Dutch queen Beatrix announced to step down

[Q]

As announced on BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21237254) (click for original formatting):


Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands to abdicate for son

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has announced she is abdicating in favour of her son, Prince Willem-Alexander.

In a pre-recorded address broadcast on TV, she said she would formally stand down on 30 April.

The queen, who is approaching her 75th birthday, said she had been thinking about this moment for several years and that now was "the moment to lay down my crown".

Queen Beatrix has been head of state since 1980, when her mother abdicated.

In the short televised statement, the queen said it was time for the throne to be held by "a new generation", adding that her son was ready to be king.

Prince Willem-Alexander, 45, is married and has three young children.

He will become the Netherland's first king since Willem III, who died in 1890.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte was also due to address the nation on Monday evening.

Abdication 'tradition'

Queen Beatrix is the sixth monarch from the House of Orange-Nassau, which has ruled the Netherlands since the early 19th Century.

Correspondents say her abdication will not provoke a constitutional crisis. Under Dutch law, the monarch has few powers and the role is considered ceremonial.

In recent decades it has become the tradition for the monarch to abdicate.

Queen Beatrix's mother Juliana resigned the throne in 1980 on her 70th birthday, and her grandmother Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948 at the age of 68.

Queen Beatrix will be 75 on Thursday.

She has remained active in recent years, but her reign has also seen traumatic events.

In 2009 a would-be attacker killed eight people when he drove his car into crowds watching the queen and other members of the royal family in a national holiday parade.

In March last year her second son, Prince Friso, was struck by an avalanche in Austria and remains in a coma.

[Q]

High time for a republic I'd say!

[Q]

Would it really matter if we changed from our monarchy, where the royals hold no executive power at all, to a republic? The power is already in the hands of the parlement while we are a monarchy, and I don't see how a switch from a monarchy to a bourgeoisie republic would be benefitial for us.

This is simply wrong. This myth that the queen holds "no power" is really widespread, but I would've expected leftists to be a little better informed.

If you're right, I'm sure that the Prime Minister visits the queen every week over... well... a nice cup of tea? No? To give but one small example.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh for fuck's sake, Q, are you serious? It's window dressing. The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte. This isn't the 1830s, the era of fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic is long gone.

Abolish the Monarchy! Then the Prime Minister won't have to meet the Monarch for 2 hours a week! That'll change everything!

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I wonder if there will be demos like in 1980, looking at the state of the left here probably not.

[Q]

Oh for fuck's sake, Q, are you serious? It's window dressing. The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte. This isn't the 1830s, the era of fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic is long gone.

Abolish the Monarchy! Then the Prime Minister won't have to meet the Monarch for 2 hours a week! That'll change everything!

Of course it's not the 1830's. Thank you Captain Obvious.

But it is quite clear that claiming that Beatrix has only ceremonial functions is also bull. I'm not saying that she directs Premier Rutte's every move, but she does have her influence. Like any rich family really, but of course this one having a formal position in the Dutch state.

[Sasha]

Well let's do our damned best to make this a galvanising moment, the fact they will spend millions of public money to hoist that fat posh boy and his junta wife on a golden throne better gets some ppl riled up
Best chance in years to throw a nice spanner in the works of normal complanicy

[Blake's Baby]

Of course it's not the 1830's. Thank you Captain Obvious.

But it is quite clear that claiming that Beatrix has only ceremonial functions is also bull. I'm not saying that she directs Premier Rutte's every move, but she does have her influence. Like any rich family really, but of course this one having a formal position in the Dutch state.

So, you agree that fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic (ie, calling for the abolition of the monarchy, as you just did) is ridiculous?

[Q]

So, you agree that fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic (ie, calling for the abolition of the monarchy, as you just did) is ridiculous?

As I put it on Facebook, when I was called "aw, you commie": "Totally. As consistent democrats we have no message to any monarchical institutions (or prime ministers, presidents... you name it)".

So, what bourgeois-liberal? Oh well, I'll let you in your tangent.

[feeLtheLove]

I don't even understand. Why do they still have Queens if they don't do anything?

[l'Enfermé]

Oh for fuck's sake, Q, are you serious? It's window dressing. The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte. This isn't the 1830s, the era of fighting for the bourgeois-liberal republic is long gone.

Abolish the Monarchy! Then the Prime Minister won't have to meet the Monarch for 2 hours a week! That'll change everything!
I don't know about Orange-Nassau but the House of Windsor alone is more powerful and influential than most countries.

[Blake's Baby]

Constitutional power. Abolishing the monarchy in the UK wouldn't affect their wealth.

[Sasha]

Since our queen owns a huge share in Shell and a bunch of other multinationals next to all the prestige and secret influence her royal position gives (she heads the bilderberg group for example) she gives the windsors a run for their money.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Her son, soon to be our king, will be called Willem IV.

I already heard that he wants to get back a big deal of political power instead of continuing Beatrix' purely cerimonial position.

So a republic you say? You can forget about that. We're going back to a real monarchy...



"Dance you peasants!"


_

[Q]

But let's say you are right and the queen and the prime minister are lobbying together or the queen is steering the pm or whatever it is you are proposing...
See post 7 for what I'm proposing.

Would you really care wether you are being ruled by the queen or by a pm?
See post 10 for an answer on your question.


You already know you are not going to vote for the bourgeoisie pm, so you like neither the queen nor the pm and both won't represent your wishes and both wont represent the interests of the workers. So why care about who rules the country, a queen or a pm?
First of all, at the very least we can elect our PM (well, indirectly anyway). So that is a step up from a monarch, be it for what it is.

Second, I defy the polarity of putting it like "oh, so you're against the monarchy, therefore you must be for the president then?". As a communist I am against all monarchical, top-down forms of rule.


I already heard that he wants to get back a big deal of political power instead of continuing Beatrix' purely cerimonial position.

So a republic you say? You can forget about that. We're going back to a real monarchy...
I didn't hear much about that. But if he tried, I doubt he'd get very far. The tendency, fortunately, is towards limiting monarchical power within the state. Witness, as a recent example, the formation of a new cabinet, which is now no longer led by the monarch.

[Q]

That is not what I said, that is more or less what you said, or at least how I interpreted it. If you are saying we should upgrade to a republic, then you are calling for a president. Which is a weird thing to do for a communist, to say at least.

And this goes really to the heart of the matter: I dispute that a republic automatically means a president (or any such similar thing). The call for the democratic republic is really old in the communist tradition. Engels for example championed it.

Where I do disagree though with most communists (the majority supporting some sort of council republic model) is that I'm a supporter of a demarchy (or Athenian democracy); a model that relies on lotteries more than on elections and consequently is a whole lot more democratic in that it is the "people that rule", as opposed to political cliques with their established networks, money and power.

But alas, this is completely going offtopic, so I'll leave it there.

[Blake's Baby]

... The call for the democratic republic is really old in the communist tradition. Engels for example championed it...

And yet, even though you agree tht the demand is 'really old', I get called 'Captain Obvious' for pointing out that we are no longer living in the 1830s.

Yes it is an 'old' demand. An outdated demand. The form that capitalist rule takes is pretty much unimportantl. Stop fighting the 200-year-old lost battles of the liberal bourgeoisie and take up the cause of communism, comrade.

[Q]

And yet, even though you agree tht the demand is 'really old', I get called 'Captain Obvious' for pointing out that we are no longer living in the 1830s.

Yes it is an 'old' demand. An outdated demand. The form that capitalist rule takes is pretty much unimportantl. Stop fighting the 200-year-old lost battles of the liberal bourgeoisie and take up the cause of communism, comrade.

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree on what constitutes the "fight for communism". My immediate interest is to have the working class enforcing its political hegemony, as a class-collective. However you look at it, the monarchy has no part in that.

You seem too focussed on maximalist demands. But then again, you do self-identify as a left-communist.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Whether the monarchy has any substantial power / influence in any country or is purely ceremonial is not relevant, in my opinion. Monarchs should not still be a staple of any modern democracy (even if it's a flawed liberal bourgeious one). How any leftist can dismiss the calls for monarchies to be abolished simply because it won't lead directly to communism right away (day one, queen ousted, day two, communist state) seems absurd...if it's not about directly aiding the final, decisive revolution, then why bother!? All causes are irrelevant unless they somehow guarantee communism?
So yeah, hope that some anti-monarchist sentiment gets stirred up, whether or not it will lead to anything more, who knows.

[Blake's Baby]

... How any leftist can dismiss the calls for monarchies to be abolished simply because it won't lead directly to communism right away (day one, queen ousted, day two, communist state) seems absurd...if it's not about directly aiding the final, decisive revolution, then why bother!?...

Well, exactly - if you mean 'day one, abolish the monarchy, day two, communism' is absurd. So why call for the abolition of the monarchy?

If it doesn't progress the cause of the working class, why bother? The working class has no interests in fighting for a bourgeois-democratic republic. It doesn't advance class-consciousness, it doesn't advance proletarian power, it doesn't do anything except allow the bourgeoisie to claim a false democratic legitimacy. It strengthens the power of the bourgeoisie. Why do you want to fight for our enemies?

[revoltordie]

Is the age of imperialism not then the age of social revolution but rather bourgeois-liberal revolution and then social revolution?

[Blake's Baby]

Aparently we have to finish the tasks of the bourgeoisie for them before we can have our revolution, comrade. Not even jam tomorrow, but jam the day after tomorrow. Tomorrow is extra jam day for the bourgeoisie.

[Q]

Aparently we have to finish the tasks of the bourgeoisie for them before we can have our revolution, comrade. Not even jam tomorrow, but jam the day after tomorrow. Tomorrow is extra jam day for the bourgeoisie.

Your attempt to portray me as some sort of stagist is rather desperate, comrade, and very dishonest.

[Blake's Baby]

Dishonest? That implies I'm deliberately distorting your position. I think it's dishonest of you to claim that I'm being dishonest.

You are calling for the abolition of the monarchy, not the abolition of capitalism. De facto, you are supporting the call for a bourgeois-democratic republic.

What's dishonest about pointing that out?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Dishonest? That implies I'm deliberately distorting your position. I think it's dishonest of you to claim that I'm being dishonest.

You are calling for the abolition of the monarchy, not the abolition of capitalism. De facto, you are supporting the call for a bourgeois-democratic republic.

What's dishonest about pointing that out?

Is it, for you, trulyi inconceivable that someone could desire the abolition of monarchy AND capitalism. Perhaps, that they are, for some, linked? (Monarchy serving as one of the most visible and obvious examples of a ruling class given a position of wealth and privelage by virtue of their birth).
On the way to forming a communist society, aren't there some things that can be seen to along the way?

[Blake's Baby]

It's not 'inconcievable' at all that someone could desire the abolition of the monarchy and capitalism, the second means the first happens by default, and as I desire the abolition of capitalism, I also of necessity desire a situation whereby all monarchies are abolished. What I find 'inconceivable' is that anyone for 120 years could think that calling for the abolition of any particular monarchy has been an action that can be called 'revolutionary'.

I don't call for the abolition of the Monachy in Sweden! the Monarchy in Norway! the Monarchy in the UK! the Monarchy in Denmark! the Monarchy in Japan! the Monarchy in the Netherlands! the Monarchy in Belgium! the Grand Duchies of Luxemburg and Monaco! the Monarchy of Leichtenstein! etc because it's not the point. Abolition of capitalism is the point. I don't really care much how the capitalist state organises its oppression, I care about the abolition of capitalism and the state.

[Yazman]

I can't believe there's people actually defending monarchy in this thread. Revolutionary leftists at that!

Come on guys. We should be opposed to monarchy as a matter of principle. While it is true that they sometimes hold limited powers, and they can and will use it if motivated to do so (See British Prince Charles getting stuff vetoed, or British Queen Elizabeth vacating the Australian government in the 1970s), this isn't even, in my opinion, the primary reason to oppose it.

The primary reason we should be opposing monarchy is because it is a relic of a bygone era, one in which women were property, peasantry were landlocked slaves, and government was based on a hereditary system of nobility. We should be opposing this on principle! Hereditary systems have no place in government, of any kind!

Furthermore, whether you're a statist or an anti-statist, of which there are plenty of both on this site, you can STILL both agree that hereditary systems have no place in governance. Especially not when they originated from nobility ruling based on titles granted to them from the Pope, or from inheritance!

Those who talk about "oh but bourgeois liberal republics, blah blah blah" - I can't see how that's relevant. Opposing monarchy doesn't mean support for bourgeois "democracy". It means we are taking a stand and saying, "no! Just because you were born into that family it does not mean you should be part of governance!" The world isn't black and white like that and you shouldn't take such a simplistic, dualistic view of politics. Opposing monarchy means opposing monarchy, and that's all. The bourgeois and their politics have nothing to do with it. Heredity and ancestry should not be playing any role in politics!

Again, we should all be opposed to monarchy in any form as a matter of our most basic principles, in my opinion.

[Thirsty Crow]

O
But it is quite clear that claiming that Beatrix has only ceremonial functions is also bull. I'm not saying that she directs Premier Rutte's every move, but she does have her influence. Like any rich family really, but of course this one having a formal position in the Dutch state.
At best you could make an argument for consultative functions.
Does the abolition of such an arrangement amount to a bourgeois-liberal revolution? Does this mean that communists ought to make the call for a democratic republic?


Those who talk about "oh but bourgeois liberal republics, blah blah blah" - I can't see how that's relevant. Opposing monarchy doesn't mean support for bourgeois "democracy". You can't see how a criticism of bourgeois democracy is relevant in this age? That is a bit odd, I'd say.

And sure, opposition to the monarchy (which is really redundant in case of communists, and is implied) does not necessarily entail support for bourgeois democracy. Yet the trick is how this opposition is carried out, and conceptualized, politically.

The problem with the century old wisdom of rallying behind the banner of democracy is not that it defends the least repressive conditions for workers' and their organizations (and even this point is superfluous in this case), but that it fails to, necessarily, incorporate the already mentioned criticism of democracy and fosters illusions. Do you really think that it would make sense to claim that workers' will be better off, both materially and with respect to their political rights, if the Dutch monarchy is abolished?

[Q]

Dishonest? That implies I'm deliberately distorting your position.
Indeed, you are.


You are calling for the abolition of the monarchy, not the abolition of capitalism. De facto, you are supporting the call for a bourgeois-democratic republic.

What's dishonest about pointing that out?

My comment in post 2, if you're referring to that, was an not very serious and off the cuff response. Of course the goal of ending capitalism and for working class rule have to be mentioned in any serious commentary on this issue.

The abdication does however create a nice opening to start a discussion on this subject, a discussion that communists have much to add to, don't you think?

[Yazman]

You can't see how a criticism of bourgeois democracy is relevant in this age? That is a bit odd, I'd say.

Uh.... what? Are you trolling? I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about criticism of monarchy. I said that the mentioning of bourgeois "democracy" isn't relevant in this discussion. A discussion about monarchy, which I feel everybody should be opposed to as a matter of principle. Opposing it doesn't say anything about one's position in regards to bourgeois "democracy", hence why I do not feel it's relevant. Bringing up bourgeois "democracy" in this thread only seems to serve the purpose of bizarrely calling anti-monarchists reactionaries, as Blake's Baby seems to be doing.


Those who talk about "oh but bourgeois liberal republics, blah blah blah" - I can't see how that's relevant. Opposing monarchy doesn't mean support for bourgeois "democracy".

I have no idea how you could possibly reach the conclusion you did after reading my whole post.

[l'Enfermé]

Does this mean that communists ought to make the call for a democratic republic?

Marxian Communists have seen the democratic republic as the only possible form of the dictatorship of the proletariat since the 19th century. Even Lenin didn't oppose a Soviet Republic to a Democratic Republic but considered the Soviet Republic an institutional form of the Democratic Republic.

[Thirsty Crow]

Uh.... what? Are you trolling? I thought it was pretty obvious that I was talking about criticism of monarchy.
No, I'm not trolling. Obviously, I misunderstood the "blah blah" part and taken it to refer to criticizing bourgeois democracy within the context of the would be campaign of abolishing the monarchy.

But it might be that I didn't misunderstand.



I said that the mentioning of bourgeois "democracy" isn't relevant in this discussion. It is, it is more than relevant.


A discussion about monarchy, which I feel everybody should be opposed to as a matter of principle.I agree.



Opposing it doesn't say anything about one's position in regards to bourgeois "democracy", hence why I do not feel it's relevant. Bringing up bourgeois "democracy" in this thread only seems to serve the purpose of bizarrely calling anti-monarchists reactionaries, as Blake's Baby seems to be doing.The misunderstanding might be in that I automatically think in political terms - that's why I mentioned a would be campaign, and communists participating in it. I don't think it makes much sense to have a nice discussion on merely personal oppostion, an attitude, which we all share.

In this sense, the issue of democracy is not only relevant, but crucial, since in one way or another, participation in such campaigns necessarily implies an assessment of democracy. And any such campaign would have to address issues such as:


Do you really think that it would make sense to claim that workers' will be better off, both materially and with respect to their political rights, if the Dutch monarchy is abolished?

I have no idea how you could possibly reach the conclusion you did after reading my whole post.I hope it is more clear now.


Marxian Communists have seen the democratic republic as the only possible form of the dictatorship of the proletariat since the 19th century. Even Lenin didn't oppose a Soviet Republic to a Democratic Republic but considered the Soviet Republic an institutional form of the Democratic Republic.
Okay, and could we switch back to the 21st century, by any chance, and drop the silly semantic games about the abstract notion of the democratic republic (which is indeed abstract, and ultimately meaningless, if a soviet republic, as a specific class system of power, is part of it)?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

..OK, the record is broken, it seems some are stuck on the maxim of 'destroy capitalism first and everything else that we hold be undesirable will follow'. Abolishing the monarchy (or any other insitution that the ruling classes actively support) could easily be viewed as part of the fight against capitalism.
If the 'traditions' of conservative 'values' and their associated institutions are challenged and broken, I can only view that as a positive step in the direction of communism.

[Thirsty Crow]

If the 'traditions' of conservative 'values' and their associated institutions are challenged and broken, I can only view that as a positive step in the direction of communism.But why would not that lead to a strenghtening of the values dear to liberals? Individualism, entrepreneurial spirit, competition unhinged by obsolete institutions?

[Yazman]

The misunderstanding might be in that I automatically think in political terms - that's why I mentioned a would be campaign, and communists participating in it. I don't think it makes much sense to have a nice discussion on merely personal oppostion, an attitude, which we all share.

In this sense, the issue of democracy is not only relevant, but crucial, since in one way or another, participation in such campaigns necessarily implies an assessment of democracy. And any such campaign would have to address issues such as:

You're missing the point, and seem to be arguing against somebody else here. I stated:


Opposing monarchy doesn't mean support for bourgeois "democracy". It means we are taking a stand and saying, "no! Just because you were born into that family it does not mean you should be part of governance!" The world isn't black and white like that and you shouldn't take such a simplistic, dualistic view of politics. Opposing monarchy means opposing monarchy, and that's all. The bourgeois and their politics have nothing to do with it. Heredity and ancestry should not be playing any role in politics!

