If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No, sybolism is not reality. Symbols on maps etc are helpful but that has nothing to do with symbolism as a concept.
Have you got evidence for your second paragraph?
Britain doesn't rule from the top. It's not even in the top 3 of world powers. Well I think financiers in every country have a lot of power, however, financiers can't make and pass laws, and neither can the Queen...so Parliament, however flawed it is, has more power.
the queen doesnt have to make bills passed through parliament to be signed and become an act of parliament, would cause a constituinal crisis though
You have misread the information ‘Technicality’ is reality. Symbolism is significance! And symbolism is more semantemic than conceptual.
Britain is ruled from the top, politicians are the ‘managers’ manipulated by financial support; the capitalist is at the top.
Because of money politicians do what their sponsors ‘ask’ them to do, there are a few people in government who attempt to provide an honest account, but by its nature politics is a dirty business.
For example there is a multi billionaire from the steel industry who ‘donated’ a six figure sum to the labour party, and soon after the president of Romania gets a letter from T Bliar recommending he does business with the steel magnate. Also the capitalists own the mass media and politicians need the media to get their image over to the electorate. Murdoch owns a number of newspapers and television channels that supported T Bliar, and New Labour will support the interests of Murdoch as and when Rupert desires.
If politicians worked for the people who elected them they would not have dragged the nation into an illegal war. Capitalists are not stupid enough to get directly involved in politics. Most capitalist’s do not like publicity, they are behind the scenes pulling the strings of influence; notice how little the royal family are televised lately. And we are rarely shown Rupert Murdoch, David Rockerfeller, G H Bush, J P Morgan et al.
Charlie owns the land, any major building project he doesn’t like, it don’t get built!
The reason I said that is because of this - "Monarchies are the epitome of capitalism" - well according to my dictionary, epitome means "A representative or example of a class or type", so your statement is not borne out by historical fact. Monarchies were in existence way before capitalism and are a hangover from feudal type systems. In fact it was the English Civil War in the 17th Century and the subsequent bourgeois revolution that limited the power of the monarchy and paved the way for liberal capitalism. So you could in fact say that monarchies are actually anathema to capitalism and need to be overthrown completely (as in France) or have their powers limited for capitalism to evolve.
and
"the BBC are a royalist institution!" - well, no. The truth is actually more complex. Yes, the BBC is a statutory organisation, but this is not the same as saying that it is state run and therefore Royalist. I am anti-Royalist, yet I do see that the Queen's power is mostly symbolic these days. And yes, before you start again, I am well aware of the power of symbolism. But it might be an idea to get your basic historical facts right don't you think?
No, you seem to post hysterical nonsense.
See above.
You need to read up on some history.
Your netiquette is not dissimilar to that of the typically anally retentive English twat.
Epitome, like so many other words has various meanings. In my context it illustrates a person who or thing which embodies a quality etc.; a typical example.
Obviously it is you who needs to understand the complexity of rhetorical analysis. As for the rest of your post, it demonstrates nothing but insultant idiom, offers nothing in reply and simply reflects literary onanism!
According to which dictionary? Anyway, even if that was the case, you'd still be wrong. Monarchy does not embody capitalism, as I have shown.
You're very good at meaningless rhetoric, I'll give you that.
Capitalism - The possession of capital or wealth; a system in which private capital or wealth is used in the production or distribution of goods; the dominance of private owners of capital and of production for profit.
I reiterate, the modern English monarchy is drowning in wealth, and fully supports the capitalist agenda.
The technicalities are those punctilious details that make or break a case. Technically, the English monarchy rules all the authority in Britain.
It is short sightedness like yours that is likely a symptom of the shallow gene pool that Britain is splashing around in.
All good as far as it goes.
And...what? Your original post was "Monarchies are the epitome of capitalism ". I have shown this to be historically inaccurate.
Well, quite. So maybe, more historical accuracy might be an idea?
Symbolically, they are the heads of state yes. They have very little influence on capital however.
Careful, you'll have someone's eye out with that.
