Socialism and Royalty

[Aleister Granger]

So I've wanted to get your opinions on how you feel about royalty and aristocracy, though I don't expect to be surprised.
I doubt anyone disagrees that a monarch is bourgeois, but what would their place be in revolutionary situations?
Also, what about the juche model?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Monarchs should be gotten rid of. The Juche model should be gotten rid of.

[adipocere]

So I've wanted to get your opinions on how you feel about royalty and aristocracy, though I don't expect to be surprised.
I doubt anyone disagrees that a monarch is bourgeois, but what would their place be in revolutionary situations?
Also, what about the juche model?

Their place would be sewing red felt berets in a gulag.

But seriously, I don't think they would have a "place" except in history books.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I disagree that monarchs are bourgeois -- not that I have a love of monarchy. Monarchy and nobility predate the bourgeoisie. The emerging bourgeoisie was in conflict with monarchy -- sometimes violently so. That it was left to the Bolsheviks to decisively deal with the Russian monarchy is a tribute to the then backwardness of Russia.

[helot]

Monarchy is a feudal throwback. Their role during the revolution is simple; their destruction.

[Red_Banner]

They have no place in socialism.

[Blake's Baby]

Why isn't this two different threads? What does monarchy have to do with Juche? Are you trying to make some comment about the hereditary principle in so-called 'socialist' countries?

[Zanthorus]

The 'feudal throwback' theory is nonsense if you ask me. Sure the institution can be found prior to capitalism, so can markets and exchange-value. The question of paramount importance is: what role do they play within the currently existing network of social relations. And my, personal answer is - the monarchy in Britain is as tied up with capitalism as Microsoft and McDonalds. Good old Queenie serves her job well as the perfect, apparently above politics, focal point for vague and undefined nationalist sentiment.

[helot]

The 'feudal throwback' theory is nonsense if you ask me. Sure the institution can be found prior to capitalism, so can markets and exchange-value. The question of paramount importance is: what role do they play within the currently existing network of social relations. And my, personal answer is - the monarchy in Britain is as tied up with capitalism as Microsoft and McDonalds. Good old Queenie serves her job well as the perfect, apparently above politics, focal point for vague and undefined nationalist sentiment.

Of course the monarchy serves British capitalism. If it didn't it wouldn't exist. The ascending bourgeoisie absorbed the aristocracy into itself centuries ago imo due to the incompetence of the British bourgeoisie at the time.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I doubt anyone disagrees that a monarch is bourgeois, but what would their place be in revolutionary situations?
They have no place in a revolutionary situation. Unless they give up their status and join the workers in struggle.

[Ocean Seal]

It's a class that the capitalists should have gotten rid of 200 years ago.

[Aleister Granger]

Yes, not surprised. Not surprised at all.
By "gotten rid of", would you happen to mean "kill" or "proletarianize?" Or either or?

[Popular Front of Judea]

By "gotten rid of", would you happen to mean "kill" or "proletarianize?" Or either or?

Yes.

[CyM]

I disagree that monarchs are bourgeois -- not that I have a love of monarchy. Monarchy and nobility predate the bourgeoisie. The emerging bourgeoisie was in conflict with monarchy -- sometimes violently so. That it was left to the Bolsheviks to decisively deal with the Russian monarchy is a tribute to the then backwardness of Russia.
You're right, with one minor subtlety. It was often the rising bourgeois that allowed the rise of the absolute monarchy which balanced the bourgeois against the feudal lords in order to raise their own army and gain some independence for themselves. Feudal absolutism is a result of the rise of the bourgeoisie, enough to cause political crisis, but not yet enough to overthrow feudalism. Two classes so perfectly balanced as to allow the rise of a state playing them off against each other.

Caesarism, absolutism, bonapartism, stalinism, very similar phenomena.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, not surprised. Not surprised at all.
By "gotten rid of", would you happen to mean "kill" or "proletarianize?" Or either or?Is there really any aristocracy anywhere in a meaningful sense? Wouldn't European aristocrats just generally be bourgoise who have meaningless family titles?

If they existed, a revolution would probably mean workers would dissolve any remaining aristocratic rights and privilages and take their land away from them. They are then no longer an aristocracy. They could continue to call themselves Barron or Don or whatever, but so could anyone else if they fancied... it would be meaningless on a social level.

If people organized to try and remove the democratic power of the workers after a revolution and restore minority rule, then workers would most likely defend their gains through the means they find appropriate.

[StalinBad]

Monarchism should only exist in video games.

[RedHal]

do what the CCP did to Puyi, turned him into a harmless gardener

[tachosomoza]

What happened to the Romanovs and Louis XVI in revolutionary situations? There's your answer.

[Red_Banner]

Souphanouvong was a Laotian prince who became a communist and 1st President of Laos.

[Japan]

Monarchy and aristocracy are things to be gotten rid of.

On the other hand, do you know what Juche is? It's purposely vague, and what Juche is generally changes with policy changes with the North Korean government.

[cobrawolf_meiji]

The Monarchs of Japan and the UK are more powerless figureheads, the real power is in the Parliament and the prime minister. In Czarist Russia, The Czar had all the power and did not want ANY reform, so it was that The Socialists and Communists had to end the Absolute Monarchy of Imperial Russia. In Britain and Japan, they are Constitutional Monarchies, in which the people vote in the heads of government while the monarch is mainly a figurehead. In the UK, The mainly socialist style Labor Party is the opposition to the Tories. So Socialism can exist in a Monarchy.:)

[Futility Personified]

Sorry buddy, but no. I don't know about Japan, but in the UK the royal family does have some influence that it is not supposed to have, because it IS the royal family. Our heir to the throne has been known to meddle in policy making. The labour party haven't had a socialist idea for a long, long time, let alone policy, and even if they did it's just tinkering with capitalism as opposed to ending it.

In response to the OP I think a monarch can either be deposed and get down with the rest of us and choose a humble profession, preferably being watched by someone to make sure they don't get any restoration based ideas, OR, well, history hasn't been kind to monarchs who overstay their welcome.

[Firebrand]

In the UK, The mainly socialist style Labor Party is the opposition to the Tories.

Aha ahahahaha

That was a joke right? The Labour party hasn't even been reformist socialist in years.

As for the monarchy, as far as I can work out the British royal family is a long running marketing campaign, aimed at promoting tourism in London and the surrounding areas. Since there will be no more need for advertising under socialism, the royal family will have to be re-skilled to learn a useful trade. (I'm thinking maybe construction.)