Your question on how workers would benefit - it's irrelevant in the context of my point. I argue that we should be opposed to monarchy and actively oppose it as a matter of principle. Hereditary systems shouldn't play a role in any political system. Heredity and ancestry shouldn't play a role in any politics, period, and we shouldn't be opposing it on some utilitarian basis that you propose. We should be opposing monarchy because it's wrong to allow a political system organised according to heredity and ancestry to exist, compounded by the fact that it is often a sexist system, with male preference primogeniture being the most common form of inheritance among monarchies.

It shouldn't exist anymore, and we should work to abolish it as a matter of principle. I don't care who benefits - it's the principle that matters. Monarchy should be abolished, and that is a worthy goal in and of itself, regardless of what society one lives in.

[Thirsty Crow]

You're missing the point, and seem to be arguing against somebody else here. I stated:
I actually gave you the benefit of doubt. Seems I was wrong in that.



Your question on how workers would benefit - it's irrelevant in the context of my point. I argue that we should be opposed to monarchy and actively oppose it as a matter of principle. Hereditary systems shouldn't play a role in any political system. Heredity and ancestry shouldn't play a role in any politics, period, and we shouldn't be opposing it on some utilitarian basis that you propose.
As for me, the whole point to communists organizing themselves and participating in political and economic struggles is in the first place based on class struggle - and this means advocating workers' autonomy and participating in workers' struggles for a better existence (so called reforms), and counteracting the effects of the dominant ideology.

There is no point to politics, no principles, that does not flow from this. And to call this a "utilitarian basis" is frankly horrible and grossly misleading, but it sure goes hand in hand with a kind of a moral approach you use:


We should be opposing monarchy because it's wrong to allow a political system organised according to heredity and ancestry to exist, compounded by the fact that it is often a sexist system, with male preference primogeniture being the most common form of inheritance among monarchies. It is the effects, the social existence of the working class, that is "wrong". And this part is really astounding:


I don't care who benefits - it's the principle that matters. Monarchy should be abolished, and that is a worthy goal in and of itself, regardless of what society one lives in.You, in your moral zeal, don't care who benefits. I know that liberalism is used as a slur around here, but can't think of a better descriptor, not for your politics as a whole, but for your opinions and approach here.

Is it that I espouse "reductionism"? Maybe crude "workerism"? Perhaps, but to be honest, I do't give a damn.

[Yazman]

There is no point to politics, no principles, that does not flow from this. And to call this a "utilitarian basis" is frankly horrible and grossly misleadingThat's not what I'm calling utilitarian. What I called utilitarian was the idea that "well, there's no point doing anything because Joe Blow won't see a material benefit from it" That is pretty much utilitarian by definition.

I'm not sure that there's anybody here that actually disagrees that monarchy is reactionary and should be abolished - just people like you and Blake's Baby who seem to feel that monarchy shouldn't be abolished unless there's a material benefit or unless we've abolished capitalism. I do not agree with this position.


You, in your moral zeal, don't care who benefits. I know that liberalism is used as a slur around here, but can't think of a better descriptor, not for your politics as a whole, but for your opinions and approach here.Yeah, yeah, yeah - "oh my god! It's so shocking! HOW DARE you!". There is no "moral zeal" here because, regardless of your effort to paint my position as a moral approach, it isn't one. When I say "I don't care who benefits", while a crude way of making my point, I am making the point that monarchy should be opposed as a matter of principle because it is fundamentally against everything we stand for as revolutionary leftists. Heredity, nobility, and ancestry as the ultimate basis for the establishment and existence of a political system is not something we should ever support, even when it is reduced to being the source of sovereignty in a purely political way such as in the UK.

I am not saying "oh, I don't care about workers, I don't care about this or that" etc. In the context of opposition to monarchy, I mean that I do not care for utilitarian positions such as yours that "if we as communists do not benefit materially, then we should not oppose it". I do think that is a somewhat utilitarian attitude and I don't think it's really the best approach to take.

Essentially you're saying that you're totally cool with monarchy as long as it fits your criteria of being sufficiently benign. I think that isn't good enough - we should be opposed to it as a most basic element of our politics. Because we want a more democratic system of governance, and any aspect of any political system that includes hereditary titles, nobility, and royalty, should be abolished. I feel monarchy should be abolished because it is archaic, and perpetuates class division, undemocratic politics, and quite often institutional sexism. Blake's Baby (and presumably, you agree with his position) feels that we should just ignore its existence until there's a revolution. I do not agree with such a "do nothing until capitalism is abolished" attitude.

If it can be abolished right away, we should do so. Opposition to monarchy is not reactionary. By abolishing monarchy we are ensuring that nobility, ancestry, and heredity will no longer play an official role in any political system, and that's a worthy goal, and it's one that should be achieved as soon as possible. Nobody should be involved in politics because they hold a title, or because of who their family are. I'm not sure how it is ever appropriate for any revolutionary leftist to ever actually oppose the abolition of a monarchy.

[Thirsty Crow]

When I say "I don't care who benefits", while a crude way of making my point, I am making the point that monarchy should be opposed as a matter of principle because it is fundamentally against everything we stand for as revolutionary leftists.


Essentially you're saying that you're totally cool with monarchy as long as it fits your criteria of being sufficiently benign.


In the context of opposition to monarchy, I mean that I do not care for utilitarian positions such as yours that "if we as communists do not benefit materially...

And I should take you seriously?

First, no matter how you spin it, making a point in a crude way or not, the point stands. Or is it not that you don't care who benefits, which class benefits?

Secondly, I don't give a damn for your "essentially"-s and your "basically"-s. You're still putting words in my mouth. Nothing I said could be interpreted as "saying that I am totally cool with a sufficiently benign monarchy". This part about it being sufficiently benign is precious, really.

[Blake's Baby]

I can't believe there's people actually defending monarchy in this thread. Revolutionary leftists at that! ...

Who's defending the monarchy? I want capitalism and the monarchies abolished, Q at least wants the monarchy of the Netherlands abolished, even if he's pretty phlegmatic about the rest of the capitalist apparatus... who exactly is 'supporting' any monarchy?


...

Those who talk about "oh but bourgeois liberal republics, blah blah blah" - I can't see how that's relevant. Opposing monarchy doesn't mean support for bourgeois "democracy". It means we are taking a stand and saying, "no! Just because you were born into that family it does not mean you should be part of governance!" The world isn't black and white like that and you shouldn't take such a simplistic, dualistic view of politics. Opposing monarchy means opposing monarchy, and that's all...

I agree, opposing the monarchy doesn't mean opposing capitalism, and as such it's useless.

By the same token, communist society will mean the end of money. I don't just campaign to get rid of the five-pound note, and think some how this will make a difference.

There are bourgeoises who are anti-monarchy. There are cops who are anti-monarchy. There are fascists who are anti monarchy. But there are no bourgeois, cops, or fascists who are against capitalism. One can oppose aspects of the system from inside the system. One cannot oppose the system from within the system.


... The bourgeois and their politics have nothing to do with it. Heredity and ancestry should not be playing any role in politics! ...

As the bourgeoisie said in 1648, 1776, 1789... so yeah 'nothing to do with it' - except pretty much the whole point of the bourgeois revolutions, that is.


...Again, we should all be opposed to monarchy in any form as a matter of our most basic principles, in my opinion.

Fuck that. You can get into bed with cops, fascists, the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Republics, Richard Nixon, Stalin and Pol Pot for all I care, but you can fuck off if you think you'rte dragging me in there. I'm a communist not a bourgeois liberal democrat.


Indeed, you are...

You are a liar and a fraud. You are bourgeois scum. You are a liberal masquerading as a revolutionary. You spew the bile of your political masters and I suspect masturbate over pictures of Gert Wilders fucking starving immigrant children. Distort that you mendacious fucker. How dare you claim I'm deliberately distorting your position? Your position is shit and I pulled you on it, and now you're lying about it to cover the fact that you're a fuck-pig for Dutch republicanism. Fuck you and your liberal democratic donkey.



...
My comment in post 2, if you're referring to that, was an not very serious and off the cuff response. Of course the goal of ending capitalism and for working class rule have to be mentioned in any serious commentary on this issue.

The abdication does however create a nice opening to start a discussion on this subject, a discussion that communists have much to add to, don't you think?

Massive fucking backpedal I see, previously you were espousing the slogan 'abolish the monarchy!' (a 300-year-old slogan of the liberal bourgeoisie) and now you are saying 'let's talk about abolishing capitalism'. A perfectly valid suggestion. Not one you were making earlier. I wouldn't mind if you suggested mass occupations of all the royal palaces, mass expropriations of the monarchy, a country-wide campaign of civil disobedience to refuse to recognise the outgoing queen, incoming king or the continuing government; but no, you suggested abolition of the monarchy as an end in itself, and then said that anyone who said this was useless was a liar.

Fuck you, in case you didn't get it before, you don't get to accuse me of being a liar.

[Ravachol]

Speaking as a Dutchman: anyone who cares about this shit or thinks it is somehow of any importance is out of fucking touch with reality.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Speaking as a Dutchman: anyone who cares about this shit or thinks it is somehow of any importance is out of fucking touch with reality.

Seeing the lots of reactions about it, in real life that is although that does depend on where you live maybe, I think you would be out of touch to ignore it all together.

[Thirsty Crow]

And just to get something clear and out in the open.


I'm not sure how it is ever appropriate for any revolutionary leftist to ever actually oppose the abolition of a monarchy.

I never stated that I'd oppose such a campaign. I might, and I might not actually, but that is besides the point. The point is that obviously there is a huge problem when one tries to actually problematize the, honestly, stupid and rigid oppose-support dichotomy and address some fairly complex issues into play. For instance:


Because we want a more democratic system of governance, and any aspect of any political system that includes hereditary titles, nobility, and royalty, should be abolished.This is an aspect of the problem I point out. I would very much like to know whether and how this more democratic system of governance over the working class - since that's what liberal democracy is - would enhance the possibilities and prospects for workers' self-organization. And I don't buy that automatic assumptions of removing the monarchy equalling more democracy either, and that is to leave out the problem of the strenght of the working class (as you conveniently evaded my insistence on both aspects - immediately material and political - of the question of which class benefits) in relation to liberal democracy.

And of course, another point is left out, the notion of the royal family wielding nothing more than ceremonial and consultative powers.

There is an argument to be made in favour of this project. But you're stubbornly refusing to make it, or are unable to, and thus need to resort to formulaic thinking devoid of any class analysis.

[Blake's Baby]

... I'm not sure how it is ever appropriate for any revolutionary leftist to ever actually oppose the abolition of a monarchy.

I say again - who is? LinksRadikal and I want the working class to abolish capitalism and the state, including all the monarchies; Q wants the state to change the way its run and abolish the monarchy; who opposes abolition? Be careful, if I were as much of a lying bourgeois fuck-pig as Q is, I'd accuse you of deliberately distorting our position.

[Ravachol]

Seeing the lots of reactions about it, in real life that is although that does depend on where you live maybe, I think you would be out of touch to ignore it all together.

The reactions are of similar caliber to some celeb breakup and of similar interest. I don't know in what milieu you hang out but nobody I know or speak to gives a rats ass about the politics behind this minuscule aspect of the dutch spectacle, and rightfully so. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with pro-rev politics is delusional or buys into a kind of 'pro-rev' politics that I want to stay away from about as much as from the tories.

[Sasha]

anytime to be annoying to the state is a good one...

maybe nothing revolutionary but still nice to do our best to fuck shit up, if only for entertainment purposes.

[Q]

You are a liar and a fraud. You are bourgeois scum. You are a liberal masquerading as a revolutionary. You spew the bile of your political masters and I suspect masturbate over pictures of Gert Wilders fucking starving immigrant children. Distort that you mendacious fucker. How dare you claim I'm deliberately distorting your position? Your position is shit and I pulled you on it, and now you're lying about it to cover the fact that you're a fuck-pig for Dutch republicanism. Fuck you and your liberal democratic donkey.


I say again - who is? LinksRadikal and I want the working class to abolish capitalism and the state, including all the monarchies; Q wants the state to change the way its run and abolish the monarchy; who opposes abolition? Be careful, if I were as much of a lying bourgeois fuck-pig as Q is, I'd accuse you of deliberately distorting our position.

Ok bro.

[Ravachol]

anytime to be annoying to the state is a good one...

maybe nothing revolutionary but still nice to do our best to fuck shit up, if only for entertainment purposes.

Sure, 'geen woning, geen kroning' I'm all for that, if something like this allows for annoying the state that's great. Its just that I don't get at all how people interpret the 'constitutional monarchy' vs 'blabla republic' debate as anything else than boring, contrived and completely irrelevant from a pro-rev point of view.

[Q]

Well known (in left circles anyway) Dutch anarchist (err, I guess "liberal-bourgeois scum") Peter Storm also makes the case against the monarchy and for a republic (http://www.ravotr.nl/2013/01/30/weg-met-de-monarchie-leve-de-staatloze-republiek/) (article is in Dutch).

[Aurora]

I wonder when it was exactly that the ultra-left decided that the positions of previous communists were wrong, that the fight for republic and democracy weren't worth anything anymore, that unions were now capitalist bodies, that parliament as a platform was now 'sowing illusions', that the national question is now reactionary, i remember hearing from several that it was about 100 years ago, but i wonder if they were all important steps to the overall development of the proletariat and the struggle for communism on Monday but all reactionary panderings to capitalism on Tuesday?

The major conditions that have changed are that the bourgeoisie are no longer revolutionary, the development of production makes socialism practical and the proletariat are strong enough to overthrow capitalism, this means that the historic struggle for democracy, republic and other tasks are carried forward by the proletariat and it's allies, not abandoned as the ultra-left think, the democratic republic should be fought for because it's realisation reinforces the proletariats belief in it's own strength, it brings the conflict between the proletariat and capitalism as a whole closer by removing a veil over the naked exploitative nature of capitalism and finally because the democratic republic is the specific form of the proletarian dictatorship which makes it ideal to include in our program because with other demands like the replacement of the standing army with the armed people, election and recall of all officials, officials on workers wages etc it makes our program really communist, it doesn't just call for the abolition of the monarchy, it shows the workers how they can rule society for themselves and begin the socialist transformation.


You are a liar and a fraud. You are bourgeois scum. You are a liberal masquerading as a revolutionary. You spew the bile of your political masters and I suspect masturbate over pictures of Gert Wilders fucking starving immigrant children. Distort that you mendacious fucker. How dare you claim I'm deliberately distorting your position? Your position is shit and I pulled you on it, and now you're lying about it to cover the fact that you're a fuck-pig for Dutch republicanism. Fuck you and your liberal democratic donkey.

if I were as much of a lying bourgeois fuck-pig as Q is
You stay classy Blake.

[Thirsty Crow]

I wonder when it was exactly that the ultra-left decided that the positions of previous communists were wrong, that the fight for republic and democracy weren't worth anything anymore, that unions were now capitalist bodies, that parliament as a platform was now 'sowing illusions', that the national question is now reactionary, i remember hearing from several that it was about 100 years ago, but i wonder if they were all important steps to the overall development of the proletariat and the struggle for communism on Monday but all reactionary panderings to capitalism on Tuesday?

It is ridiculous to assume that the likes of the Tsarist state and the contemporary Dutch monarchy are even remotely comparable.

But that is a necessary assumption in this grand argument from authority, since the positions you mention were precisely the product of the prevailing conditions of the time, and coresponded to a necessity on behalf of the working class.

But to briefly address the questions, the outbreak of the imperialist bloodbath, with the positions taken and measures enforced by the workers' parties and the unions (is some historical reflection so disreputable that we should rather hide in the comfortable shadows of timeless principles?), and consequently the eruption of the revolutionary wave, these were the historical shifts that can be taken as a landmark.

[Red Enemy]

Those monarchs who still exist have no sway over the bourgeoisie, unless you seriously think that the interests of the Dutch monarch are separate from the interests of the bourgeoisie in the Netherlands, i.e. the feudal aristocracy/monarch is the ruling class, not the bourgeoisie. If that is the case, you're fucking idiots.

Oh yes, let's overthrow them, and see how nothing changes. See how we wasted our time, because our heads are stuck so far up our asses that we think Marx's jibber jabber about a democratic republic in 1845 (whatever) would apply to us today, near 200 years later. That the monarchs he sought to replace with a democratic republic, are somehow the same as today.

What do you hope to accomplish, really? Do you think that overthrowing the royal families from their place as "figureheads", with no say, of states will empower the proletariat?

[piet11111]

The idea of a royal family offends me because its the worlds most expensive muppet show where they are born into wealth and privilege on the tax payers money and any opportunity to get rid of them should be taken with both hands.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:

Alright, there's been some dodgy stuff and some complaints over various posts in this thread, so here's how it's going to be. The board administration have decided that Blake's Baby is to be given an infraction for flaming. As for you Q, while you've been fairly polite, you did accuse somebody of being dishonest/lying and while it might not seem like much to you it is a big deal to other people that can be taken as pretty insulting. So I'm going to warn you not to do it again.

So let's not have any more name-calling, and no more accusations of lies. Keep posts as civil & constructive as possible, like they generally have been.

This post constitutes a warning to Q.

[Blake's Baby]

I wonder when it was exactly that the ultra-left decided that the positions of previous communists were wrong, that the fight for republic and democracy weren't worth anything anymore, that unions were now capitalist bodies, that parliament as a platform was now 'sowing illusions', that the national question is now reactionary, i remember hearing from several that it was about 100 years ago, but i wonder if they were all important steps to the overall development of the proletariat and the struggle for communism on Monday but all reactionary panderings to capitalism on Tuesday?

The major conditions that have changed are that the bourgeoisie are no longer revolutionary, the development of production makes socialism practical and the proletariat are strong enough to overthrow capitalism, this means that the historic struggle for democracy, republic and other tasks are carried forward by the proletariat and it's allies, not abandoned as the ultra-left think, the democratic republic should be fought for because it's realisation reinforces the proletariats belief in it's own strength, it brings the conflict between the proletariat and capitalism as a whole closer by removing a veil over the naked exploitative nature of capitalism and finally because the democratic republic is the specific form of the proletarian dictatorship which makes it ideal to include in our program because with other demands like the replacement of the standing army with the armed people, election and recall of all officials, officials on workers wages etc it makes our program really communist, it doesn't just call for the abolition of the monarchy, it shows the workers how they can rule society for themselves and begin the socialist transformation....

