Dutch queen Beatrix announced to step down

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok bro.

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.

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 (article is in Dutch).

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 stay classy Blake.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?



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?

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?

Debate and criticism does not amount necessarily to fighting each other.


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.

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.

This might actually function as an argument.