarious.

Thanks for the replies though.

[Lanky Wanker]

I don't know much about Monarchy in England. BTW, has the Queen said anything specifically that advocates neoliberalism or shows contempt towards the working class? If not, the revolutionaries should just let her live, and at worst, suffer house arrest, since she does not seem culpable for any of the excesses of modern global/financial capitalism, as she seems to be a titular figure.

To be honest I have no idea - I want to punch her just watching her speech on TV every Christmas, so listening to her wrinkly old lips flapping about the working class is the last thing I'd waste my time on.

[tfb]

OK, it looks like we can't know whether Prince Charles has used his veto because FOIA requests don't work on correspondence between him and the government. Sorry about saying that he used it a few times. He was just *offered* it a few times.

[The Idler]

ozyMDcC4F4g

[Agent Ducky]

I've seen on the show Wishbone that a dog could become king. We cannot be too careful.

You just reminded me of how much I miss that show. Nostalgia.....

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

She should be killed. Wtf.

I bet that when Muammar Qaddafi was murdered you were the first to bring in the 'age' card.

I don't think any Socialist revolution will end up killing a harmless octogenarian. Just expropriate her palaces and wealth and let her die off in peace, she's harmless. The monarchy will die with any revolution, just not literally as, in the case of the commonwealth monarchy, such violence really isn't necessary, desirable or justifiable.

[ComradeOm]

I don't think any Socialist revolution will end up killing a harmless octogenarianUnfortunately it's not that straightforward. It is actually about her and it's not. One of the features of monarchy is that it is embodied in an individual. That is, you have Elizabeth Windsor and you have Queen Elizabeth II who are the same person. It is perfectly possible that the abolition of the latter requires the removal of the former. Her age, sex or personal characteristics are pretty much irrelevant: she is the monarchy

Now I'm not going to pretend to know how a socialist revolution in England will play out or to seriously debate the merits of shooting an old woman. That's just play acting. However previous revolutions certainly suggest that when it comes to abolishing the institution of the monarchy then regicide is both necessary and justifiable

[dodger]

THE EMPEROR of CHINA became a gardener. Socialism needs gardeners.

[kashkin]

I guess it depends. If say she supports any counter-revolutionary forces, then I would say she should be executed (assuming the other military and political leaders are). If she decides to step down and take no further part, then I don't see any reason why she should be killed. Though Comrade Om is right, in a sense the monarchy is synonymous with the bearer of the title. Maybe she could be kept under guard to make sure she isn't used as a figurehead for any anti-socialist forces.

[thefinalmarch]

The queen is utterly powerless.
Not if we're talking about the British queen. In 1975 her official representative here in Australia (the governor-general John Kerr) dismissed prime minister Gough Whitlam, dissolved parliament, called over 21 bills which were to be approved by the senate, and rescheduled elections for later that year.

It's an important lesson for anyone who wishes to take any sort of parliamentary approach to socialism -- whether it be for the purposes of reformism or simply to get our ideas "out there in the public discourse", as a few revlefters have argued for. If the establishment handles conflicts between bourgeois factions in such a manner, imagine what would happen if communists gained control of the bourgeois state today and attempted to put forward revolutionary measures?

on a somewhat related note here's a photo of communists in sydney 1975 protesting Kerr's decision:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Whitlam_dismissal_19751111_Sydney.jpg/774px-Whitlam_dismissal_19751111_Sydney.jpg

[Lanky Wanker]

THE EMPEROR of CHINA became a gardener. Socialism needs gardeners.

...wtf?

I'd just be stood there laughing at him all day.

[Lanky Wanker]

Oh and another question: wouldn't the armed forces be a problem during a revolution, seeing as few people agree it could be peaceful?

[Iron Felix]

The English Monarchy is one of the most powerful and richest entities in the world, responsible for numerous crimes. These crimes are not forgiveable.

[Zav]

They would be stripped of their status and property. They could join the proles if they wanted to. They should all be given a chance to reform, especially the children. Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead, so I don't think she would be dragged through the streets. She has virtually no power to abuse and under the Capitalist system she does actually bring a shit-ton of money to the UK through tourism, not that justifies her position's existence. Many palaces around the world would be recycled or turned into museums after the inevitable vandalism has been cleaned up.