Well, there's a certain amount there I agree with and a certain amount I disagree with, and I'll try to pick it apart but it's hard as you wrote what's coming up as a 16-line paragraph as a single sentence.

The first paragraph finishes somewhat sarcastically, but in essence asks a reasonable question. Why and how do 'ultra-lefts' analyse a change in the tactics of the working class?

The second paragraph actually begins to answer those questions. When Marx was writing - from the 1840s to the 1880s - capitalism (whatever he may have thought at different times about the imminence of proletarian revolution) had a great deal of dyamism left in it. He supported various bourgeois movements - such the Union in the American Civil War, liberal reform in Germany, Polish independence from Russia - because he analysed them as being 'historically progressive', in that they were a way of developing capitalism against feudalism. Capitalism was driving to cover the globe, create the world market, industrialise production, create a working class - to create the conditions for the proletarian revolution. This is a process.

As it is a process, it's legitimate to look for a point where the process was - or will be - complete. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps the revolution in Russia was a drastic mistake. But 'ultra-lefts' think that the process is complete, capitalism has become 'obsolete' (SPGB) or 'decadent' (ICC), the 'relations of production' have become 'a fetter on the means of production' (Marx), the era of capitalism's obsolence arrived in the late 19th or early 20th century and the world entered 'the epoch of wars and revolutions' (the Communist International).

Now obviously it's hard (and a bit pointless) to say 'on Sunday everything was fine, on Monday everything was broken'.

The SPGB, when it formed in 1904, did so on the basis that the working class's struggle for reforms inside capitalism was over, and the task of conquering state power and begining the creation of socialist society was the order of the day.

LinksRadikal mentions the First World War as a sign of the decadence/obsolescence of capitalism. Just to be clear, as I think there's a certain amount of confusion on this point, Left Comms (as one section of the 'ultra-left' that is being criticised here) don't analyse capitalism as 'fine up to 27th July 1914, and decadent from the point that the first Austro-Hungarian troops crossed into Serbia'. Capitalism's transition from being a progressive social force to a reactionary one takes some time. The division between the two is not hard and fast. As already mentioned, the SPGB (not Left Comms but I think 'ultra-Left' in more general terms) had already theorised the obsolescence of capitalism in 1904. I would probably place the 'tipping point' in the last decade of the 19th century if I had to. But for the Left Communists now, as for Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky at the time, WWI was confirmation that there was no way back for capitalism; it had ceased to have any progressive content, by 1914 - as seen from the point of view of 1918-1920 - it had already, at some point previously, passed the point where any progressive content had been overwhelmed by the negative consequences.

This then implies that the forms of organisation and tactics of struggle appropraite for the period when capitalism was a progressive system - when reforms were possible - are no longer appropriate. If capitalism has created the world market, concentrated capital, expanded and industrialised production and created a world working class, if the 'objective conditions' for the creation of socialist society have been established, then the proletariat's task is not to fight for reforms inside the system, or even to complete the bourgeois revolution, but quite simply to struggle for socialism.

Left Comms, SPGBers, Council Communists and even the Anarchists who might be termed 'ultra-Left' might disagree on many things, even some of the questions you raise (the SPGB is not opposed to working inside unions for instance and even different Left Comm groups have different tactical practices), but I think that the agreements include a perspective that the bourgeois revolution is a matter of history not the future. The proletariat's struggle is not to 'complete' capitalism but to destroy it.

You do remember what happened to the Constituent Assembly in Russia, don't you? An Anarchist sailor and his fellow guards closed it down. You do remember what had previously happened to the bourgeois Provisional Government, don't you? The Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet overthrew it.

Why do you want us to agitate for precisely the thing the October Revolution opposed?

[Thirsty Crow]

the democratic republic should be fought for because it's realisation reinforces the proletariats belief in it's own strength,

That's a massive assumption. I asked this before, and no formulaic thinking and rehashing of the old wisdom won't suffice, how would this come about in the case of the Dutch monarchy?


it brings the conflict between the proletariat and capitalism as a whole closer by removing a veil over the naked exploitative nature of capitalism This is even more vague. Do you think that the ideological qand cultural aspects of monarchism constitute the most important veil over the naked exploitative nature of capitalism? If you do, I'm afraid you're living in another century.


and finally because the democratic republic is the specific form of the proletarian dictatorship

As I already stated, no it is not, and the term is hoplessly meaningless if it can accomodate both bourgeois democarcy and soviet power.

[Aurora]

The SPGB, when it formed in 1904, did so on the basis that the working class's struggle for reforms inside capitalism was over, and the task of conquering state power and begining the creation of socialist society was the order of the day.Which of course wasn't true then and isn't true now, in relation to reforms i mean. The working class has continued to struggle for reforms every day since then, has continued to defend it's current position and struggle to expand it's wages and benefits, the SPGB has played no part in this in the last 100 years. It's not true in another way as well, the SPGB sees no place for reforms that can actually succeed but it certainly sees a place for the ridiculous reform of capitalism to socialism through parliament.


if the 'objective conditions' for the creation of socialist society have been established, then the proletariat's task is not to fight for reforms inside the system, or even to complete the bourgeois revolution, but quite simply to struggle for socialism.
You mean the communist task i presume? because the working class does fight for reforms and will continue to do so up to the socialist revolution and beyond and any communist worth something will support them in this. There can be no talk of a bourgeois revolution today because the bourgeoisie is not revolutionary, if you mean the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie then yes they must be completed but that can only be done under the dictatorship of the proletariat, where applicable, leading the peasantry.


You do remember what happened to the Constituent Assembly in Russia, don't you? An Anarchist sailor and his fellow guards closed it down. You do remember what had previously happened to the bourgeois Provisional Government, don't you? The Military-Revolutionary Committee of the Petrograd Soviet overthrew it.
Here i think is the crux of the matter, you do know there aren't any soviets right? you do know we don't have a military revolutionary committee right? you do know the Bolsheviks were the most ardent supporters of a constituent assembly don't you?

The development of struggle doesn't happen all at once but gradually, the proletariat will only ever turn to revolution when all other options are exhausted. The point is that the constituent assembly had a very important place in the development of the revolution, it was the highest form of democracy the bourgeois state had and as such the proletariat demanded it and the Bolsheviks did too, the reason it was closed was that a higher form of democracy had taken the power, the soviets.

But honestly i have no idea what this has to do with me saying the abolition of the monarchy is a step in the right direction. I mean you surely must agree with that, you think the monarchy will have to be got rid of right?Unless you want some monarchial socialism, but you think getting rid of it before the socialist revolution is somehow crazy, what kind of pedantic bullshit is that?


That's a massive assumption. I asked this before, and no formulaic thinking and rehashing of the old wisdom won't suffice, how would this come about in the case of the Dutch monarchy?
In the course of development the proletariat takes every road before revolution, it increases democracy, it votes for reformist socialists and it will notice that a demand which workers have had for 200years still isn't achieved and it will have no problem pushing it through and changing part of the state is a pretty big show of ability, when it starts it'll go further. Obviously this is only possible at a quite advanced stage and if you're looking for me to write a blueprint of how the development of the proletariat advances in one of the most advanced countries in the world from a low level of consciousness and organisation to the challenge of state power your shit outta luck cause its never happened before.


This is even more vague. Do you think that the ideological qand cultural aspects of monarchism constitute the most important veil over the naked exploitative nature of capitalism? If you do, I'm afraid you're living in another century.
I never said most important. But removing the monarchy is part of recognizing that the state no matter how democratic and republican is still bourgeois hence showing the road to it's overthrow.


As I already stated, no it is not, and the term is hoplessly meaningless if it can accomodate both bourgeois democarcy and soviet power.
Yes it is, both the bourgeois and soviet republics are democratic republics. It's useful in a programmatic sense because it allows us to put forward a demand which has some connection with the existing state of affairs, in other words it's impossible to call for 'all power to the soviets' when there aren't any soviets. So instead we put forward demands which show the way forward and necessarily overstep the limits of bourgeois state and property.


I'm tired so this is probably poorly written i'll amend later if need be.

[Thirsty Crow]

In the course of development the proletariat takes every road before revolution, it increases democracy, it votes for reformist socialists and it will notice that a demand which workers have had for 200years still isn't achieved and it will have no problem pushing it through and changing part of the state is a pretty big show of ability, when it starts it'll go further. Obviously this is only possible at a quite advanced stage and if you're looking for me to write a blueprint of how the development of the proletariat advances in one of the most advanced countries in the world from a low level of consciousness and organisation to the challenge of state power your shit outta luck cause its never happened before.

I see. You can't engage the actual question. I'm not asking for a theoretical elaboration of the "universals" of the development of the working class, and no matter the old,worn out evasion by reference to a supposed blueprint, I am interested in an assessment of a concrete situation.


Yes it is, both the bourgeois and soviet republics are democratic republics. It's useful in a programmatic sense because it allows us to put forward a demand which has some connection with the existing state of affairs, in other words it's impossible to call for 'all power to the soviets' when there aren't any soviets. As if the dichotomy posed here, nowadays, actually stands. And what you're essentially stating is that the theoretical distinction of these two fundamentally opposed systems of class governance is irrelevant because of "some connection to the existing state of affairs". And now tell me that this isn't formulaic thinking.

[Blake's Baby]

Which of course wasn't true then and isn't true now, in relation to reforms i mean...

Are you sure? I don't remember Lenin advocating 'the six-hour day and an extra 20 roubles a week' - I think what he said was 'all power to the soviets!', but maybe I'm wrong.


... You mean the communist task i presume? because the working class does fight for reforms and will continue to do so up to the socialist revolution and beyond and any communist worth something will support them in this...

No, I mean the proletariat's task. The proletariat is a revolutionary class, the proletariat will overthrow capitalism, the proletariat will administer post-revolutionary society, the proletariat will create the socialist society.


...
Here i think is the crux of the matter, you do know there aren't any soviets right? you do know we don't have a military revolutionary committee right? you do know the Bolsheviks were the most ardent supporters of a constituent assembly don't you?...

I know there are no soviets. I don't know how calling for a bourgeois republic is going to create them.

Do you think the Bolsheviks were wrong to support the suppression of the Constituent Assembly then?




...

But honestly i have no idea what this has to do with me saying the abolition of the monarchy is a step in the right direction. I mean you surely must agree with that, you think the monarchy will have to be got rid of right?Unless you want some monarchial socialism, but you think getting rid of it before the socialist revolution is somehow crazy, what kind of pedantic bullshit is that?...

Were (or are) France, or the USA, or Italy, or China, or Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain, more 'revolutionary', more 'progressive', than current UK, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Japan or Thailand? Or is the monarchy/republic dichotomy utterly unimportant in how 'progressive' a society is?

[Comrade #138672]

Please, comrades, do not fight each other. Why is this necessary here? I don't see any reason to fight and insult each other, even though we may disagree on some parts. It is only distracting and dividing us. We are divided enough as it is.

I think that we should abolish the monarchy. Not only out of principle, but also because I think the proletariat would gain from it. We want to abolish Capitalism and classes. The monarchy is a class system as well. It has successfully merged with Capitalism. The queen is not only a queen. She is also a Capitalist. So by fighting the monarchy, we are fighting both classes and Capitalism.

I don't think the bourgeoisie would be too happy with losing the monarchy. It was a stable system on a national and international level (the royal family has a lot of connections). Abolishing the monarchy would upset the functioning of Capitalism. If it is successful, then it could be inspiring for the proletariat and encourage them to fight for more changes. It would show them that change is possible, even in a Capitalist/pseudo-Feudalist country like the Netherlands.

Also, even if the bourgeoisie would gain from it, then isn't this only temporary? If we take the monarchy as a leftover from Feudalism, then isn't it necessary to deal with that as well, before we can fully move on to Socialism? Or is it wrong, because we end up agreeing with the bourgeois Liberals on a single issue? Does that mean that agreeing with bourgeois Liberals is always wrong?

[Thirsty Crow]

Please, comrades, do not fight each other. Why is this necessary here? I don't see any reason to fight and insult each other, even though we may disagree on some parts. It is only distracting and dividing us. We are divided enough as it is.Debate and criticism does not amount necessarily to fighting each other.



I think that we should abolish the monarchy. Not only out of principle, but also because I think the proletariat would gain from it. We want to abolish Capitalism and classes. The monarchy is a class system as well. It has successfully merged with Capitalism. The queen is not only a queen. She is also a Capitalist. So by fighting the monarchy, we are fighting both classes and Capitalism.
Terrible logic.
What you're saying is that by fighting a specific capitalist - we're fighting the class system itself. So you may go ahead and join the socialdemocrats in denouncing big, bad, unproductive finance capital.


I don't think the bourgeoisie would be too happy with losing the monarchy. It was a stable system on a national and international level (the royal family has a lot of connections). Abolishing the monarchy would upset the functioning of Capitalism.

Only, and that is to accept your premise in the first place, insofar as disrupting the highest echelons and layers of the political system counts as disrupting the functioning of capital. And that leaves out an enormous part of the class system out.


If it is successful, then it could be inspiring for the proletariat and encourage them to fight for more changes. It would show them that change is possible, even in a Capitalist/pseudo-Feudalist country like the Netherlands.
This might actually function as an argument.

[Ravachol]

Well known (in left circles anyway) Dutch anarchist (err, I guess "liberal-bourgeois scum") Peter Storm also makes the case against the monarchy and for a republic (http://www.ravotr.nl/2013/01/30/weg-met-de-monarchie-leve-de-staatloze-republiek/) (article is in Dutch).

You're distorting his words (even though I disagree with Peter here about whether to give a fuck at all about this bullshit), what he's saying:



Daar zullen monarchisten én gewone republikeinen het wel mee eens zijn. Ik overigens niet, want ik ben weliswaar anti-monarchist, maar geenszins voorstander van de republiek in gangbare zin. Ik hoef geen competente autoriteiten. Mij kunnen staatshoofden en andere autoriteiten niet incompetent genoeg zijn. Dat maakt ze immers tot zwakkere vijanden, en maakt het iets gemakkelijker om van ze af te komen, zónder ze te vervangen. (..) Een republikeinse staat, geleid door een gekozen staatsmanager Beatrix, blief ik ook niet.




Monarchists and casual republicans will agree. I won't for I might be an anti-monarchist, but I'm not a proponent of a republic in any regular sense of the word. I don't want competent authorities. Heads of state and other authorities can't be incompetent enough for my liking. That'll just make them weaker enemies and it'll make it easier to get rid of them WITHOUT replacing them. (..) A republican state, led by a chosen head of state/manager Beatrix isn't what I'd want either.

At the end he makes a remark about how 'res publica' (the public case) could be interpreted as an anti-statist sentiment. Its debatable and I personally don't give a rats ass about republican or democratist jargon or blueprint fantasizing so 'whatever', I guess. But saying he advocates a republic in this piece is nonsense and you know it.

[Q]

At the end he makes a remark about how 'res publica' (the public case) could be interpreted as an anti-statist sentiment. Its debatable and I personally don't give a rats ass about republican or democratist jargon or blueprint fantasizing so 'whatever', I guess. But saying he advocates a republic in this piece is nonsense and you know it.

I'm not distorting his words. His case for a republic (or, as he calls it, res publica) is pretty explicit. He opposes the republic in the sense of opposing presidential rule and as a continued capitalist state form. Mind that nowhere I defended that either.

I can only but agree with this view of a republic. He calls it res publica, I call it the "democratic republic", same thing in my view, judging on what he wrote.

[Ravachol]

I'm not distorting his words. His case for a republic (or, as he calls it, res publica) is pretty explicit. He opposes the republic in the sense of opposing presidential rule and as a continued capitalist state form. Mind that nowhere I defended that either.

I can only but agree with this view of a republic. He calls it res publica, I call it the "democratic republic", same thing in my view, judging on what he wrote.

So you advocate the absence of any form of institutional rule, the absence of the state, the absence of any office? (Because I know Peter well enough to know that that is what he means when he talks about a stateless society). Simply trying to say "he opposes the republic in the sense of opposing presidential rule and as a continued capitalist state form" (almost silently implying he doesn't have anything to say about a 'socialist state') isn't the same as advocating a 'republic', whatever that word might mean.

Mind you, its not that I care, its just that I get the feeling you're trying to seek allies where they're not.

[Blake's Baby]

...

I don't think the bourgeoisie would be too happy with losing the monarchy. It was a stable system on a national and international level (the royal family has a lot of connections). Abolishing the monarchy would upset the functioning of Capitalism. If it is successful, then it could be inspiring for the proletariat and encourage them to fight for more changes. It would show them that change is possible, even in a Capitalist/pseudo-Feudalist country like the Netherlands....

Do you think France and the USA are closer to revolution than Spain and the UK? Do you think a bourgeois republic is 'better' for workers in some way than a constitutional monarchy? Do you think any republic (eg Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain) is 'better' than every monarchy?

If not, then what difference does calling for a republic make?

If it's possible to organise a massive and successful anti-monarchy campaign, why is it not possible instead to organise a massive and successful anti-capitalist campaign? Is it because (as I know it isn't possible) a republic is entirely inside the bourgeois framework (compare, USA, France, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Croatia, Romania...) whereas he abolition of capitalism isn't? Doesn't that tell you that as a demand it's useless? Anything the bourgeoisie is prepared to give us, is something they're prepared to lose, and therefore worthless.


...Also, even if the bourgeoisie would gain from it, then isn't this only temporary? If we take the monarchy as a leftover from Feudalism, then isn't it necessary to deal with that as well, before we can fully move on to Socialism? Or is it wrong, because we end up agreeing with the bourgeois Liberals on a single issue? Does that mean that agreeing with bourgeois Liberals is always wrong?

No we don't have to abolish every last vestige of feudalism before we get round to socialism. Are you going to call for the bourgeois state to ban religion? That's a hangover from feudalism, isn't it? Do we have to abolish every monarchy on earth, and every religious group, before we even begin the proletarian revolution?

[Aurora]

As if the dichotomy posed here, nowadays, actually stands. And what you're essentially stating is that the theoretical distinction of these two fundamentally opposed systems of class governance is irrelevant because of "some connection to the existing state of affairs". And now tell me that this isn't formulaic thinking.
No i'm not, i didn't mention the theoretical distinction between the bourgeois and workers republic. You can read it in the civil war in france or the state and revolution. What i said was that the call for a soviet power today is disconnected from reality, the level of class consciousness is too low and to do so would be laughable. Imagine a group of a couple hundred communists with their demanding transfer of power to the imaginary soviets in every village, town and city!
What i propose, is that we call for a democratic republic, the replacement of the standing army with a peoples militia, all officials to be on a workers wage, all officials to be elected and recallable.
Any granting of these demands strengthens the workers power and acts as a bridge from the current level of consciousness to the seizure of power. What's great about them is that they are exactly what we want, they are embodied in the Soviet Republic.
Now, granted, in the particular case of the Netherlands there is already a strong history of democracy but it's further expansion can only be beneficial to the great majority of society, the proletariat.




