The MOnarchy

Ian -- Yes, but those are just labels. And perhaps it happens that we just express wour ideas in different degrees of sharpness - you being sharper than me.

The real issue is wether changing the régime would really change anything important.

I think, repeating myself, that capitalism and lack of boundaries are responsible for the present crisis, not monarchy per se.

Again, I'm not trying to argue, just to understand why so many people seem to be against monarcy.

Is that a tabloid induced reaction or is there more to it than that? (now that was sharp! ).

 

I agree, the problem is systemic, and the present monarchy are a sympton not a cause. The focus on the monarchy in this thread is purely because it's a thread about that subject, rather than more general political questions. Abolition of the monarchy (which challenges the very idea of power by birth right, a corrupt and corrupting notion IMO) would be a worthwhile thing, however. Many things that don't completely change the world (replacing fascist dictatorship with liberal democracy, for example) are, nevertheless, worth doing, surely?

-- Ian

 

Of course replacing any dictatorship with democracy is worth doing.

And I, too, oppose birth rights. But as you have to have a King/President, why not accept birth rights in that particular case? And if you strip them of most power and train them well, they will only be decorative and promote union.

For instance, Portugal was once a dictatorship (not a fascist one, though; almost a Jesuitical one) but it remained a Republic; and the republican feeling is quite strong here (it may be helped because the monarchists over here are plain idiots). But when the Duke of Bragança (the would be King) had his first child many - but really many people saluted him as King and his child as a prince.

He is universally liked. The Portuguese President, with occasional bouts of idiocy, has performed his role well. But the King is still the King, even if he is only a Duke. Many people think the President is an idiot and should therefore be removed. Many people think the Duke is an idiot but that he would nevertheless make a good King.

The question is, the King stands above parties, wherever the President stems from one of the Parties.

The real issue is how to stop - rather, how to control - capitalism. I don't quite know how. In the cold war days it was relatively easy: there was always the ghost of communism hovering above democracies. Therefore, social reformations took place in spite of the capital.

Nowadays things are very different, and we can expect Europe (I'm including Britain ) to be progressively more like America. This is NOT a good thing.

And there we have something to fight about.

How? Through ideological constitutions, by investing taxes in education and health, by rendering it very difficult, or impossible, or unwise, or something like that, for mass culture to play into the hands of capital.

So you see - when I said I am mildly right wing, I could just as well have said I am mildly left wing.

But what I 'am' or what you 'are' is quite irrelevant. The important thing is to stop the slope towards barbarism we are witnessing every day.

 

Why???

I think you're a bit hard on popular culture, btw. We've had that discussion before...

-- Ian

 

Because a country must have a symbol, a kind of face. A robot should do it - i.e.: a kind of well trained monkey, in other words a King or Queen (mind you, I'm speaking from the British viewpoint, where monarchy is installed; speaking from the Portuguese viewpoint, where Republic is well installed, I would support the republic).

And I don't think I am hard on popular culture. I respect it - I have even studied it. I just don't agree with the way capital is controlling it. And I also think there is a cultural heritage to be respected and financed; in other words, football can look after itself, but universities (I mean pure research), museums and orchestras must be helped.

 

I tempted to ask "why?" again.

I don't disagree with you there at all.

-- Ian

 

If we were all rational beings, of course there would be no need for that. Alas, we are not. People must have concrete symbols for their groups: a leader, a banner, an identity symbol of some sort.

More than than, no one warms to a faceless country, and democracy would be even less participated than it is now.

'Just hire a clown, then' you might say. That's just the point: a well trained monarch plays the part and everybody's happy.

Even faceless dictatorships must have a face (George Orwell showed it to perfection) even if it stands for nothing.

It's just the way our minds work: gods have faces, forces have symbols, countries must have faces, too.

And, being provocative again :RdS: Diana is a case in point!