[Rooster]

I don't know what would happen with the monarchy. I don't know how heavily entrenched the idea of monarchy is in the UK. I think the general attitude in Scotland is to get rid of them (obviously). I do not know about in England though. The idea of monarchy is pretty tied up with the idea of English nationalism, isn't it? Regicide might be acceptable in some places but completely abhorrent in others but in the others the notion of going without a monarchy might be abhorrent in itself.


she does actually bring a shit-ton of money to the UK through tourism

You say that like if France still had a monarchy then they'd have more tourists :rolleyes:

[IndependentCitizen]

Fuck a musuem, could be an awesome rave building. (The Palaces, that is.)

[thefinalmarch]

She has virtually no power to abuse
Did you even read the thread?

[Ocean Seal]

Shouldn't the last revolution have gotten rid of the Queen? The queen and her royal court can do some actual work after the revolution or starve like they let the men in the H-block do.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The queen is utterly powerless. Unlike, say, the Russian czar, who (unlike his children) totally had it coming.
The British royalty is quite powerful. British citizens are taxed a fortune to pay for their decadent lifestyle.
Considering the acts of enslavement, aggresive war, and oppression that old hag is responsible for I'd say she's earned an execution.

[Smyg]

Of course they cost a lot, I mean that they have no formal power as monarchs. :rolleyes:

[thefinalmarch]

Of course they cost a lot, I mean that they have no formal power as monarchs. :rolleyes:
See:

Did you even read the thread?

[Misanthrope]

Oh and another question: wouldn't the armed forces be a problem during a revolution, seeing as few people agree it could be peaceful?

In modern times a successful revolution would need the support of the nation's armed forces.

[dodger]

...wtf?

I'd just be stood there laughing at him all day.

wtf indeed...don't you think he was tortured enough, working for a living??

I can see the milk of human kindness doesn't run in your veins, fellow subject !!

[Cencus]

Of course they cost a lot, I mean that they have no formal power as monarchs. :rolleyes:

The British Queen has the power to stop any bill becoming law, appoint the Prime Minister, sees all Parliamentary papers, appoint Governor Generals in most commonwealth countries, is head of England's largest religion, owns every piece of land from high tide to lower mark and so on. That she hasn't actually exercised her political powers bar those mentioned above doesn't mean she can't.


Charles has been far more active politicly, using the prestige of his title to push various causes he has championed (alternative medicine, conservation, architecture) and is known to regularly write to ministers & MPs badgering them to follow his ideas. All hell is gonna break loose once Chuck gets the crown and starts poking his nose in where it isn't welcome.

[Aleenik]

Why are some people here seriously debating whether or not to kill a monarch and his/her family during a Communist revolution? Are so many communist that mentally ill? Seems like some sadistic wannabe mass murderers are attracted to communism... though it's not like we didn't know that already.

Of course the monarchs, presidents, etc should be allowed to live. We shouldn't even need to mention that. They have a right to life just as all of us do. They would of course be deposed and dealt with as necessary, but unless they are holding a gun to you... killing them is a thought of sadistic mass murderers who just want to get one more person on their checklist of who they are allowed to kill/see killed during a revolution.

[Buttress]

Of course the monarchs, presidents, etc should be allowed to live. We shouldn't even need to mention that. They have a right to life just as all of us do. They would of course be deposed and dealt with as necessary, but unless they are holding a gun to you... killing them is a thought of sadistic mass murderers who just want to get one more person on their checklist of who they are allowed to kill/see killed during a revolution.

Careful, you'll be labelled as a "moralist" if you say sensible things like that :)

[thefinalmarch]

fucking moralists :closedeyes:

[Lanky Wanker]

I just realised the swans would be freed too if we kicked the queen off her seat... I'm gonna go kill one tomorrow just to be a rebel.

[brigadista]

with any luck living on the kingsmead estate pulling her pension and hoping for a cold weather payment...