Are you sure? I don't remember Lenin advocating 'the six-hour day and an extra 20 roubles a week' - I think what he said was 'all power to the soviets!', but maybe I'm wrong.
Lenin advocated both, while i can't find a copy of the bolsheviks minimum program they certainly had one, the second congress of the party adopted it, Lenin says in the April Theses it needs to be updated, and after the seizure of power the 1919 program says that it's now been possible to implement the minimum program in full in the section called 'In the Sphere of Protection of Labour and Social Insurance'.
The minimum program wasn't abandoned, to do so would be to separate oneself from the workers, it was fought for and combined with a program of revolution and socialism, when Trotsky talks of a transitional program he says that today the minimum demands aren't abandoned but they ever more come into conflict with capitalism itself, that is, the simplest demand for higher wages brings the proletariat into conflict with the bourgeois regime.



No, I mean the proletariat's task. The proletariat is a revolutionary class, the proletariat will overthrow capitalism, the proletariat will administer post-revolutionary society, the proletariat will create the socialist society.
I agree of course but the proletariat also struggles for reforms alongside this, the historic mission of the proletariat is to overthrow capitalism but it has nowhere near the level of consciousness needed to do this, the objective factors have made the socialist revolution possible, indeed overdue, across the world. The communists shouldn't abandon the workers struggles for reforms but fight along side them and in doing so raise ever more radical demands leading further and further along the road to power.



I know there are no soviets. I don't know how calling for a bourgeois republic is going to create them.
I never called for a bourgeois republic as an end in itself. I just recognize that in the struggle against capitalism the monarchy will get scrapped at some point and that this will be a positive development. I called for the same measures that the Commune took, a democratic republic with the armed people etc This is the measure that the proletariat must carry out to assure it's supremacy, this is the proletarian dictatorship.

Do you think the Bolsheviks were wrong to support the suppression of the Constituent Assembly then?
No absolutely not, calling a constituent assembly was a tactic which has surpassed by the course of events. One of the main and most popular Bolshevik slogans between February and October was 'Down with the ten capitalist ministers' with this they opposed the Kadets but not the Mensheviks and SRs, they didn't raise any demand of down with the socialist ministers or down with the PRG, this is because the masses hated the Kadets but still had confidence in the Mensheviks and SRs, the masses had to learn for themselves that the parliamentary socialists acted for the capitalists and not the workers and peasants.



Were (or are) France, or the USA, or Italy, or China, or Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain, more 'revolutionary', more 'progressive', than current UK, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Japan or Thailand? Or is the monarchy/republic dichotomy utterly unimportant in how 'progressive' a society is?
No bourgeois state is revolutionary and i don't spread illusions in any. If Saudi Arabian workers overthrew the monarchy i would support it, if they elected a government of capitalists i would oppose the government to protect the revolution from the capitalists.
The bourgeoisie no longer has any interest in revolutionising society, only the working class is capable of leading this as it's doing in Egypt for example where the masses are struggling to create democracy but the bourgeois are doing everything they can to stop this.

[Blake's Baby]

...
No bourgeois state is revolutionary and i don't spread illusions in any. If Saudi Arabian workers overthrew the monarchy i would support it, if they elected a government of capitalists i would oppose the government to protect the revolution from the capitalists.
The bourgeoisie no longer has any interest in revolutionising society, only the working class is capable of leading this as it's doing in Egypt for example where the masses are struggling to create democracy but the bourgeois are doing everything they can to stop this.

I'd have fewer problems with Q's original post if he'd said 'it's high time time the working class overthrew the monarchy, and after that, the whole capitalist system'. But he didn't. He called for the establishment of a republic, which is not a revolutionary demand, it's not even a reformist demand, it's just a demand for a redecoration of the prison.

The form of capitalist government matters not one iota to the class struggle. Obviously, if the Orange-Nassau clan, the Windsors, the House of Bernadotte and the Grimaldis were all deposed tomorrow, I wouldn't be weeping, but if capitalist rule continued in the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden and Monaco I wouldn't see much to celebrate either (from a class point of view - schadenfreude is something else).

Hell, if Q had said 'I fucking hate the Orange-Nassaus, I hope they're all deposed' that would at least have been an understandable reaction of spite and vengeance. But to try to pretend, in this day and age, that a call for the establishment of a liberal-democratic republic is anything but a 200-year-old slogan of the bourgeoisie, that's it's actually a viable tactic for promoting class consciousness or a stepping stone to proletarian revolution, is ridiculous. If France or the USA is no more revolutionary than Spain or the UK, why support the call for a bourgeois republic?

[Luís Henrique]

So now we see the Communist Left bravely defending... royalty.

There was a thread about why the Communist Left is annoying? Well why could it be? Really, can't see any reason.

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

So now we see the Communist Left bravely defending... royalty.

There was a thread about why the Communist Left is annoying? Well why could it be? Really, can't see any reason.

Luís Henrique
Can I see a quote which would verify this? Or would you rather admit that you're making this up?

[Blake's Baby]

Preumably he means:


... I... desire a situation whereby all monarchies are abolished...

and this:


... opposition to the monarchy (which is really redundant in case of communists, and is implied) ...

and this:


... I want capitalism and the monarchies abolished... who exactly is 'supporting' any monarchy?

and this:



... I wouldn't mind if you suggested mass occupations of all the royal palaces, mass expropriations of the monarchy, a country-wide campaign of civil disobedience to refuse to recognise the outgoing queen, incoming king or the continuing government...


and this:


... LinksRadikal and I want the working class to abolish capitalism and the state, including all the monarchies...

and this:


I'd have fewer problems with Q's original post if he'd said 'it's high time time the working class overthrew the monarchy, and after that, the whole capitalist system'... if the Orange-Nassau clan, the Windsors, the House of Bernadotte and the Grimaldis were all deposed tomorrow, I wouldn't be weeping, but if capitalist rule continued in the Netherlands, the UK, Sweden and Monaco I wouldn't see much to celebrate either (from a class point of view - schadenfreude is something else)...

and this:


...
Hell, if Q had said 'I fucking hate the Orange-Nassaus, I hope they're all deposed' that would at least have been an understandable reaction of spite and vengeance...

Watch out Luis, someone might accuse you of being a liar if your not careful.

[Luís Henrique]

Watch out Luis, someone might accuse you of being a liar if your not careful.


The House of Orange-Nassau has no more power than the Windsors or the House of Bernadotte.

Sounds like a defence to me.


Constitutional power. Abolishing the monarchy in the UK wouldn't affect their wealth.

Sounds like a defence to me (and is obviously false, a great part of the income of royals comes from their privileged position as royals).


The form that capitalist rule takes is pretty much unimportantl

Sounds like a defence to me.


So why call for the abolition of the monarchy?

Sounds like a defence to me.


De facto, you are supporting the call for a bourgeois-democratic republic.

If you can say that to other people if you think they believe a republic is a lesser evil, why can't I say you are supporting the monarchy, if you evidently see no difference between both regimes?

In the context, sounds like a defence to me.


What I find 'inconceivable' is that anyone for 120 years could think that calling for the abolition of any particular monarchy has been an action that can be called 'revolutionary'.

Really, any particular monarchy? Those of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait included?


I don't call for the abolition of the Monachy in [varied assorted countries]!

Sounds to me as a declaration that you actually can't be bothered with abolishing those monarchies.


LinksRadikal and I want the working class to abolish capitalism and the state, including all the monarchies; Q wants the state to change the way its run and abolish the monarchy; who opposes abolition?

The point being that the Dutch queen is abdicating, so want it or not, it is the time when monarchies get questioned (why should we have one more king? Couldn't we do without any?); unhappily, this does not necessarily coincide with the time when capitalism is questioned (is anyone actually questioning capitalism in the Netherlands in a practical way? Probably not, so what even is the logic of confronting the abolition of monarchy with the abolition of capital as if it were an actual disjunctive?)

Really, the thing boils down to you accusing everybody else of "supporting" bourgeois "progressive" regimes if we dare to say they are, or could be, a lesser evil. And then getting riled when someone calls you on actually saying that monarchy is no worse than republic.

If you really want to at least sound more radical than Q, then at least say something like, "fine, let's abolish the monarchy, and while we are at abolishing things, let's abolish capitalism too, why not?".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Are you sure? I don't remember Lenin advocating 'the six-hour day and an extra 20 roubles a week'

Perhaps he should have, considering that the Russians ended with twelve hours a day and Stakhanovist medals instead of a better pay.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I know there are no soviets. I don't know how calling for a bourgeois republic is going to create them.

Curiously, they often seem to pop up in conjunction with monarchies being abolished (Germany, Russia, Austria...) But I suppose we should have opposed the February revolution, or at least abstained to take sides?

Luís Henrique

[Thirsty Crow]

Sounds like a defence to me.

This is just ridiculous.

So you're going to tell me that an assessment of the political importance of a specific institution and group amounts to a defense? This is plainly preposterous, and more than that. It is sheer idiocy. What now, communists can't assess the situation and dare to conclude that an institution does not constitute a power center for the bourgeoisie? If I'd claim that the Ministry of Environment in Croatia does not wield significant power you'd conclude that I'm defending it?

Step aside and just read the crap you're writing here.


Curiously, they often seem to pop up in conjunction with monarchies being abolished (Germany, Russia, Austria...) But I suppose we should have opposed the February revolution, or at least abstained to take sides?

Luís Henrique
Because the historical example actually proves the necessity, without any consideration of the kind of an attacki against the monarchy and the balance of class forces, of events repeating themselves in exactly the same way.

Do I need to repeat myself? Step aside. And think for a moment.

[piet11111]

I have to say i am very surprised how this thread turned out above all else the attacks on Q for not saying he wants to also abolish capitalism along with the house of orange nassau.

For fucks sake i dont even understand why this thread turned into such a shit storm.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have to say i am very surprised how this thread turned out above all else the attacks on Q for not saying he wants to also abolish capitalism along with the house of orange nassau.That's not all there is to it. Some of us have cast doubt on the almost automatic assumption that the abolition of the monarchy would necessarily strenghten the working class and our struggles. We've even come so far as to suggest that the contemporary hereditary aristocracy wields nothing more than a consultative and ceremonial power. And horror of horrors, we doubt the validity of the slogan of the democratic republic, precisely for those reasons.


For fucks sake i dont even understand why this thread turned into such a shit storm.
It is because some would rather have a circle jerk where there is a competition as to who can denounce the monarchy in as badass way as possible.

Also because it is apparently hard to go beyond the simple, default reaction characteristic to communists - monarchy needs to be abolished - and even harder to think in concrete terms, and not in vacuous phrases inherited from the past.

And of course, there is the obligatory misrepresentation, and outright distortion, of what some of us claim here, and that's because we're annoying as all hell.

[piet11111]

That's not all there is to it. Some of us have cast doubt on the almost automatic assumption that the abolition of the monarchy would necessarily strenghten the working class and our struggles. We've even come so far as to suggest that the contemporary hereditary aristocracy wields nothing more than a consultative and ceremonial power. And horror of horrors, we doubt the validity of the slogan of the democratic republic, precisely for those reasons.

FYI i am drunk right now.

I would like to point out that the queen is a major shareholder in shell.
And her "royal lineage" gets paid out of tax money has their palaces maintained at public expense and their yacht the green dragon is also paid for and maintained at our expense.
They get paid a "salary" and i think their property is largely tax exempt.

As such i feel safe to call them the only "welfare queens" in existence.

These royal inbreds should be stripped of their privilege and ground into paste through taxes.



It is because some would rather have a circle jerk where there is a competition as to who can denounce the monarchy in as badass way as possible.

Also because it is apparently hard to go beyond the simple, default reaction characteristic to communists - monarchy needs to be abolished - and even harder to think in concrete terms, and not in vacuous phrases inherited from the past.

And of course, there is the obligatory misrepresentation, and outright distortion, of what some of us claim here, and that's because we're annoying as all hell.

Yeah the ultra leftists did make an ass of themselves in this thread by distorting what Q said in such a manner.

[Thirsty Crow]

I would like to point out that the queen is a major shareholder in shell.
And this is relevant to the issue of political power, the issue of the institutional position of the monarchy, how? Would here shares be confiscated?


And her "royal lineage" gets paid out of tax money has their palaces maintained at public expense and their yacht the green dragon is also paid for and maintained at our expense.Okay, sure, this money could be better spent, but due to the simple fact of the current period being what it is, it's doubtful, but possible, that's certain.


They get paid a "salary" and i think their property is largely tax exempt.
Okay.


As such i feel safe to call them the only "welfare queens" in existence.And do you think I don't hold these opinions as well?

And this is basically a list of arguments against the monarchy. I have absolutely no problem with that. On the other hand, I have a problem with other arguments, and these are outlined in the post you quoted but did not write a single word about.


Yeah the ultra leftists did make an ass of themselves in this thread by distorting what Q said in such a manner.I don't know about the exchange between BB and Q. But I don't think I did any such thing, and it is apparent that I'm being called out by means of this cute catchword.

Furthermore, as Q goes, he indeed misrepresented that Dutch anarchist he quoted as his supporting argument (well pointed out by Ravachol), and indeed there's been some more ridiculous shit, namely from Luis, right above.

So sure, you can pretend nothing like that ever happened. It's not as if I expect a rational debate here.

[piet11111]

Like i said i am drunk right now but if you want i will do my best to translate that article when i am sober so you can judge for yourself if you want.
I have no desire to bend anything to suit any of my preconceptions, but i do want to give you the information contained in that article to the best of my ability but obviously i do not have english as my first language.

As for the rational debate bit i think we went past that already.

[Blake's Baby]

Sounds like a defence to me.



Sounds like a defence to me (and is obviously false, a great part of the income of royals comes from their privileged position as royals).



Sounds like a defence to me.



Sounds like a defence to me...

Then you have a limited and warped understanding of the word 'defence'.




If you can say that to other people if you think they believe a republic is a lesser evil, why can't I say you are supporting the monarchy, if you evidently see no difference between both regimes?

In the context, sounds like a defence to me...

Sounds to me like you think Franco's republic was better than the monarchy of Juan Carlos; or Hitler's republic was better than George VI's monarchy. So, are you defending the Nazis now Luis? Sounds like a defence to me.



...
The point being that the Dutch queen is abdicating, so want it or not, it is the time when monarchies get questioned (why should we have one more king? Couldn't we do without any?); unhappily, this does not necessarily coincide with the time when capitalism is questioned (is anyone actually questioning capitalism in the Netherlands in a practical way? Probably not, so what even is the logic of confronting the abolition of monarchy with the abolition of capital as if it were an actual disjunctive?)...

That's a fair enough point and if you bothered to engage with what people wrote instead of making shit up then you'd see that I've already said that if Q had said that he wanted the working class to abolish the monarchy today and capitalism tomorrow, I wouldn't have such a problem. What I have a problem with is 'high time for a republic' expressed as a political demand.


...Really, the thing boils down to you accusing everybody else of "supporting" bourgeois "progressive" regimes if we dare to say they are, or could be, a lesser evil...

If you support the lesser evil for being the lesser evil, you can't really complain when someone reminds you it's evil. Please explain to me how republican France is so much less 'evil' than monarchial Spain.


... And then getting riled when someone calls you on actually saying that monarchy is no worse than republic...

Oh, no, if you look back over the conversation I call Q a fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie after he twice accuses me of being a liar.


...If you really want to at least sound more radical than Q, then at least say something like, "fine, let's abolish the monarchy, and while we are at abolishing things, let's abolish capitalism too, why not?".

Luís Henrique

I sound more radical than Q by not calling for the Netherlands to be just as democratic as Germany. And I said in post 66 that I'd have little problem if Q had said almost exactly the same as you've just said there.

So; either explain why the US is better than Britain, Germany better than the Netherlands, France better than Spain, and Nazi Germany better than Denmark and Norway together, or admit you don't have an argument. It's pretty easy really.

[Q]

Furthermore, as Q goes, he indeed misrepresented that Dutch anarchist he quoted as his supporting argument (well pointed out by Ravachol), and indeed there's been some more ridiculous shit, namely from Luis, right above.
I've not commented on it (see reason below) but there was no misrepresentation. At most a misunderstanding (I asked Peter on Facebook) and really, as I can talk best for my opinion on the matter, I think even that is overstating things, that being much in line with Peter's. I think our main difference comes down to a definition of what a "state" is. He has moved from a Trotskyist position to an anarchist position in the last few years, so I guess that affects the subject discussed.


So sure, you can pretend nothing like that ever happened. It's not as if I expect a rational debate here.
Exactly, hence why I've stopped responding here mostly.

[Thirsty Crow]

I've not commented on it (see reason below) but there was no misrepresentation.
I didn't say you deliberately misrepresented his views. Misrepresentation can easily occur due to exactly what you mention, a misunderstanding. We should all chill out a bit.


Exactly, hence why I've stop responding here mostly. It's a shame you didn't engage the arguments. I don't think I accused you of stagism. Or any such thing. So to reiterate:


I'm not saying that she directs Premier Rutte's every move, but she does have her influence. Like any rich family really, but of course this one having a formal position in the Dutch state.

You never specified what kind of a position we're talking about, what kind of substantive powers are we talking about either.

And you didn't respond to:


At best you could make an argument for consultative functions.
Does the abolition of such an arrangement amount to a bourgeois-liberal revolution? Does this mean that communists ought to make the call for a democratic republic?

And those are real questions, propped up by what I think is undeniable - that theoretically, it makes no sense either to produce a super-category of the democratic republic - accomodating two fundamentally opposed ways of class governance, two opposed class being the case - and that it is a terrible, misleading terminological choice which has very little traction in 20th century Marxism (this is not so important as is the issue with it being very misleading due to the fact that the term has altogether a different meaing in mainstream, and day to day, political discourse).

And there is the fact that I explicitly claim that modern western monarchies can be claimed to wield, at best, consultative powers.

All of this leaves out arguments that were not addressed at you.

So forgive me Q, but it's not that no attempt at a rational discussion hasn't been made from the side you oppose.

[Blake's Baby]

I have to say i am very surprised how this thread turned out above all else the attacks on Q for not saying he wants to also abolish capitalism along with the house of orange nassau...

Because a call for a republic - for the Netherlands to become like Germany or Austria or France or even Croatia - is not a revolutionary position. I merely pointed this out. Q could have said 'yeah, OK, but I don't like them and they're particularly annoying parasites' or he could have said 'yeah I know but there's a possibility that the abolition of the monarchy could go further' - both of which would be political positions which could be debated - but instead he accused me of lying about his position - which I gave him the opportunity retract - and then he accused me again of lying about his position.Which, obviously I haven't as you can see in the second post on this thread. 'High time for a republic I'd say' Q said. If you don't think that that is support for a bourgeois republic, then you should compare that with Luis's claim that equating the House of Windsor, the House of Bernadotte and the House of Orange-Nassau is 'defence' (of which one? I'm not sure he knows), because you have wildly different ideas about what constitutes political support.