The queen owns every single thing in the "united kingdom". She has first title on every stick of furniture in your house as an example, your labour and in fact, your body.
No she doesn't.
The system of government in Britain is the oldest on the planet; this is a bad thing and is holding the country back from expressing itself through a leadership that swears allegiance to the people and not the monarch.
New millennium, new management.!
More meaningless rhetoric. Look - I'm as anti-capitalist as the next guy, but a bit of historical accuracy and a clear analysis wouldn't go amiss eh?
P.S.
If "Monarchies are the epitome of capitalism", then how do you explain the US?
No it doesn't.
It hasn't done since the Civil War, for crying out loud.
Why?
What difference would that make?
The monarchy is irrelevant in terms of power and control. In case it escaped your attention the Prime Minister is the person with the power- he has the monarchical power, not the monarch.
Dicey managed to explain this point 100 years ago, go and read something instead of spouting gibberish.
In any event, the people with the power are those with the capital. The Queen is nominally very rich indeed, but most of it is tied up in land she could never sell anyway. The people with the power in this country are those who run the MNCs and TNCs, because they have the power, the money and the influence.
A MNC could bring down a government if it so choosed; the monarch couldn't, no matter how many irrelevant theoretical practices you care to mention.
Yeah, she does. Sorry not "she" but the corporation with the similar name.
Why do you think not?
Britain is anchored in nepotism and cronyism, the country stinks of incestuous political agenda and parliament is a stage play to project the illusion of democracy.
The USA is more a corporation than a country it is a huge experiment in social control!
Also, 90% of the American presidents are/were related to the English and Dutch monarchies.
Yes yes, but what does it mean?
You haven't answered my question.
Because she doesn't.
Yes, thank you for that.
But she doesn't, does she? Not really.
Yes, yes, that's all lovely and delicious.
But if monarchy is the epitome of capitalism, how do you explain the United States? Or Germany?
It is the technicality of the crown that helps inflate the bureaucracy of government. The monarchy needs to be fully removed from all social function; it is out of touch and does not represent the people who work for the country.
This includes the disconnection from authoritarian regulation and rewrites of any oaths that officials pledge to embrace the collective citizenry.
Your question about the USA and Germany is too broad, perhaps you could identify what it is you expect in the answer.
The corporation that is named after her does. I already made that distinction. If you know something I don't, please tell me.
Who does own everything in the Uk then?
Yes, yes, but what does this mean?
Agreed.
Again, agreed.
Its obvious - you claimed that monarchies are the epitome of capitalism. In that case, how do you explain countries that have completely overthrown their monarchy being capitalist?
No it isn't.
If it is monarchy that is the epitome of capitalism, and (presumably) your argument is that republicanism would solve all the problems, how do you explain the bloated bureaucracy and the rabid capitalist consumerism of the United States and, to a lesser extent, Germany?
If the monarchy is the thing "inflating the bureaucracy of Government", surely the US shouldn't have a gargantuan civil service?
klintock, the monarchy does not own everything in the country, and hasn't done for a very very very long time; if, indeed, it ever did.
Go and look at the land law legislation from 1925 and 2003.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital and the means of production. By their nature monarchies are wealthy and powerful landowners, it is this sense that monarchies are capitalistic.
Saying nothing with a lot of words again, I see.
You sure you're not a politician? You have little enough understanding of the world to be one.
Though I do find it amusing that you think the Queen rules the world from the top. Almost as amused as Brenda would be, I think.
As for the whole being a landowner making them powerful nonsene, maybe it did in 1780. Land is an irrelevance now, especially land that you can't do anything with; the real power is in the factories and services.
Agreed.
You just inferred they did.
No shit, Sherlock.
Oh dear, back to history class for you. Monarchies are a hangover from feudalism. Most countries had some kind of bourgoise revolution which either overthrew or severely restricted the powers of the monarchy, paving the way for liberal capitalism as we know it today, i.e. private ownership of the means of production by individuals rather than the monarchy/aristocracy.