[rundontwalk]

There is a risk that by allowing the monarch and his/her immediate family to stay on the scene they could serve as symbols for the opposition to rally around. At the very least they would have to be exiled.

[thefinalmarch]

There is a risk that by allowing the monarch and his/her immediate family to stay on the scene they could serve as symbols for the opposition to rally around. At the very least they would have to be exiled.
It's absurd to think they'd even stay in the country out of their own volition if they saw the revolution wasn't going their way. Earlier this year, for example, president Ben Ali of Tunisia underwent a self-imposed exile to Saudi Arabia.

[dodger]

I just realised the swans would be freed too if we kicked the queen off her seat... I'm gonna go kill one tomorrow just to be a rebel.

SIR,
I begin to suspect you are quackers !

BRIGADIER DODGER(Retd.)


Go sit in a dark room and enjoy...better still visit one of the reserves...fresh Autumn air in your lungs. The birds have started migration and are all in breeding plumage having just arrived.....ENJOY!!!

ps. Please note the BLACK Swans. I am not a white supremacist...least of all where waterfowl are concerned.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wildfowl%20swans&source=video&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CHAQtwIwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F11625525&ei=TfrBTtPhDeuOiAfUlpj6DQ&usg=AFQjCNEYGu6LZn0n5T--qy_ejs9tYJ-wyQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wildfowl%20swans&source=video&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CGkQtwIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3ah YlbSgq-I&ei=TfrBTtPhDeuOiAfUlpj6DQ&usg=AFQjCNFMziXZx2L8Qsy_EmloJpk1uE4wqg

[dodger]

with any luck living on the kingsmead estate pulling her pension and hoping for a cold weather payment...

I thanked you Brigadista...although I had very mixed feelings about being suddenly reminded of KINGSMEAD. I decided as I wholeheartedly endorse your post to acknowledge by ...thanks. Could I on the other hand ask you never to mention K****** again on any thread...double thanks!

[Manic Impressive]

I don't know what would happen with the monarchy. I don't know how heavily entrenched the idea of monarchy is in the UK. I think the general attitude in Scotland is to get rid of them (obviously). I do not know about in England though. The idea of monarchy is pretty tied up with the idea of English nationalism, isn't it? Regicide might be acceptable in some places but completely abhorrent in others but in the others the notion of going without a monarchy might be abhorrent in itself.
There's certainly a lot more support down here for the monarchy than there is in Scotland. But I believe that support for a republic is around 20% - 25% although I think that might be across the UK idk, they never asked me :). But certainly there was very mixed reaction to the prince and duchess getting poked last year. I think that was a great moment for propaganda in our favour, at least from the reactions I noticed.

[Zostrianos]

If they were real monarchs, with political muscle and who had committed abuses during their rules, then I'd vote for them to be arrested and put on trial. The queen of England (and other symbolic monarchs) however, have no political power, and (as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong) never really oppressed or harmed sections of society directly (other than being filthy rich while many people starve to death). I agree, there's no place for any monarchy (albeit symbolic) in a socialist state, but I would simply have them stripped of their status and most possessions, and have them work like everyone else. If they were elderly (like the queen), I would permit them to move into a modest dwelling and grant them a retirement pension (not superior to that of the average citizen).

[roy]

I find it disturbing that people are happy for the queen and other royals to be executed. I can't imagine any royals or important politicians sticking around post-revolution, but if they did they could be integrated into society like everyone else.

[Zostrianos]

There's no place for savagery and murder in a socialist society. Shame on you people :thumbdown:.
If the royals are guilty of crimes and oppression, let them be put on trial and judged. Killing solves nothing, and only makes things worse. We aim to create a free and just society don't we?

[rundontwalk]

I can't imagine any royals or important politicians sticking around post-revolution, but if they did they could be integrated into society like everyone else.
Politicians by their very nature are ambitious fucks whose primary goal is to acquire power. If you take that power away from them, they will hatch schemes to get it back.

For instance, no way in the world would someone like Obama just integrate into society like ''everyone else.'' That man started international armed conflicts by himself. Once someone gets a taste of that there's no going back. Sorry.