...For fucks sake i dont even understand why this thread turned into such a shit storm.

Because Q called me a liar, twice, when I challenged him, for supporting a bourgeois republic. So I called him a fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie, for supporting a bourgeois republic.


...
Yeah the ultra leftists did make an ass of themselves in this thread by distorting what Q said in such a manner.

I didn't distort anything at all. Post 2 - Q calls for a republic. I point out this is not a revolutionary position. After some to-ing and fro-ing, where Q could have admitted that it is not in itself a revolutionary demand at all, or could have proved somehow that all the examples of republics we see around us are somehow more revolutionary or better for the working class than monarchies are, instead of being the same, as is my contention, instead he accused me of lying about his position. So, do you want to point out where either I or LinksRadikal or any other 'ultra-Leftist' distort Q's position?

[Ravachol]

So, concrete question amid all this 'debate'? What should dutch communists who care about this (all 5 of them) supposedly do or have to do with this whole thing and what will any of it matter re. the elaboration of the communist project? Addressing that seems a precondition to even debating something like this I'd say. I can come into Psycho's remark of 'it presents an opportunity to cause a ruckus and act as a springboard for whatever we want to address', but that's something different from the monarchy/republic/whatever debate.

[Thirsty Crow]

So, concrete question amid all this 'debate'?
Good luck with that.

[Blake's Baby]

... I can come into Psycho's remark of 'it presents an opportunity to cause a ruckus and act as a springboard for whatever we want to address', but that's something different from the monarchy/republic/whatever debate.

I agree, though obviously I'm a communist from a different monarchy a short stretch of water away. I think it does present an opportunity to 'cause a ruckus'. It's been claimed that no-one in the Netherlands is discussing the end of capitalism but that maybe they'll discuss the end of the monarchy. Why is no-one discussing the end of capitalism? Why not link the two conversations - 'getting rid of the Queen isn't enough, we need to get rid of the whole capitalist system' is a reasonable enough argument in my opinion.

[Luís Henrique]

...For fucks sake i dont even understand why this thread turned into such a shit storm.

I have not written this. I don't use the word "fuck" in this way, and I don't think that I don't understand why this thread has turned into a shitstorm.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

I have not written this. I don't use the word "fuck" in this way, and I don't think that I don't understand why this thread has turned into a shitstorm.

Luís Henrique

I'm sorry Luis, I misquoted piet11111 and attributed that part to you. I'll go back and edit my post.

EDIT - done, piet11111 has been restored as the originator of that quote.

[Thirsty Crow]

I have not written this. I don't use the word "fuck" in this way, and I don't think that I don't understand why this thread has turned into a shitstorm.

Luís Henrique
It might have something to do with you attributing a defence of the monarchy to some people here.

Are you saying that you didn't repeatedly state that a part of the argument sounds like a defence?

[Blake's Baby]

I think he's saying that he does understand why it turned into a shitstorm.

[Luís Henrique]

Sounds to me like you think Franco's republic was better than the monarchy of Juan Carlos; or Hitler's republic was better than George VI's monarchy. So, are you defending the Nazis now Luis? Sounds like a defence to me.

That's abstracting reality completely.

Franco's regime was not a "republic", even. Franco always regarded himself as a placeholder until a proper King could take charge. Juan Carlos' monarchy was the evident result of a controlled transition - a less controlled transition would have certainly resulted into some kind of republic.

Basically, Franco's team agreed to go, provided that they could save their faces by having a King like Franco intended.

About George VI and Hitler, where even to start? George VI was in Britain, Hitler in Germany; one was not the alternative to the other. A British Republic (a British Republic that was possible under the conditions of that time) in 1933 wouldn't be worse than George VI's monarchy. A German monarchy in 1933 wouldn't be better than Hitler's regime (rather, it would be Hitler's regime with a decorative "King"). And Hitler's III Reich was hardly a "republic" in any meaningful sence either; the Reichstag was even more decorative than Elisabeth II of Saxe-Coburg.

And, oh, it would be difficult to make the point that I am defending Nazism. Because I certainly don't think it is a lesser, or even equivalent, evil than anything else. And because I can say that - Nazism isn't a lesser evil, or even equivalent, evil, compared to anything else whenever you are in doubt of what I think about this. Among other reasons, because I don't adhere to the religious belief that all bourgeois regimes are exactly equivalent.


That's a fair enough point and if you bothered to engage with what people wrote instead of making shit up then you'd see that I've already said that if Q had said that he wanted the working class to abolish the monarchy today and capitalism tomorrow, I wouldn't have such a problem. What I have a problem with is 'high time for a republic' expressed as a political demand.

It is high time for a republic. The demand is not "outdated", it is belated. By 200 years, as you point out.


If you support the lesser evil for being the lesser evil, you can't really complain when someone reminds you it's evil. Please explain to me how republican France is so much less 'evil' than monarchial Spain.

Spain today is a lesser evil than Franco's Spain. I hope I don't have to explain to you that this has nothing to do with Juan Carlos, but rather to the strength relation between classes in Spain then and today. Had the strength relations been more favourable at that time, Juan Carlos would not be King today. If the strength relations were more favourable today, he would probably resign and a republic would be proclaimed.


Oh, no, if you look back over the conversation I call Q a fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie after he twice accuses me of being a liar.

He started it!!!

... and you continued it. (not actually - you turned it worse, and lowered it to the personal level)


I sound more radical than Q by not calling for the Netherlands to be just as democratic as Germany. And I said in post 66 that I'd have little problem if Q had said almost exactly the same as you've just said there.

You know what his position is. He is a Trotskyist, remember? "Permanent Revolution"? Transforming a political bourgeois revolution into a proletarian social revolution?. And you are clearly ignoring such position, quibbling about terminology, abstracting History, getting it wrong about historical facts ("Franco's republic!), etc., to score a point on him.


So; either explain why the US is better than Britain, Germany better than the Netherlands, France better than Spain, and Nazi Germany better than Denmark and Norway together, or admit you don't have an argument. It's pretty easy really.

Different countries have different political traditions and different class strength relations. If the US was a monarchy, it would be worse than either Britain or Germany - but fundamentally, worse than what it is today. If Britain was a republic, it would be better than the US, but fundamentally it would be better than it is now.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

...
It is high time for a republic. The demand is not "outdated", it is belated. By 200 years, as you point out...


It is outdated. 200 years ago, a republic would be a step forward from a monarchy, because the bourgeoisie was still an historically dynamic class. Now, the demand for a republic (a demand of the liberal bourgeoisie against the outmoded feudal monarchy) has been surpassed by the demand for the overthrow of capitalism (the demand of the revolutionary proletariat against the outmoded capitalist bourgeoisie).

Now, a republic is just a different way to organise the capitalist state. Communists have no business advising the bourgeoisie how to run their states better for capitalism.


...
He started it!!!

... and you continued it. (not actually - you turned it worse, and lowered it to the personal level)...

Can you hear yourself?

1 - how much more 'personal' could one get than repeatedly calling someone else a liar?
2 - you think being called a 'fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie' is worse than being called a liar? Obviously your reputation as an honest person doesn't mean that much to you.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm sorry Luis, I misquoted piet11111 and attributed that part to you. I'll go back and edit my post.

EDIT - done, piet11111 has been restored as the originator of that quote.

Thank you, Blake.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Can you hear yourself?

1 - how much more 'personal' could one get than repeatedly calling someone else a liar?
2 - you think being called a 'fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie' is worse than being called a liar? Obviously your reputation as an honest person doesn't mean that much to you.

1 - Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think he called your arguments dishonest; he didn't call you personally dishonest. Don't you think there is a difference here?

2 - Yes, I think that being called a "fuck pig of the bourgeoisie" is considerably worse than being called a liar (but see point 1 above). A fuck pig of the bourgeoisie, I suppose, is necessarily a liar too - among other things, I suppose (what other things? I don't know, but I can imagine, given the policiac connotation of the word "pig"). On the other hand, a liar does not necessarily lie in the class interests of the bourgeoisie, or am I mistaken? Do you really think that if he actually said that you were lying about his positions, he meant that you were a lackey for the bourgeosie for it? Obviously, while my reputation as a honest person does mean a lot to me, it still doesn't mean as much to me as my identity as an enemy of capital.

(Moreover, you didn't only call him a "fuck pig of the bourgeoisie". Here is what you said to him:


You are a liar and a fraud. You are bourgeois scum. You are a liberal masquerading as a revolutionary. You spew the bile of your political masters and I suspect masturbate over pictures of Gert Wilders fucking starving immigrant children. Distort that you mendacious fucker. How dare you claim I'm deliberately distorting your position? Your position is shit and I pulled you on it, and now you're lying about it to cover the fact that you're a fuck-pig for Dutch republicanism. Fuck you and your liberal democratic donkey.


That's clearly an escalation, in my reckoning.)

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

1 - Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think he called your arguments dishonest; he didn't call you personally dishonest. Don't you think there is a difference here?




Your attempt to portray me as some sort of stagist is ... very dishonest.


Dishonest? That implies I'm deliberately distorting your position...


Indeed, you are...

So, yes you're mistaken and therefore your contention that there is a difference between 'me' being dishonest and 'the things I say' being dishonest, is moot, even if there is any validity in the distinction you make, which there isn't. People may be honest and wrong; perhaps you are, I don't tend to fling around the accusation that people are deliberately misrepresenting others, even though you and Yazzman have both misrepresented mine and LinksRadikal's arguments against support for a bourgeois republic as 'support' for monarchy, in spite of being shown a heap of evidence to the contrary. But that makes you wrong, it doesn't make you a liar. you may be. How can I tell? It seems to me that it's better to assume that you aren't deliberately misrepresenting us, and I will therefore work on the basis that your misrepresentations of our positions are not 'dishonest'.


... I think that being called a "fuck pig of the bourgeoisie" is considerably worse than being called a liar (but see point 1 above). A fuck pig of the bourgeoisie, I suppose, is necessarily a liar too - among other things, I suppose (what other things? I don't know, but I can imagine, given the policiac connotation of the word "pig")...

I disagree. I was originally going to call Q a 'whore of the bourgeoisie' but thought that as 'whore' would possibly be assumed by others (not necessarly Q) to be a mysogynistic insult (I it isn't, men can be whores too, but it's best to be clear about this stuff), and also 'whore' would imply some kind of transaction (and really I don't think Q gets paid by the bourgeoisie for defending their interests, I think he does it voluntarily), 'whore' didn't seem appropriate. I didn't in the least consider the implication of 'pig' = policeman; so I'd like to apologise to Q if he thought I was calling him a cop, that was certainly unintentional. What I intended by calling him a 'fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie' was that the bourgeoisie had metaphorical political sex with him, and he squealed as a result. Does he like it? I don't know.



...On the other hand, a liar does not necessarily lie in the class interests of the bourgeoisie, or am I mistaken? Do you really think that if he actually said that you were lying about his positions, he meant that you were a lackey for the bourgeosie for it? Obviously, while my reputation as a honest person does mean a lot to me, it still doesn't mean as much to me as my identity as an enemy of capital.

(Moreover, you didn't only call him a "fuck pig of the bourgeoisie"...

I was infracted for calling him a 'fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie' in the post where I warned Yazzman not to misrepresent mine and LinksRadikal's positions, lest someone call him a liar.

Lying is OK in the service of the revolution? Lying to the working class is OK in the service of the revolution? Do you see a difference in those two statements? Do you agree with one, or other, or both, or neither?



...
That's clearly an escalation, in my reckoning.)

Luís Henrique

We reckon differently. Though, obviously, as I post on RevLeft and agree to abide by the rules of RevLeft and that includes accepting the BA and mods have the right to distribute infractions as they see fit, I think being called a liar for pointing out that Q called for a republic and that this is not a revolutionary demand, is worse than implying Q enjoys the frisson of intercourse with the bourgeoisie, especially given that 'fuck-pig of the bourgeoisie' is a metaphor (do I really believe that Q is a pig, bashing his trotters on the keyboard? No, really I don't; do I really believe that members of the government of the Netherlands have sex with him in his piggy form and this is why he supports their interests? No really I don't); whereas Q is actually accusing me of lying.

[Aurora]

Comrades Blake and Luís, stop this nonsense, the matter was settled and in reviving it you don't undo any harm done, you only do yourselves and others a disservice.

Please return to the topic at hand or consider it finished and move on.

[Blake's Baby]

Comrades Blake and Luís, stop this nonsense, the matter was settled and in reviving it you don't undo any harm done, you only do yourselves and others a disservice.

Please return to the topic at hand or consider it finished and move on.

I thought it was done after Yazzman intervened on the the thread, but piet brought it up again and then Luis challenged my explanation to piet. If I'm still being accused of things - overreacting to being repeatedly called a liar, for instance - then I'm going to defend myself; sorry if it's dull for the other readers.

[Luís Henrique]

Lying is OK in the service of the revolution? Lying to the working class is OK in the service of the revolution? Do you see a difference in those two statements? Do you agree with one, or other, or both, or neither?

Lying is always wrong, but deliberately saying things that are untrue isn't necessarily lying (to the police, for instance, about the hereabouts of comrades).

Lying to the working class is always wrong, and I don't think it can be done in the interests of revolution. Naturally, there are those who think otherwise, and believe that deliberately saying false things in order to infuriate workers against the bourgeois rule is OK. I think they are wrong, and that they are liars. I don't think they are lackeys of the bourgeoisie, or that they are worse than lackeys of the bourgeoisie.

*************

I think you are taking the opportunity to reiterate your insults to Q, under the guise of merely discussing what they mean or how much insulting they were. And I would ask you to stop, please.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

It might have something to do with you attributing a defence of the monarchy to some people here.

Well, I didn't write those things - and indeed, I very much dislike the use of the word "fuck" in such a way - and I do believe I understand why this thread has turned into a shitstorm - so I'm merely correcting this part.

Is there any reason why I should let a statement that I didn't make stand as being of my authorship?


Are you saying that you didn't repeatedly state that a part of the argument sounds like a defence?I do think they sound like a defence.

The main part of the argument, if I grasp it correctly, is that there is no difference between monarchy and republic - they are just different ways in which the bourgeoisie manages capitalism. Like this:


Communists have no business advising the bourgeoisie how to run their states better for capitalism.If this is true, then it seems that some people get very (and very easily) inflamated about things that don't make any difference at all. Which makes me think that they do make a difference to them, after all.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think he's saying that he does understand why it turned into a shitstorm.

Yes, exactly. Thanks.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Lying is always wrong, but deliberately saying things that are untrue isn't necessarily lying (to the police, for instance, about the hereabouts of comrades)...

No, you have that backwards. It is lying (deliberately saying something that isn't true), but it isn't wrong.


...Lying to the working class is always wrong, and I don't think it can be done in the interests of revolution...

I agree. So if someone accuses me of lying to the working class, as Q did, then I'm not going to be pleased about it.




...I think you are taking the opportunity to reiterate your insults to Q, under the guise of merely discussing what they mean or how much insulting they were...

And yet, you were the one that brought it up again, and quoted the section of the first post that I didn't refer to at all. All I was doing was trying to correct your misapprehension about what I'd said (such as, your belief that I might have been insinuating that Q was some kind of cop). That I can see is an honest mistake. I said something, which really doesn't have a dictionary definition, assuming that everyone would apply the same meaning to it, and you saw a meaning to it that I hadn't intended. So, I don't for a moment think you were, for example, 'dishonest' in thinking that I'd intended to call Q a cop - just honestly mistaken.

[Blake's Baby]

Right: in an attempt to draw a line under all of this: -

I would like to publicly apologise to Q for the tone of the insults I heaped on him.

I stand by my positions that
1-I am not a liar, because Q is supporting a call for the establishment of a bourgeois republic;
2-such a republic would in no way be a gain for the working class; and
3-in making such a call Q is acting as a mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie.

But the language and imagery used is in no way helpful to a continued debate about the substantive question, 'what should the attitude of communists in the Netherlands (and by implication other monarchies) be to the continued existence of the monarchy or its replacement by a bourgeois republic?', which is the point of the thread.

[Luís Henrique]

No, you have that backwards. It is lying (deliberately saying something that isn't true), but it isn't wrong.

That's terminology to me. In either way, we agree that deliberately misleading those who have no business knowing the truth is not wrong. It's basically Thomas Aquinas 101.


I agree. So if someone accuses me of lying to the working class, as Q did, then I'm not going to be pleased about it.

I don't think you should be pleased, not any more than he probably was in being accused of supporting bourgeois republic at the expense of proletarian revolution.


And yet, you were the one that brought it up again, and quoted the section of the first post that I didn't refer to at all. All I was doing was trying to correct your misapprehension about what I'd said (such as, your belief that I might have been insinuating that Q was some kind of cop). That I can see is an honest mistake. I said something, which really doesn't have a dictionary definition, assuming that everyone would apply the same meaning to it, and you saw a meaning to it that I hadn't intended. So, I don't for a moment think you were, for example, 'dishonest' in thinking that I'd intended to call Q a cop - just honestly mistaken.

Thank you very much for addressing the issue without renewing the insults. As you see, it is perfectly possible, and it is even easier to understand.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I would like to publicly apologise to Q for the tone of the insults I heaped on him.

Thanks for that.


I stand by my positions that
1-I am not a liar, because Q is supporting a call for the establishment of a bourgeois republic;
2-such a republic would in no way be a gain for the working class; and
3-in making such a call Q is acting as a mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie.


I do support a call for the establishment for a bourgeois republic in the Netherlands - if the alternative is the status quo, and other things remaining unchanged (Meaning I wouldn't support a coup d'État by Gert Wilders or Pym Fortuyn to establish their personal "republican" dictatorship, for instance). And I do think this would be a gain for the working class.

Now, am I a mouthpiece for the bourgeoisie?


a continued debate about the substantive question, 'what should the attitude of communists in the Netherlands (and by implication other monarchies) be to the continued existence of the monarchy or its replacement by a bourgeois republic?', [...] is the point of the thread.

Agreed.

So can we debate it, or must we assume that the issue has been already resolved, and that the only possible position for revolutionaries is "revolutionary apathy"? Are you begging the question? Or should this discussion (and presumably the participants who do disagree with you) be moved to OI?

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not aware that this a forum of Left Communists. Of course I realise that people with other opinions are going to post. My view is that calls for the establishment of a republic are not revolutionary and are instead a call for the more efficient organisation of the capitalist state, and that this is not a demand communists should make. Your view is different. That's why we can debate it. Perhaps you can offer some evidence that republics are better than monarchies somehow, or that the establishment of (another) Dutch Republic would be a gain for the working class. Perhaps, as several people have raised the possibility already, you could take the view that linking the theory of the abolition of the monarchy with the possibility of the abolition of capitalism might be a fruitful way forward, and debate that.

