And there it is repeated again, couldn't really care less but let's call it ridiculous because coming upon a solution would be too difficult.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
There is always a difference between a person and the institution that they represent. Just because the public doesn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The awe with which people regard the monarchy in the UK is hilarious.
“The right of the working people in socialist society to personal property extends to their incomes from work and their savings, their houses and domestic plots, domestic and household goods, and objects of personal use and comfort.”
-
POLITICAL ECONOMY
A Textbook issued by the Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch28.htm
What’s been proposed in this thread isn’t a solution. Simple as.
Again, old lady dead = sad for her family and some cuckoopots who will dress up as royal servants for the next month. Don't pretend this public figure is spotless. Far from it.
She only died yesterday, you can't expect us to dot the Ts and cross the Is already. I think we'll need at least another thread.
You’ve had 70 years, my good fellow!
it was for this reason that the tsar and his family continued to live alongside the newly founded socialist state. it was a happy arrangement and no one complained. similarly, the last emperor of china lived in a castle after mao took over and his family remains there to this day.
you purposefully neglect the "socialist state" part with which that quotation begins. that requires the abolition of monarchs and quasi monarchs called neo-feudal capital lords, after which redistribution those property rights do indeed exist.
it would be nice to see charles sweeping the streets like puyi
For another thread, but there were different factions of socialists / communists. They weren’t all on the same page.
The thread is about her going, those of us who are quite serious anti-monarchists realise it's a long haul, it won't happen in my life time but sometime.
As an institution which the family is, self perpetuating, I don't think you can find it easy to know with certainty how much of their ill gotten filthy lucre should be ours, but starting off with a sword and shield and being the biggest and hairiest fighter who collected the taxes and didn't pay them it shouldn't be impossible, or ridiculous.
Deleted my previous post because you've been referred to as a 'historian', so I assume there is some basic education involved.
Who do you think was burning documents which directly implicated the Empire in horrific crimes, in the streets of Delhi in 1947? And who for?
i think i speak for a lot of people when i say that queen elizabeth II was someone that we were aware of.
Will all the money have to be changed then to accommodate Charles’ head?
Who's pretending she was perfect? To reiterate, I'm only pointing out the lack of humanity implicit in glorying in the death of another person.
monarchs dying is alive and well in Europe at a time when it's been largely blunted in the states
when it came to the death of the feudal system, they were all very much on the same page. mensheviks and bolsheviks were at odds but not over the primary point which had to do with the idea that the majority of people, >95%, ought to own the majority of the lands and control the profits which arise thereof within which they live and work.
ffsdid you just imply the royal family are working people
I don't see why it would be so impossible to have them keep Balmoral/Sandringham and whatever else they have some kind of legitimate claim to have private ownership of.
But even then, normal people are forced to sell their homes and feck off elsewhere when someone decides to build a train line through it - why should these cnuts have special treatment? Nice little Compulsory Purchase order at below market rate and nobody needs to bring out the guillotines.
I read an article yesterday by Polly Toynbee of all people, where she said that older people in the UK kind of used the Queen's reign as a yardstick. It was weird as I'd just mentally done that regarding my own mum, who was born two years after the Queen but died 28 years ago.
I think that kind of partly explains the Diana grief phenomenon. People don't grieve the Queen per se (she was after all a remote person and someone we'd never know), they relate the loss back to their own far more real and painful losses.
I think that kind of partly explains the Diana grief phenomenon. People don't grieve the Queen per se (she was after all a remote person and someone we'd never know), they relate the loss back to their own far more real and painful losses.
Didn't you just go on about the literal fecking Queen being different from the literal fecking monarchy?
I was saying that the person is a different entity from the title. It's really not that complicated
The tweet said “From 8 years after Queen Elizabeth’s coronation until well into the 1970s, the British government engaged in Operation Legacy”
Considering the 20th century monarchy isn’t “the British government”, I think it’s a legitimate thing to ask.
Is it known if this was by the order of the Prime Minister / Colonial Secretary / Parliament or was it ordered by the monarchy, and it’s been mislabeled in the tweet as the government?
When you point out the crimes the monarchy/empire have done during Queen Elizabeth's reign people say you have to separate the person from the institution.
But then people say she was a great leader and figurehead for the country during her reign.
Can't have both.
But then people say she was a great leader and figurehead for the country during her reign.
Can't have both.
i think that's right.
And whose family's crimes it was covering up as well.
It's like talking to Trump supporters.
That's 20,000 high yield forest and agriculture acres and 50,000 acres you can't do feck all but shoot things on it and above it. How the hell does one person own all of that and more when people in the UK are genuinely suffering or approaching it.
Let's be careful of being generous.
Do you think it's more likely that the queen ordered this or that the elected government of the UK did this as the British empire fell apart and they wanted to hide crimes both past and current which could implicate the country as a whole?
I understand where you’re coming from, I just feel it’ll be more complicated and messy than some seem to believe, and I also believe that if you actually want it done in modern Britain, campaigning to seize all their property isn’t the most likely way to get it done, politically speaking.
i would just transfer it all to a proper national trust and buy them out at a minimal cost for some of their holdings. then set about rewriting the constitution which was already long overdue, monarchy aside.
That’s well and good, but you were alluding to the assassination, were you not?
Insane how blind servitude works.
A by all accounts racist, pedo supporting, genocide and massacre denying, colonizing, grifting family whose most influential figurehead of the last 70 years was a key part of covering those various crimes up is now suddenly blameless because they're not wasting oxygen. Got it.
I wouldn't, personally, but it's not like people holding contradictory positions is unusual.
Also, on the other side of the coin, so many people talk about the role being pointless and purely symbolic in recent times whilst talking about the evils it's perpetrated. Can't have it both ways.
If you’re referring to me, I think it’s pretty funny you believe an American is a royalist. I just don’t believe abolishing the monarchy is realistic… or at least the plans I’ve seen presented here aren’t.
was more alluding to the idea of a socialist state which presupposes the death of all feudal institutions. that doesn't have to be a literal death, as in the russian example, but can be a practical death as in the chinese example.
if you can't imagine a scenario in which the monarchy is abolished, then you cannot possibly imagine a scenario in which a country sets about redistributing wealth on an equitable basis. each implies the same process.
I think you're creating your own narrative here. Who's absolved them of all blame?