[Manic Impressive]

If they were real monarchs, with political muscle and who had committed abuses during their rules, then I'd vote for them to be arrested and put on trial.
If the monarchs were fully in charge you wouldn't have a vote ;)


The queen of England (and other symbolic monarchs) however, have no political power, and (as far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong) never really oppressed or harmed sections of society directly (other than being filthy rich while many people starve to death). I agree, there's no place for any monarchy (albeit symbolic) in a socialist
This has already been addressed and yes they do have political power and the queen has used her powers twice in the UK to bypass parliament (one was the Falklands) and once in Australia. Not only is the Queen a member of the bourgeoisie in the Marxian sense the citizens of the UK also cover her costs in our taxes.

[roy]

Politicians by their very nature are ambitious fucks whose primary goal is to acquire power. If you take that power away from them, they will hatch schemes to get it back.

For instance, no way in the world would someone like Obama just integrate into society like ''everyone else.'' That man started international armed conflicts by himself. Once someone gets a taste of that there's no going back. Sorry.

If it doesn't work out, forcibly exile him. Like I said, he probably would have fled of his own accord, anyway. I think everyone should be given the opportunity to participate in the new society, though.

[thefinalmarch]

I think everyone should be given the opportunity to participate in the new society, though.
Nope.

Fuck her majesty.

[RedGrunt]

I bet that when Muammar Qaddafi was murdered you were the first to bring in the 'age' card.

I don't think any Socialist revolution will end up killing a harmless octogenarian. Just expropriate her palaces and wealth and let her die off in peace, she's harmless. The monarchy will die with any revolution, just not literally as, in the case of the commonwealth monarchy, such violence really isn't necessary, desirable or justifiable.

Age card? I'm not quite sure why that's relevent, regardless? But nice personal attack.


The monarchs still have political influence and power. I really don't think she'd fit, or willingly enter, into a socialist society, or even anything but the pampered life style she lives.

[roy]

Nope.

Fuck her majesty.

This is a compelling argument. I find myself absent rebuttle.

I withdraw what I said about Obama participating in the new society, however. The whole war thing slipped my mind for a second.

[thefinalmarch]

what's up with all the aussies ITT anyway? highest concentration of us per thread i've ever seen.

[roy]

Revolution is imminent. Soon all of Australia will be as red as Gillard's hair.

[Lanky Wanker]

How could we "exile" the queen if there are no real countries or borders anymore? Or are we just speaking in the tribal commune sense of "fuck off and find your own food"?

[thefinalmarch]

How could we "exile" the queen if there are no real countries or borders anymore? Or are we just speaking in the tribal commune sense of "fuck off and find your own food"?
To be honest, assuming the working class has taken power everywhere in the world, anyone who would have otherwise fled the revolution would likely end up being imprisoned or shot. In situations like this, people tend to act on impulse, and some questionable decisions can and have been made. I don't advocate murder, but the very idea that we should let our former oppressors and exploiters take part in free society is absurd and reeks of petty moralism -- and I don't think the idea would sit well with any of the workers who just overthrew them.

What would we do about the ex-bourgeoisie, anyway? If their life is under immediate threat when they are forced to assimilate into free society, what other options are there? Nothing short of delegating privilege to them (like allocating homes to them in which they are to live out their retirement years) or causing further harm upon them (like forcibly removing them from society, which would be an impractical solution). There will probably be a revolutionary terror and, as much as some of us would like to, there's quite frankly little we can do about that.

It's also worth noting that, as the global conquest of power by the working class nears completion, the remaining bourgeois and exiled ex-bourgeois in the last remaining bourgeois states would have decreased drastically in number (world revolution could take decades and many bourgeois as well as their exiled counterparts would have died during any revolutionary terrors, or of old age as they await the re-establishment of the capitalist order whilst hiding away in the last bastions of bourgeois society), and many would rather die at their own hands than feel the likely rage of the angry mobs of workers in the streets. The last days of the epoch of the bourgeoisie will undeniably be bloody and chaotic -- it is at this time of course that the bourgeoisie executes its final offensive against the working class.