And yes, if you call for the establishment of a republic, I regard you as being a mouthpiece of bourgeois propaganda. But to be honest, I regard about 90% of RevLeft's users as mouthpieces for bourgeois propaganda in some form. The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, after all. We all are constantly subject to the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not aware that this a forum of Left Communists. Of course I realise that people with other opinions are going to post. My view is that calls for the establishment of a republic are not revolutionary and are instead a call for the more efficient organisation of the capitalist state, and that this is not a demand communists should make.

I see. Thanks for clearing.

So you realise that the views that the difference between two different bourgeois regimes isn't merely one of more - or less - efficient organisation of the bourgeois State, or that it is, but that the working class has a direct interest in the organisation of the capitalist State, are admissible views here, and that merely stating they are false is insufficient, but, on the contrary, that substantiating the arguments that they are invalid views is necessary, with examples, arguments, analyses, data, etc.?

And while on the subject of "the more efficient organisation of the capitalist State", can you explain why the Netherlands are a constitutional monarchy, while the United States are a federative republic, France a unitary republic, Saudi Arabia an absolute monarchy, and Iran a theocratic "republic"? After all, can't the bourgeoisie settle on what exactly is the most efficient organisation of its own State, and stop jumping from one to another, or keeping several different ones in different places at the same time?


Your view is different. That's why we can debate it. Perhaps you can offer some evidence that republics are better than monarchies somehow, or that the establishment of (another) Dutch Republic would be a gain for the working class.Well, certainly. For starters, royals are very well paid functionaries, that either do nothing - and consequently are unnecessary, and shouldn't reveive any pay or privilege of any other kind - or have positions of power to which they are neither elected nor selected through public contest, that are not subjected to constitutional recalls. So, in principle, this is some taxes that the working class doesn't need to pay, or some hereditary authority that the working class doesn't need to recognise.


Perhaps, as several people have raised the possibility already, you could take the view that linking the theory of the abolition of the monarchy with the possibility of the abolition of capitalism might be a fruitful way forward, and debate that.Sure. I think revolutionaries should understand the weaknesses of bourgeois regimes and exploit them. A monarchy is always weak because the selection of some of its high-ranking civil servants is incompatible with normal bourgeois rule and ideology, which demand some kind of democratic choice - election, public contest, etc. - and they are always weakest when there is need for sucession. So this is the moment that socialists can agitate and question the issues of democratic choice of leaders, inheritance, leadership in itself, the unfairness of the tax system, the idea of unearned privilege, etc. I don't see how not doing it helps our position in any way.


And yes, if you call for the establishment of a republic, I regard you as being a mouthpiece of bourgeois propaganda.So, as I have already said that I would call for the establishment of a republice, you are telling me, to my face, that I am a "mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie" (or, as you have rephrased it, "a mouthpiece of bourgeois propaganda" (I don't know if it makes a difference at all, and what would that difference be, if any). You can perhaps imagine how much "pleased" I am by that. But I will try to keep the discussion political, nevermind how much tempted I may be to do otherwise. In the interests of such discussion, can you clarify whether do you think being a "mouthpiece" of the bourgeoisie, or of its "propaganda" amounts to counsciously defending the interests of the bourgeoisie?


But to be honest, I regard about 90% of RevLeft's users as mouthpieces for bourgeois propaganda in some form.Thank you. So, being a "mouthpiece for bourgeois propaganda" is something that can happen to anyone here? To you, for instance?


The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, after all. We all are constantly subject to the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie.In which case I think you will take no offence if I say you are a "mouthpiece for bourgeois propaganda", since you are constantly subject to the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie too - I suppose? Or perhaps you will explain us how you have, like the Baron of Muenchhausen, lifted yourself, by pulling your own hairs,http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/encyclopedia/images/a/a8/Baron_01.jpeg above the common swamp of bourgeois ideology?

And, of course, since the overthrow of capitalism will require at least a huge part of the working class - or, as you say it, of the mouthpieces of the bourgeoisie - to counsiously rise against the rule of capital, how is it going to be possible, if they are constantly subject to the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie?

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

By constantly working to reject it of course.

I've stated multiple times why I think the call for a republic is irrelevant. I've demonstrated - I think pretty successfully - that capitalism is perfectly able to function whether its state is headed by a king, an elected president or a dictator-for-life.

Different countries have different histories. England had been a monarchy for 800 years before it had its bourgeois revolution. The Netherlands had been a Spanish colony until 100 years before England had its revolution. Germany wasn't unified until after the Netherlands last stopped being a republic (in 1830, I seem to recall). How could they possibly all have the same features?

I'm not sure if the money spent on royalty is significantly different to the money spent on other unnecessary things - the US (a republic) spends 40% of the world's arms budget. If the Dutch state decided to ditch the monarchy and buy some nuclear subs with the spare cash, would that be better or worse, do you think?

How are some people able to 'lift themselves up by their hairs'? They don't, they stand on the shoulders of giants. The working class, and especially its revolutionary minorities, learn historical lessons from previous revolutionary waves. If I'm right, it's not because I'm a genius or magic, it's because I'm basing my positions on those of the clearest expressions of proletarian politics that have gone before - Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, the work of the Bilan group, Damen, Mattick, Gorter...

One can learn or one can not learn. One can repeat the propaganda of the dominant ideology. On 'a mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie' or a 'mouthpiece of bourgeois propaganda' - what comes out of the 'mouthpiece' is bourgeois propaganda, the interests it serves are those of the bourgeoisie. Conscious or unconscious? Not for me to say. I've told you, but that doesn't mean that you believe me. So in the enbd you might claim that you didn't know - in that you didn't believe it when you were told you were repeating bourgeois propaganda. But I can't see that you don't already know that calling for a republic is a bourgeois demand.

[Luís Henrique]

By constantly working to reject it of course.

And how do you constantly work to reject it? What is the method?

I suppose no one else is constantly working to reject it? Or is it the case that you work to reject it and succeed while us common mortals try and fail? And that the difference makes us "mouthpieces for the bourgeois propaganda", and yourself a "revolutionary"?

How does the working class aggregate of mouthpieces of bourgeois propaganda as a whole comes to reject it, anyway? How do they "constantly work to reject it" - and how do they even realise the necessity of doing it, since the are all "subject to bourgeois ideological hegemony"?

About the difference, or lack thereof, between varied bourgeois States and regimes? About the analysis of royals? About the most efficient form of organisation of the capitalist State, and about why the bourgeosie seems unable to settle on what would it be? Nothing to say?

Ah, I see you edited your post:


I've stated multiple times why I think the call for a republic is irrelevant. I've demonstrated - I think pretty successfully - that capitalism is perfectly able to function whether its state is headed by a king, an elected president or a dictator-for-life.Yes, you have stated many times that you think that the call for a republic is irrelevant. You have not demonstrated at all that capitalism is perfectly able to function whether the State is headed by a king, an elected president or a dictator for life. Indeed, I don't think you have ever analysed what it entails to have a dictator for life or an elected president, from the point-of-view of capital, much less from the point of view of the working class. Or, of course, why the bourgeoisie so often feels the need to topple a dictator to establish a bourgeois democracy, or to suppress bourgeois democracy to give in to a bourgeois dictatorship.


Different countries have different histories. England had been a monarchy for 800 years before it had its bourgeois revolution. The Netherlands had been a Spanish colony until 100 years before England had its revolution. Germany wasn't unified until after the Netherlands last stopped being a republic (in 1830, I seem to recall). How could they possibly all have the same features?Because they have one and only one mode of production, which in turn determines all their political and ideological features?

But yes, they have different histories. Why would countries with different histories need different forms of State? After all, you have just said that "that capitalism is perfectly able to function whether its state is headed by a king, an elected president or a dictator-for-life" - so why doesn't the British bourgeosie just pick some random individual and hail him or her as dictator for life? Why doesn't Saudi bourgeoisie adopt a parliamentarian republic on the Italian model? Or why doesn't the United States just choose Hillary Clinton as Her Majesty Hillary I, Queen of Maryland, Lady of New England, Protector of Louisianna and Iraq, and, by the grace of God & Charles Darwin, Overseer General of the Rest of the World and Assorted Territories?

Perhaps you are forgetting that "history is the history of class struggle", so that different histories mean different unravelings of class struggle?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure if the money spent on royalty is significantly different to the money spent on other unnecessary things - the US (a republic) spends 40% of the world's arms budget. If the Dutch state decided to ditch the monarchy and buy some nuclear subs with the spare cash, would that be better or worse, do you think?

What do you think would decide where such money would go?


How are some people able to 'lift themselves up by their hairs'? They don't, they stand on the shoulders of giants. The working class, and especially its revolutionary minorities, learn historical lessons from previous revolutionary waves. If I'm right, it's not because I'm a genius or magic, it's because I'm basing my positions on those of the clearest expressions of proletarian politics that have gone before - Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Bordiga, the work of the Bilan group, Damen, Mattick, Gorter...But, of course, this just moves the problem elsewhere. What you are saying is essentially that you are not a genius or magic, but that Marx, etc. were.

And, frankly, you method isn't what Marx proposed, at all. I fail to see where he ever proposed that people would free themselves from bourgeois ideology by reading him, or Trotsky, or Pannekoek. And I think that the myth of a supposedly neutral knowledge, floating above the class struggle, would be considered by him quite "bourgeois ideology", and rejected as such, even if such supposedly neutral knowledge was to be sipped from his own works...


One can learn or one can not learn. One can repeat the propaganda of the dominant ideology. On 'a mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie' or a 'mouthpiece of bourgeois propaganda' - what comes out of the 'mouthpiece' is bourgeois propaganda, the interests it serves are those of the bourgeoisie. Conscious or unconscious? Not for me to say. I've told you, but that doesn't mean that you believe me. So in the enbd you might claim that you didn't know - in that you didn't believe it when you were told you were repeating bourgeois propaganda. But I can't see that you don't already know that calling for a republic is a bourgeois demand.Well, what goes one way can also come the way back - it is easy to say that you are spewing bourgeois ideology, albeit unconsciously, and give the same explanation you are giving (because we are all subject to bourgeois ideology, etc.) It is on the other hand very difficult to demonstrate it, because, since we are all "subject to bourgeois ideology" we cannot evidently know whether Marx was not reproducing bourgeois ideology when he wrote Das Kapital.

So you are still stuck into the swamp, and your efforts continue to look like Muenchhausen trying to pull himself up by his hair - albeit less successfully, I would say. Telling us that someone, namely Marx, actually pulled himself out and is now helping you to get away cannot solve the puzzle.

I don't think I ever said that calling for a republic is not a "bourgeois demand", so I don't see how what you are saying might apply.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

What do you think would decide where such money would go?...

I don';t see that should money should exist. The question has no meaning I'm afraid.


...But, of course, this just moves the problem elsewhere. What you are saying is essentially that you are not a genius or magic, but that Marx, etc. were.

And, frankly, you method isn't what Marx proposed, at all. I fail to see where he ever proposed that people would free themselves from bourgeois ideology by reading him, or Trotsky, or Pannekoek....

Ah well, yet again I fail to make myself understood. Marx and Engels, Pannekoek, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxemburg and Gorter and the rest were living through and analysing times of intense class struggle. There hasn't been so much of that rounds here lately, but certainly the big waves of struggle in the 1980s were a spur to my political development. Since then, much of the hard work for me has been rediscovering the lessons of past struggles. It's the struggle that's important, not the 'genius' of the people reporting on it. It wouldn't matter at all if instead of Marx, Engels and Luxemburg it was Manfreid Knupfler, Albrecht Hasselfresian and Lotte Selberstein. If they'd been there and analysed those events, I'd be trying to learn from them. How else to appropriate the lessons of the past, in a time of comparatively low class struggle? Of course, I'm also trying to learn from current events - the Indignados movement, the student struggles recently in Greece, Britain and Canada, the strikes in Egypt and Bangladesh and China...


...Well, what goes one way can also come the way back - it is easy to say that you are spewing bourgeois ideology, albeit unconsciously, and give the same explanation you are giving (because we are all subject to bourgeois ideology, etc.) It is on the other hand very difficult to demonstrate it, because, since we are all "subject to bourgeois ideology" we cannot evidently know whether Marx was not reproducing bourgeois ideology when he wrote Das Kapital...

So, analyse what I say and see where it fits in with dominant narratives. It's not actually hard. Try to see what the bourgeoisie wants us to think, and analyse what people are saying in relation to that.


...So you are still stuck into the swamp, and your efforts continue to look like Muenchhausen trying to pull himself up by his hair - albeit less successfully, I would say. Telling us that someone, namely Marx, actually pulled himself out and is now helping you to get away cannot solve the puzzle...

Well, we're all stuck in the swamp, Luis, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Anyway, I've gone into that above. In short, it's not 'great thinkers' it's 'great struggles' that are importan. Those we don't experience, we have to learn about from the experiences of others.


...I don't think I ever said that calling for a republic is not a "bourgeois demand", so I don't see how what you are saying might apply.

Luís Henrique

In which case, I don't get what the problem is. Now you seem to be saying 'I know the call for a republic is bourgeois propaganda, but how dare you say when I call for a republic I'm repeating bourgeois propaganda'.

[Luís Henrique]

I don';t see that should money should exist. The question has no meaning I'm afraid.

Well. Regardless of whether I think money should exist, or not, it does actually exist. And since it cannot exist without a State, public money exists, too. And since money exists to the end of being expent, public expending does also exist. So, if I'm going to the "concrete analysis of the concrete case", I must understand what precise forces push to what precise budget allocations. This means to avoid passing generalities such as "I don't think money should exist" as analysis.

To the substance, of course, I think what ultimately drives the public expending in a capitalist State is class struggle. I don't see why the working class would prefer to waste public money on warware instead of on making life easy to a bunch of unelected morons; I would say we would prefer it to be expent on things like public health or education. So I would say that what would be done with the money that would no longer been wasted on royals depends on class stregth relations, which is what we should analyse.

In general, I would say that the working class taking an interest in what is done with money that after all represents our own labour is a positive thing, and that getting the working class interested in it changes the strength relation in our favour.


Ah well, yet again I fail to make myself understood. Marx and Engels, Pannekoek, Trotsky, Lenin, Luxemburg and Gorter and the rest were living through and analysing times of intense class struggle. There hasn't been so much of that rounds here lately, but certainly the big waves of struggle in the 1980s were a spur to my political development. Since then, much of the hard work for me has been rediscovering the lessons of past struggles. It's the struggle that's important, not the 'genius' of the people reporting on it. It wouldn't matter at all if instead of Marx, Engels and Luxemburg it was Manfreid Knupfler, Albrecht Hasselfresian and Lotte Selberstein. If they'd been there and analysed those events, I'd be trying to learn from them. How else to appropriate the lessons of the past, in a time of comparatively low class struggle? Of course, I'm also trying to learn from current events - the Indignados movement, the student struggles recently in Greece, Britain and Canada, the strikes in Egypt and Bangladesh and China...

So yes, you are bringing things back to where they belong. People - either Marx or us - aren't pushing themselves by the hair; they are stepping, or trying to step, on something that is solid under the bourgeois swamp - namely, class struggle. And yes, of course works like those of Marx, or Lenin, or Kollontai, do document and analyse exactly that, class struggle. But, if it doesn't matter whether it was Marx or a fictional Knupfler, it seems it matters whether it was Marx or a very real Lassale, don't you think so? So what's the difference? Why do we read and study Marx, but not Lassale (unless we are interested in understanding where he was wrong, of course)?

And so there still no guarantee of any kind. We don't know whether Marx's or Bukharin's analyses are correct or useful, unless in relation to actual, present class struggle, and then we have to make that relation ourselves, and cannot be sure we are making it correctly.

Your analyses - those of Left Communists, not yours personally - seem deeply flawed to me. Abstractions are always prefered to concrete analyses, and there is a schematic, rigid, approach that often ignores practical reality, a dismissive attitude towards everything you don't control or understand, as well as a general tendency towards apathy and theoretical cop outs.


So, analyse what I say and see where it fits in with dominant narratives. It's not actually hard. Try to see what the bourgeoisie wants us to think, and analyse what people are saying in relation to that.

One thing I believe the bourgeoisie doesn't want us to think about is the actual political situation in any concrete moment or place. I think your tendency does good service in helping the bourgeoisie avoid us thinking about it.


Well, we're all stuck in the swamp, Luis, but some of us are looking at the stars.

And? You can very well drown while looking at stars, and they provide no support for anyone trying to get away from the swamp.


In which case, I don't get what the problem is. Now you seem to be saying 'I know the call for a republic is bourgeois propaganda, but how dare you say when I call for a republic I'm repeating bourgeois propaganda'.

So, for you, bourgeois demand = bourgeois propaganda?

I think this is deeply mistaken. A demand is bourgeois if it falls within the boundaries of what is possible under capitalism. It doesn't mean that the bourgeosie is actually making such demand.

So, I don't think calling for a republic is bourgeois propaganda, but I do well know that the call for a republic is a bourgeois demand.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Well. Regardless of whether I think money should exist, or not, it does actually exist. And since it cannot exist without a State, public money exists, too. And since money exists to the end of being expent, public expending does also exist. So, if I'm going to the "concrete analysis of the concrete case", I must understand what precise forces push to what precise budget allocations. This means to avoid passing generalities such as "I don't think money should exist" as analysis.

To the substance, of course, I think what ultimately drives the public expending in a capitalist State is class struggle. I don't see why the working class would prefer to waste public money on warware instead of on making life easy to a bunch of unelected morons; I would say we would prefer it to be expent on things like public health or education. So I would say that what would be done with the money that would no longer been wasted on royals depends on class stregth relations, which is what we should analyse...

I'm with you on analysing the balance of class forces. And I agree that most workers, if given a choice between "x-million dollars on the monarchy, or x-million dollars on hospitals?" would pick hospitals. But if the choice was "x-million on the monarchy, or x-million on cocaine and hookers for you and your mates?" I think a significant number of people would pick the cocaine and hookers. If it was "x-million on the monarchy, or x-million on new ways to rip your face off?" then most people would want the money to go to the monarchy. So, the choices, and the context of the choices, and most crucially, who gets to decide what's on offer, are all important. If the bourgeoisie offers us "monarchy or republic?" - both choices they're happy with - I'd say 'no thank you, I don't want any option you're prepared to give me'.


...In general, I would say that the working class taking an interest in what is done with money that after all represents our own labour is a positive thing, and that getting the working class interested in it changes the strength relation in our favour...

How? Getting more of the working class involved in finding new and efficient ways of running capitalism is only in the interests of the capitalists. Our aim is to destroy capitalism; why do you think we need to redecorate it first?



