Dutch queen Beatrix announced to step down

[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 misleading

That'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.