Dutch queen Beatrix announced to step down

[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.