...
So yes, you are bringing things back to where they belong. People - either Marx or us - aren't pushing themselves by the hair; they are stepping, or trying to step, on something that is solid under the bourgeois swamp - namely, class struggle. And yes, of course works like those of Marx, or Lenin, or Kollontai, do document and analyse exactly that, class struggle. But, if it doesn't matter whether it was Marx or a fictional Knupfler, it seems it matters whether it was Marx or a very real Lassale, don't you think so? So what's the difference? Why do we read and study Marx, but not Lassale (unless we are interested in understanding where he was wrong, of course)?...

Good question. Why Marx, why not Lassalle? I'd say that Marx's analyses have been remarkably consistent, prescient, lucid, useful... and Lassalles's haven't. It's Marxism, as a body of work about class relations, that works, and 'Lassalleanism', a bunch of works about how we should cosy up to the 'progressive' bourgeoisie, that doesn't. If, instead, it was Knupflerism that worked, I'd be a Knupflerist.


...And so there still no guarantee of any kind. We don't know whether Marx's or Bukharin's analyses are correct or useful, unless in relation to actual, present class struggle, and then we have to make that relation ourselves, and cannot be sure we are making it correctly...

Exactly. We apply the theoretical tools to the situation we have. If they're wanting, we attempt to forge new ones. Every revolutionary movement has done this. we must do it too. Among those blunt and useless tools, in my estimation, a tool that became useless (as Marx recognised) by 1848, was support for the liberal bourgeoisie in Germany. If it was useless in Germany 165 years ago, I can't see why it's relevant in the Netherlands today.


...Your analyses - those of Left Communists, not yours personally - seem deeply flawed to me. Abstractions are always prefered to concrete analyses, and there is a schematic, rigid, approach that often ignores practical reality, a dismissive attitude towards everything you don't control or understand, as well as a general tendency towards apathy and theoretical cop outs...

Bravo. I think you're wildly off course, obviously but you're at least attempting a critique. A bit more theoretical depth, and some examples, instead of 'abstractions ... and theoretical cop-outs' and I'll be happy to get back to you on that.



...
One thing I believe the bourgeoisie doesn't want us to think about is the actual political situation in any concrete moment or place. I think your tendency does good service in helping the bourgeoisie avoid us thinking about it...

Really? You think 500 people in a bunch of fractured organisations, and a few stray dogs like me sniffing round the edges, have that much power and influence? If I took you seriously, I'd be flattered.



...
And? You can very well drown while looking at stars, and they provide no support for anyone trying to get away from the swamp...

Not a fan of Oscar Wilde then?


...
So, for you, bourgeois demand = bourgeois propaganda?

I think this is deeply mistaken. A demand is bourgeois if it falls within the boundaries of what is possible under capitalism. It doesn't mean that the bourgeosie is actually making such demand.

So, I don't think calling for a republic is bourgeois propaganda, but I do well know that the call for a republic is a bourgeois demand.

A distinction too far for me, I'm afraid. The bourgeoisie (or a section of it) is calling for a republic, on the grounds that this will somehow make capitalism 'better' (more cocaine and hookers, or whatever). This is capitalist propaganda. You and Q are echoing that call for a republic. Ergo, you are echoing this propaganda.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm with you on analysing the balance of class forces. And I agree that most workers, if given a choice between "x-million dollars on the monarchy, or x-million dollars on hospitals?" would pick hospitals. But if the choice was "x-million on the monarchy, or x-million on cocaine and hookers for you and your mates?" I think a significant number of people would pick the cocaine and hookers. If it was "x-million on the monarchy, or x-million on new ways to rip your face off?" then most people would want the money to go to the monarchy.

Those are again complete abstractions.

Who is proposing the money going to hospitals? Physicians, nurses, unions, students... workers? Our side in class struggle, perhaps? Who would propose money going to cocaine and hookers for "you" and your mates? What social forces? Of course, if a worker was offered such absurd, he might take it... but this would mean excluding every other worker, except his "mates", so the working class movement as a whole would oppose it. And so would the bourgeoisie (except if the "you" to receive cocaine and hookers was a royal, in which casee, well, maybe). And who would propose "new ways to rip your face off" (except, perhaps, the House of Orange, in an attempt to strawman the issue)? Or is "new ways to rip your face off" an euphemism for new sophisticated weapons - in which case the bourgeoisie, or a setor of it, would take it, and the workers - and presumably other sectors of the bourgeoisie - would oppose it.

So, sorry, this falls very short from "analysing the balance of class forces"; it is at best an analysis of fantasies, or strawmen.


So, the choices, and the context of the choices, and most crucially, who gets to decide what's on offer, are all important. If the bourgeoisie offers us "monarchy or republic?" - both choices they're happy with - I'd say 'no thank you, I don't want any option you're prepared to give me'.

Again something completely out of reality. They don't make such offers, and they are not equally comfortable with the choices they have - they play them as a game of defence in depth, carefully probing what they can have, what they need to offer, and what chances are there that things go awfully wrong if they make the wrong move.

So, again, not even close to a class analysis, and again a mere exercise in abstraction.


How? Getting more of the working class involved in finding new and efficient ways of running capitalism is only in the interests of the capitalists. Our aim is to destroy capitalism; why do you think we need to redecorate it first?

If the working class doesn't take any interest in the way the society is ruled, it is not going to poise itself to conquer political power and become the new ruling class. And I don't think it can take an interest in how society is ruled from the stand point of a fantasy, an abstract utopia. It will begin to ask simple questions about issues of how public money is managed, why do some get tax exemptions, why doesn't the public education system work proper, etc. It is from these, very concrete, experiences, that we are going to come to the understanding that capitalism cannot provide us with proper public schools or hospitals, that wages are always unfair, that the bourgeoisie is a class opposed to us and that it rules society from its own point of view and on behalf of its own interests.


Good question. Why Marx, why not Lassalle? I'd say that Marx's analyses have been remarkably consistent, prescient, lucid, useful... and Lassalles's haven't. It's Marxism, as a body of work about class relations, that works, and 'Lassalleanism', a bunch of works about how we should cosy up to the 'progressive' bourgeoisie, that doesn't. If, instead, it was Knupflerism that worked, I'd be a Knupflerist.

Well, yes. But this is still yours (and mine) opinion. Until it is the opinion of the working class, we aren't still there. And how does the working class make Marxism its own methodology? Because you or me tell them so? Or because it experiments with several possibilities and - hopefully - chooses Marxism?


Exactly. We apply the theoretical tools to the situation we have. If they're wanting, we attempt to forge new ones. Every revolutionary movement has done this. we must do it too. Among those blunt and useless tools, in my estimation, a tool that became useless (as Marx recognised) by 1848, was support for the liberal bourgeoisie in Germany. If it was useless in Germany 165 years ago, I can't see why it's relevant in the Netherlands today.

Well, I am not proposing that we support the "liberal bourgeoisie" in the Netherlands today, so I don't see the point of your remark. Nor do I think there is still something that could be called a liberal bourgeoisie in the same sence as in Germany in 1848.


Bravo. I think you're wildly off course, obviously but you're at least attempting a critique. A bit more theoretical depth, and some examples, instead of 'abstractions ... and theoretical cop-outs' and I'll be happy to get back to you on that.

Ah, I have done such in other threads. Namely, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/student-movement-venezuela-t62963/index.html?t=62963&highlight=Ch%E1vez). It is, in my opinion, a good concrete example, with little abstraction and no theoretical cop outs. But, of course, not all Left Communists embarked in such a bourgeois adventure. The International Communist Tendency for instance harshly criticised such absurd, in terms with which I don't agree completely, but don't think are too much off the mark.


Really? You think 500 people in a bunch of fractured organisations, and a few stray dogs like me sniffing round the edges, have that much power and influence? If I took you seriously, I'd be flattered.

To put it simply and bluntly, if I was a member of the House of Orange, or one of their staff, this is the kind of position I would be willing to pay for to be spread among Dutch workers and students if the situation grew complicated and an actual possibility of loosing my privileges was on the table. Not that I would be sad at all if it was spread for free.


Not a fan of Oscar Wilde then?

A huge one. Great writer, some of the best tirades I have ever read. The Portrait of Dorian Gray is a masterpiece.

But you still can drown while looking at stars. I would prefer to look at the margins, and to probe the bottom of the swamp in search of something solid.


A distinction too far for me, I'm afraid. The bourgeoisie (or a section of it) is calling for a republic, on the grounds that this will somehow make capitalism 'better' (more cocaine and hookers, or whatever).

Is it? Who are they?


This is capitalist propaganda. You and Q are echoing that call for a republic. Ergo, you are echoing this propaganda.

I have no problem with that in particular circumstances. I do spew worse bourgeois propaganda everyday when I go to the bakery and simply ask, "how much do the scones cost"?

And so does every working class comrade I know.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Those are again complete abstractions...

As is your 'choice' between 'money for the royal family, or money for health and education'. It's not a real choice, no one is offering it, no one is demanding it, no one is working to make it happen. How is your hypothetical any less of an abstraction than my hypotheticals?


...Who is proposing the money going to hospitals? Physicians, nurses, unions, students... workers? Our side in class struggle, perhaps? Who would propose money going to cocaine and hookers for "you" and your mates? What social forces? Of course, if a worker was offered such absurd, he might take it... but this would mean excluding every other worker, except his "mates", so the working class movement as a whole would oppose it. And so would the bourgeoisie (except if the "you" to receive cocaine and hookers was a royal, in which casee, well, maybe). And who would propose "new ways to rip your face off" (except, perhaps, the House of Orange, in an attempt to strawman the issue)? Or is "new ways to rip your face off" an euphemism for new sophisticated weapons - in which case the bourgeoisie, or a setor of it, would take it, and the workers - and presumably other sectors of the bourgeoisie - would oppose it.

So, sorry, this falls very short from "analysing the balance of class forces"; it is at best an analysis of fantasies, or strawmen...

Exactly as much as your 'money for the royal family, or money for health and education' is. The point was the choices on offer. If the bourgeoisie is not offering cocaine and hookers, nor is it offering health and eduction. The workers might demand health and education, but if they can do that, what's preventing them demanding (and organising for) the overthrow of capitalism?



...
Again something completely out of reality...

As out of touch as your 'money for the royal family or money for health and education?' choice.


...They don't make such offers, and they are not equally comfortable with the choices they have - they play them as a game of defence in depth, carefully probing what they can have, what they need to offer, and what chances are there that things go awfully wrong if they make the wrong move.

So, again, not even close to a class analysis, and again a mere exercise in abstraction...

If you like. In Australia a couple of years ago, the bourgeoisie offered a referendum on becoming a republic. Why, heading off class struggle? Not noticeably. The bourgeoisie can switch teams if it has to, if it sees a profit in it, it they think it will help. In Scotland the bourgeoisie is preparing to offer a referendum on independence. Why is it doing this? Heading off class struggle? Not sure it is. The bourgeoisie tries these manoeuvres to bind the working class to 'its' nation, sure, but the processes are longer term and more subtle than 'oh the workers are getting uppity, let's give them a referendum'. Otherwise Greece would be the most democratic country on earth.



...
If the working class doesn't take any interest in the way the society is ruled, it is not going to poise itself to conquer political power and become the new ruling class. And I don't think it can take an interest in how society is ruled from the stand point of a fantasy, an abstract utopia. It will begin to ask simple questions about issues of how public money is managed, why do some get tax exemptions, why doesn't the public education system work proper, etc. It is from these, very concrete, experiences, that we are going to come to the understanding that capitalism cannot provide us with proper public schools or hospitals, that wages are always unfair, that the bourgeoisie is a class opposed to us and that it rules society from its own point of view and on behalf of its own interests...

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And when it decides that capitalism is unfair and the bourgeoisie doesn't rule in its interests, why is it going to decide what it really needs to do is establish a bourgeois republic? From the very first page of this thread I've been arguing that the future of the monarchy must be linked to the future of the whole capitalist system; because the alternative is the blind alley of a bourgeois republic.



...
Well, yes. But this is still yours (and mine) opinion. Until it is the opinion of the working class, we aren't still there. And how does the working class make Marxism its own methodology? Because you or me tell them so? Or because it experiments with several possibilities and - hopefully - chooses Marxism?...

They're not entirely exclusive options. Propaganda has its place, but so does does learning in struggle. If theory wasn't important it wouldn't matter what we did on this forum, or what Marx or Knupfler had written, or whether any political organisations existed at all.



...
Well, I am not proposing that we support the "liberal bourgeoisie" in the Netherlands today, so I don't see the point of your remark. Nor do I think there is still something that could be called a liberal bourgeoisie in the same sence as in Germany in 1848...

If it comes to a choice in a referendum between the continuation of the monarchy or a republic (as in Australia in 1999) it will be the bourgeoisie offering you that choice. If, however, the working class is organised and combative enough to force the abdication of the monarch, why stop there?



...
Ah, I have done such in other threads. Namely, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/student-movement-venezuela-t62963/index.html?t=62963&highlight=Ch%E1vez). It is, in my opinion, a good concrete example, with little abstraction and no theoretical cop outs. But, of course, not all Left Communists embarked in such a bourgeois adventure. The International Communist Tendency for instance harshly criticised such absurd, in terms with which I don't agree completely, but don't think are too much off the mark...

Do you really want me to take a position on a 10-page argument you had with a member of an organisation I don't belong to a year before I joined RevLeft?



...
To put it simply and bluntly, if I was a member of the House of Orange, or one of their staff, this is the kind of position I would be willing to pay for to be spread among Dutch workers and students if the situation grew complicated and an actual possibility of loosing my privileges was on the table. Not that I would be sad at all if it was spread for free...

The position that the working class needs to overthrow capitalism? You don't think you'd be desperately trying to get a bourgeois government into power that would amnesty you as you fled to Curacao?


...

A huge one. Great writer, some of the best tirades I have ever read. The Portrait of Dorian Gray is a masterpiece.

But you still can drown while looking at stars. I would prefer to look at the margins, and to probe the bottom of the swamp in search of something solid...

This is all a bit of a pointless metaphor, but how do you know what's solid without testing it against reality? That's what we do with political theories.



...
Is it? Who are they?


http://www.aerm.org/

You got me. I know that Republic (the British affiliate) includes policemen, current and past, including senior officers; business owners (you know, actual capitalists); 13 MPs; 9 members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly; 3 barristers; several members of the House of Lords.

I do not, however, have any such information about the Dutch affiliates, NRG and Pro Republica. Perhaps you could get info from Q or Ravachol about them.



...
I have no problem with that in particular circumstances. I do spew worse bourgeois propaganda everyday when I go to the bakery and simply ask, "how much do the scones cost"?

And so does every working class comrade I know.

Luís Henrique

Fine, you shouldn't have a problem then when I point out that you're making bourgeois demands.

[Luís Henrique]

As is your 'choice' between 'money for the royal family, or money for health and education'. It's not a real choice, no one is offering it, no one is demanding it, no one is working to make it happen. How is your hypothetical any less of an abstraction than my hypotheticals?

Erm, because there is a social movement for more money for health and education?


Exactly as much as your 'money for the royal family, or money for health and education' is. The point was the choices on offer. If the bourgeoisie is not offering cocaine and hookers, nor is it offering health and eduction. The workers might demand health and education, but if they can do that, what's preventing them demanding (and organising for) the overthrow of capitalism?Do you really think it is on the same level of difficulty?


If you like. In Australia a couple of years ago, the bourgeoisie offered a referendum on becoming a republic. Why, heading off class struggle? Not noticeably.Well, I am not well acquainted on the Australian situation. But, in general terms, if there was a referendum, it must have been because the political situation demanded a referendum. Some political forces strived for it, on some political basis or other. Without knowing who demanded the referendum, what were its terms, and what it entailed in terms political change in Australia, it is difficult to give a proper assessment of the issue; but political change only comes from one source: class struggle.


The bourgeoisie can switch teams if it has to, if it sees a profit in it, it they think it will help. In Scotland the bourgeoisie is preparing to offer a referendum on independence. Why is it doing this? Heading off class struggle? Not sure it is. The bourgeoisie tries these manoeuvres to bind the working class to 'its' nation, sure, but the processes are longer term and more subtle than 'oh the workers are getting uppity, let's give them a referendum'. Otherwise Greece would be the most democratic country on earth.Well, formally Greece is indeed one of the most democratic countries, yes. It is also a country in an open pre-revolutionary situation; the bourgeoisie there has entangled itself so much in its contradictions, that it is no longer able to properly rule the country. So?

As for Scotland, the issue of independence is probably tied to the fiasco of the European Union. As the Union is starting to sink, more national bourgeois groups start attempting to widen their options menu, and this may mean severing or loosening ties to the "national" central government. So the increase of Scottish or Catalan nationalism. What should the working classs do, ignore the problem and go, "it's the same thing, indepencence, autonomy, devolution or incresed centralisation"?


Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And when it decides that capitalism is unfair and the bourgeoisie doesn't rule in its interests, why is it going to decide what it really needs to do is establish a bourgeois republic?Ah, but it doesn't decide that capitalism is unfair and the bourgeosie doesn't rule in the interests of the workers, and only then starts to pay attention to politics and political strife: it first starts to pay attention to politics and political strife, and participate in it, and only through such attention and participation it can come to realise what the bourgeoisie is doing, and why.


From the very first page of this thread I've been arguing that the future of the monarchy must be linked to the future of the whole capitalist system; because the alternative is the blind alley of a bourgeois republic.
But, of course, you have been doing that in a way that seems to imply that the future of the monarchy doesn't concern us at all.


They're not entirely exclusive options. Propaganda has its place, but so does does learning in struggle. If theory wasn't important it wouldn't matter what we did on this forum, or what Marx or Knupfler had written, or whether any political organisations existed at all.Of course theory is important, and so is propaganda. But propaganda can only work linked to actual struggle; in the abstract, in the absence of material struggle, it does absolutely nothing.


If it comes to a choice in a referendum between the continuation of the monarchy or a republic (as in Australia in 1999) it will be the bourgeoisie offering you that choice. If, however, the working class is organised and combative enough to force the abdication of the monarch, why stop there?Where we stop is given by stregth relations, and so is what we agitate as our next move.


Do you really want me to take a position on a 10-page argument you had with a member of an organisation I don't belong to a year before I joined RevLeft?Eeerrrrrrrrr... no?

That thread is about Venezuela, this one should (and, thanks to your contributions, has long ceased to) be about the Netherlands. In there, I think I did what you are probably doubting I can do: discussed the political line of the Communist Left in a concrete way, with little or no abstractions or cop outs. It is just an example. And of course, I know more about the Venezolan situation than about the Dutch one, and so am able to discuss Venezuela more in depth and in more concrete ways than I can discuss the Netherlands.


The position that the working class needs to overthrow capitalism? You don't think you'd be desperately trying to get a bourgeois government into power that would amnesty you as you fled to Curacao?Erm, no. As a member of the House of Orange, I would be able to do some situational analysis, and see the difference between a profound upheavel that could destroy the capitalist system, and a more superficial phenomenon that might threaten my privileges without putting capitalism into question. If I could combine my privileged situation as a member of royalty with a more far-sighted comprehension of capitalism, and how it is a fundamental pillar of my royal privileges, I would probably also understand how the questioning of my royal privileges might put the whole system at risk (and thus be able to argue with non-royal members of the bourgeoisie on why they should support my privileges alteit not enjoying them). But in the short term, I would consider abstract talk of "socialism", not connected to any practical activity about it, as a possibly useful way to deflect discussion of royal privileges. In a military metaphor, to move myself, and my royal House, behind a much better defended fortress, so not to be crushed by the attacking army as it advances, nor sacrificed by the guys in the stronger fortress in an attempt to distract the advance.


This is all a bit of a pointless metaphor, but how do you know what's solid without testing it against reality? That's what we do with political theories.We don't know whether it is solid without testing it against reality. Previous experience might remember us that there is, or is not, something solid as some point, but without practical experience, we really can't know, even with the best theories we may have.


http://www.aerm.org/

You got me. I know that Republic (the British affiliate) includes policemen, current and past, including senior officers; business owners (you know, actual capitalists); 13 MPs; 9 members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly; 3 barristers; several members of the House of Lords.
So essentially nothing very scary or frightful. In an actual situation of confront, we would probably see these people quickly betraying their allegiance to republicanism, and supporting the monarchies they are supposedly opposing against any less controlled movement.


Fine, you shouldn't have a problem then when I point out that you're making bourgeois demands.I don't.

I do have a problem with the theoretical amalgamation you rely upon. You say all of us are subject to the hegemony of bourgeois ideology, and I agree. Indeed, I think I understand it better than you do; you seem to think it is some kind of political propaganda specifically and consciouly designed to cheat on us; I believe it is imbricated in the very fabric of every social relation. When I take a bus and pay the ticket, both me and the bus worker involved are reproducing bourgeois ideology, we are reinforcing the mythology of value, by the mere fact that we are performing a commercial transaction. In this very general sence, yes, Q - and me, and you, and Elisabeth of Saxe-Coburg, David Cameron, Tony Blair, and even Karl Marx, when he was alive - are "mouthpieces of bourgeois ideology".

But evidently, the hegemony of bourgeois ideology, by itself, creates the conditions of its questioning - because it is contradictory and cannot stand on the long term, because value is a self-destructive entity, the production of value destroys the conditions for the production of value. In that process, different individuals aquire different levels of critic understanding of the capitalism, and are consequently able to voice varied levels of oppositional conscience. Which ignites social struggle against the system, which in turn tends to clarify the processes that constitute such system. And evidently, the system defends itself, and organises people, politically and ideologically, for such defence - which you can call "bourgeois ideology" as much as the simple practical reproduction of value and its mythology, but works in a very different level. So, when you say this is


A distinction too far for me, I'm afraid.I think you are missing a very important part of your Marxist theory, a part that would allow you to make proper distinctions between those of us who serve capital because, living under capital, it is impossible not to serve it in a way or other, and those who deliberately seek to salvage capital from its own destructive tendencies (and, in missing such distinction, you effectively help to salvage capital from its destructive tendencies, mind you).

Now, as I don't miss such difference, and don't get my Marxist theory wrong in that aspect, I don't think it is fair to say that you are a "mouthpiece of bourgeois ideology" in the same sence Nick Clegg is, even though you both are necessarily instrumental to the reproduction of capital. I think you conflate those issues, which allows you to maintain a pseudo-radical verbiage that insults other comrades (while also making it possible to back off into a more neutral mode in which "spewing bourgois ideology" isn't something that serious after all).

But, as a member of the House of Orange, I am satisfied by the way this thread was derailed. I feel a little bit safer now; at least here, people are no longer conspiring against my milenar privileges. Thanks to the Communist Left.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Good, if you're retiring from the field, perhaps the rest of us could back to discussing what communists in the Netherlands (and other monarchies, because I live in a monarchy too and therefore I think this is in an important tactical question) should be doing to move beyond bourgeois political demands (eg, monarchy or republic?) and towards proletarian politics.

[Luís Henrique]

Good, if you're retiring from the field, perhaps the rest of us could back to discussing what communists in the Netherlands (and other monarchies, because I live in a monarchy too and therefore I think this is in an important tactical question) should be doing to move beyond bourgeois political demands (eg, monarchy or republic?) and towards proletarian politics.

Ah, I think you killed that discussion, deliberately or not, long ago.

But I'm not "retiring from the field" on your abandonment of Marxist theory regarding the distinction between bourgeois ideology - conceived as the set of accepted ideas that are indispensable to keep the system moving in a practical, day-to-day sence - and bourgeois propaganda - conceived as the set of ideas the bourgeoisie consciously puts forward in order to promote its immediate or long term goals. Which is a discussion you have yet to kill, and I don't intend to make it easy for you to do so.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, I think you killed that discussion, deliberately or not, long ago.

But I'm not "retiring from the field" on your abandonment of Marxist theory regarding the distinction between bourgeois ideology - conceived as the set of accepted ideas that are indispensable to keep the system moving in a practical, day-to-day sence - and bourgeois propaganda - conceived as the set of ideas the bourgeoisie consciously puts forward in order to promote its immediate or long term goals. Which is a discussion you have yet to kill, and I don't intend to make it easy for you to do so.

Luís Henrique

Fine, start a thread on it, let the rest of us discuss the relationship (if any) between calls for a republic, and the communist programme.


... the goal of ending capitalism and for working class rule have to be mentioned in any serious commentary on this issue.

The abdication does however create a nice opening to start a discussion on this subject, a discussion that communists have much to add to, don't you think?

Seems a good place to go back to restart the point of the thread I think.

[Luís Henrique]

Fine, start a thread on it, let the rest of us discuss the relationship (if any) between calls for a republic, and the communist programme.

Might do it, when "the rest of us" actually restart discussing the abdication of Queen Beatrix, and its relations to the Dutch situation.


Seems a good place to go back to restart the point of the thread I think.

Good luck with that.

Luís Henrique

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Yo Q!

Your topic got hacked, big time!

[Ravachol]

To put it simply and bluntly, if I was a member of the House of Orange, or one of their staff, this is the kind of position I would be willing to pay for to be spread among Dutch workers and students if the situation grew complicated and an actual possibility of loosing my privileges was on the table. Not that I would be sad at all if it was spread for free.

Soooo tell me about the position of Dutch workers and students on the house of Orange? Oh wait... :rolleyes:

[Red Enemy]

I fail to see a coherent argument as to how ending the monarchy, whether it's the Dutch or the English, will benefit or empower the proletariat.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, obviously, I agree, but does the fact its happening open up any space for a debate in workplaces or even in the pub, along the lines of 'getting rid of the Queen (Beatrix, or Elizabeth, she's not just the 'Queen of England' after all, this applies to Canada too) is not enough, we need to get rid of the whole capitalist system'?

[Ravachol]

Well, obviously, I agree, but does the fact its happening open up any space for a debate in workplaces or even in the pub, along the lines of 'getting rid of the Queen (Beatrix, or Elizabeth, she's not just the 'Queen of England' after all, this applies to Canada too) is not enough, we need to get rid of the whole capitalist system'?

If anyone thinks that's the case I feel sorry for them.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, so what do you think communists should be doing?

[Ravachol]

OK, so what do you think communists should be doing?

In this particular case? Nothing really. Enjoy a bit of your life before the house of cards inevitably comes crashing down.

[Myrdin]

How about we remove the queen and, for once, recognize the fact that we need no alternative to despotism.

A president, a queen, a chairman; it does not matter. Contrary to public belief, we need none of that to function.

[Luís Henrique]

Good, if you're retiring from the field, perhaps the rest of us could back to discussing what communists in the Netherlands (and other monarchies, because I live in a monarchy too and therefore I think this is in an important tactical question) should be doing to move beyond bourgeois political demands (eg, monarchy or republic?) and towards proletarian politics.
Well, thank you, "rest of us". That was a very enlightening, profound and nuanced discussion on the Dutch political situation and on the relation between republicanism in monarchic States and proletarian politics. I certainly know a lot more about these subjects now that you have exhausted all possibilities.

Luís Henrique

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Good, if you're retiring from the field, perhaps the rest of us could back to discussing what communists in the Netherlands (and other monarchies, because I live in a monarchy too and therefore I think this is in an important tactical question) should be doing to move beyond bourgeois political demands (eg, monarchy or republic?) and towards proletarian politics.

I'm totally not trying to offend anyone, so please don't be.

I think the difference in views about a republic is more tendency-related.
One might be against, another pro. Both might be right from their own ideology.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm totally not trying to offend anyone, so please don't be.

I think the difference in views about a republic is more tendency-related.
One might be against, another pro. Both might be right from their own ideology.

I don't think it's offensive, it's just wrong. If one advances the working class's struggles - if, for example, the call for a republic could be linked to a genuine working class movemetn that put not only the monarchy but the whole capitalist order in question while abstention from the question merely succeeded in isolating the working class's political minorities and failing to capitalise on the situation - then the first would be the right thing to advocate and the second wouldn't.

The trick is, deciding which is which.

[Luís Henrique]

It seems it is getting fashionable, now the King of Babylon... I mean, the Pope, has also decided to abdicate. This, of course, will be more interesting, since there is going to be an election - and not just an election, but a secret election.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The trick is, deciding which is which.

Requires a discussion of the actual situation on the ground, what interests the royal House represents, whether those of a particular sector of the ruling classes (such as, famously, the Bourbons or Orleans in early 19th Century France) or of the ruling classes as a whole (such as the Bonapartes at the same place and time), which are the forces supporting or opposing the royal House and the institution of monarchy, what kind and degree of organisation the working class have, if any, what the situation of the economy is, what demands might mobilise the workers, what kind of divides exist within the ruling classes, etc.

The Netherlands at the moment seem to be one of the weakest links of the imperialist chain in Europe, though they usually do not appear as such in the media. And its politics are getting increasingly chaotic.

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

The Netherlands at the moment seem to be one of the weakest links of the imperialist chain in Europe, though they usually do not appear as such in the media. And its politics are getting increasingly chaotic.

Where did you get this idea? :confused:

[Luís Henrique]

Where did you get this idea? :confused:

The Dutch economy is in a quite problematic situation - probably the worst situation among the core European economies (ie, PIIGS periphery discounted).

And the elections last year saw the the crumbling of the long time main right-wing coalition, the CDA, in favour of the liberals - who probably succeeded because they incoporated some of Gert Wilders policies. So while Wilders's PVV didn't have a glorious election last time, this is more a measure of his success than of his failure; since his policies have been partially incorporated into the mainstream, he can go more radical now, which he will, if he is smart and really consistent in his far-right beliefs. In the left, the PvdA managed to recover and take back much of the room they had been loosing to the SP - but this may have been just a symptom of "strategic voting"; the whole party system seems unstable, and if the economy's frailties explode into the open, I wouldn't be surprised if the Netherlands had their "Greek" moment.

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

The Dutch economy is in a quite problematic situation - probably the worst situation among the core European economies (ie, PIIGS periphery discounted).


This is plain bullshit, seriously. The Dutch economy is completely interwoven with the economies of the other core countries as well as dependent upon the health of international trade but its, next to Germany, one of the most stable economies of the European core.



And the elections last year saw the the crumbling of the long time main right-wing coalition, the CDA, in favour of the liberals - who probably succeeded because they incoporated some of Gert Wilders policies.


The liberals (VVD) didn't incorporate anything the soc.dems (PvdA) or the christian democrats (CDA) didn't incorporate regarding immigration policy. Apart from rhetoric and his anti-EU stance, policy-wise Wilders' PVV acted as a pressure group in the Danish fashion, none of that contributed to its or the VVD's popularity though. Cyclical rotation of CDA, VVD or PvdA domination is the most Dutch thing there is and cabinets dissolving themselves (only to be re-elected in virtually the same composition) is too.



So while Wilders's PVV didn't have a glorious election last time, this is more a measure of his success than of his failure


A success which has since resulted in him being largely wiped out of the media landscape save for the occasional scandal. While having taken a hold the stable conservative undercurrent together with disgruntled voters from all kinds of parties, he's hardly the 'hotshot' he was presented to be a few years ago internationally.



since his policies have been partially incorporated into the mainstream, he can go more radical now, which he will, if he is smart and really consistent in his far-right beliefs.


What policies are you talking about?



In the left, the PvdA managed to recover and take back much of the room they had been loosing to the SP - but this may have been just a symptom of "strategic voting"; the whole party system seems unstable


Thing is, it isn't at all. There's nothing there that's not Dutch politics as usual and parties doubling in size only to discover 2 days before the elections the usual thing happens is business as normal. I don't get where you get the weird idea Dutch party politics are unstable compared to other European countries.



and if the economy's frailties explode into the open, I wouldn't be surprised if the Netherlands had their "Greek" moment.

Luís Henrique

Being Dutch this is probably the weirdest thing I've ever read on Revleft.... Sorry man but there's probably no country in the Eurozone (maybe even the world) that's further from open social war than the Netherlands. Both economically and socio-politically that statement is bonkers, I'm really curious where you got that idea from and on what sources you base such a wild claim..

Seriously man, when the entire world is burning the Netherlands will just be selling lighter oil and matches...

[piet11111]

I too do not see anything happening anytime soon.

(did lenin not say that russia would never amount to anything only to have the revolution in a matter of months ? that would be hilarious if the same thing happens to the netherlands :D)

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin said in January 1917 'many of us of the older generation may not live to see the revolution', or something, 3 weeks before the February Revolution.

Rosa said something along the lines of 'the day before the revolution, nothing is less likely; the day after, nothing is more natural'.

But I can't see it happening in the Netherlands in the coming months.

[Luís Henrique]

But I can't see it happening in the Netherlands in the coming months.

It will depend on the rhythm of the disintegration of the Eurozone, I think.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Is the Eurozone disintergrating? Greece and Spain might be considered to be highly at risk of an exit (but 4 years after the crash, they're still there). Portugal, Ireland and Italy maybe. But the Netherlands? Really?

[Luís Henrique]

Is the Eurozone disintergrating? Greece and Spain might be considered to be highly at risk of an exit (but 4 years after the crash, they're still there). Portugal, Ireland and Italy maybe. But the Netherlands? Really?

Well... it seems obvious at this moment that the inflationary offencive of the US has provisorily reinstated them as the clear hegemon in the imperialist chain. And that the Euro is a problem, since it is a currency that cannot be devaluated. And so, European economies will be put to the corner on the issue: how to compete against American products, if those are made cheaper by US overminting? It would seem that they would need either to make the Euro devaluable (which goes against German interests) or quit the Euro in the misguided hope to regain control over their economies. And that, if they don't do either, their continual deflation -> austerity -> increased deflation spiral will take them into very complicated situations. It is not just 4 years after the crash, after all, as if the crash was a merely past, punctual event - it is 4 years into a systematically deepening crisis, one that has not been solved at any structural level.

And Greece or Portugal or Ireland leaving the Eurozone, while on the paper might not look very impressive - they are the smallest economies of the block, after all - won't be taken by anyone one as the mere failure of one singular country.

But, of course, maybe the US has to stop its overminting for other reasons before the Euro crashes. But then we would probably be seeing something far more impressive than a "Greek situation" in the Netherlands.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

It's not about whether Portugal, Ireland or Greece leaving the Euro would look 'impressive' (I ssume you mean making an apocalyptically negative impression) - no matter how small they are, the inability of the Eurozone to keep them on board would be evident. It would look 'very bad'. Spain or Italy leaving would be I'd say definitely 'apocalyptic' (ie, worse than 'very bad') for the Euro. But the relative size of these economies isn't the point. The point I was making was that these five economies are those that appear at most risk of an exit. What I don't understand is why you think the Netherlands is in any such danger; or, convversely, what the relevance of the potential for Eurozone failure has to do with the situation in the Netherlands in particular that isn't also applicable to France, Italy, Germany, Belgium (a country that is still functioning even though it was without a government for 14 months), etc.

[Luís Henrique]

It's not about whether Portugal, Ireland or Greece leaving the Euro would look 'impressive' (I ssume you mean making an apocalyptically negative impression) - no matter how small they are, the inability of the Eurozone to keep them on board would be evident. It would look 'very bad'. Spain or Italy leaving would be I'd say definitely 'apocalyptic' (ie, worse than 'very bad') for the Euro. But the relative size of these economies isn't the point. The point I was making was that these five economies are those that appear at most risk of an exit. What I don't understand is why you think the Netherlands is in any such danger; or, convversely, what the relevance of the potential for Eurozone failure has to do with the situation in the Netherlands in particular that isn't also applicable to France, Italy, Germany, Belgium (a country that is still functioning even though it was without a government for 14 months), etc.

Well, my point is that the Eurozone is indeed disintegrating. The probability of a general crisis in the Netherlands seems to me related to the rhythm of such disintegration. For what I have read, the Dutch economy is probably the weakest of those that aren't usually mentioned as focal points of crisis (all of them, naturally, clearly situated in the periphery).

Luís Henrique

[Ravachol]

It will depend on the rhythm of the disintegration of the Eurozone, I think.

Luís Henrique

I can agree with that but of all countries within the core the Netherlands is one of the least likely to erupt into open social war, it has a relatively small surplus proletariat (as opposed to, say, France or the UK), it has a very large managerial stratum and petit-bourgeoisie together with mostly white collar workers employed in the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real-estate) or technical research. The Dutch economy would suffer severe blows upon the disintegration of the Eurozone and social unrest would be (and I think will be) inevitable, but the forms in which this will manifest will be far from revolutionary, especially at first. It will most likely initially take the form of voter discontent and a rampant rise of both left-wing and right-wing national-populism (currently represented by the PVV and SP) which will soon prove themselves (something the PVV has already burned its hands at) equally inept at managing capital's crisis, which would likely lead to a proliferation of various 'indiganados'-like "burgerinitiatieven" (civil initiatives) of a very petit-bourgeois signature (ie. against financial capital, for the REAL economy; tax the bankers, save THE PEOPLE; calls for dissolving the eurozone in favor of an economic union of 'healthy northern countries') together with an increasingly loud conservative "law & order sentiment".

Ofcourse revolutionary tasseography hasn't gotten us anywhere ever but the situation here will completely depend on the emergence and proliferation of revolutionary currents elsewhere in the Eurozone. That is not to say there will not be moments and situations where the historical communist tendency will not rear its head, as in proletarians looting stores, occupying buildings, etc.