I'm happy with things as they are, the monarch, to be truthful, has no real power. It's all in the hands of parliament...Sure I'd love a Republic, but that being said, we're one of the few countries that haven't got out of hand with extremist views in modern times
GOD SAVE THE FOSSIL CUNT !!! god really need to save her because if she isn't alive then all british people will die because of hunger because she is breast feeding the britain and she is not using the tax money at all. every day she wakes up and goes early morning to her shop to sell sandwiches and she pays 60% of her earnings for tax to give a good life to british people. she even has built a ship and many aircraft for her majesty from the sandwich shop. Elly! can I have some chips pleeease
GOD SAVE THE FOSSIL CUNT !!! god really need to save her because if she isn't alive then all british people will die because of hunger because she is breast feeding the britain and she is not using the tax money at all. every day she wakes up and goes early morning to her shop to sell sandwiches and she pays 60% of her earnings for tax to give a good life to british people. she even has built a ship and many aircraft for her majesty from the sandwich shop. Elly! can I have some chips pleeease
Why does everyone get all pissed off when you insult the monarchy? I mean, I think monarchy is fun to have around, but it's not like they're actually better than anyone else. Yet everyone takes personal offense when you make fun of them. What are they, the Pope?
I love your videos, 5*. You make some true and urgent points. Ah, if only Thomas Paine were alive today.
(However, I disagree with you about the Russian revolution. Rather than central (state) ownership, we should try equitable universal ownership: "Distributism" . Everyone starts monopoly with £1000, and no one is allowed to go above £2,000. Google: Harrington, Agrarian Law.)
Monarchy: "Dangling pearls before the proletarian swine to keep our piggy faces in the trough since 1689".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i can see your not a royalist. sorry i am. It means nothing to day, but with the way our country is nudging to a communist state maybe my sovreign will kick sum parliament butt.
However, say we remove the monarchy, say we elect the House of Lords.
We end up, without a House of Lords because a lesser chamber with delaying powers of a year elected but yet without representing any one really serves no purpose. So first check and balance against the government GONE.
Without the Queen, second check on government gone!
If you love democracy so much why do you want to focus power to the executive?
House of Lords reform is a red herring. The reason policians are willing to talk about it finally is because people were starting to talk about House of Commons reform.
But the HoL and the Monarch are illegitimate checks on government power. They're there to restrict the one institution of power in the United Kingdom which "we the people" CAN influence (a little). If we want a non-partisan check on government power we should select the upper house by lot. The monarch isn't a significant check
against executive power. Besides why should we expect a monarch to serve the interests of the people and democracy? Her position of privilage is entirely antithetical to the role constitutional monarchists would asign to her.
Clearly A's labour is more productive than B's, But this reflects on the application of the labour by their employer rather than the internal qualities of A and B (which are equal). This quite clearly shows that productivity is in no small way a function of the workers environment (labour conditions) not intrinsic qualities for which he is at fault.
I agree. I did really mention that technology increase productivity and hence output.But when I compared the productivity of a worker verse another I assumed the same level of capital , technology and resources to have a fair comparison.Thats what a firm does when recruiting:Why should I hire Worker A rather than Worker B ?
Thanks to you and Mark for this nice debate.I really appreciate your comments.
Anti-Unionism is an attack on democracy and freedom to organise, unions are unable to raise wages to the fair rate, as at such a rate no profit could be made by the capitalists. Unions are a natural part of the market forces and opposition to them demonstrates the hypocrisy of the liberal paradigm. Laws restricting unions are universally a feature of neo-liberal "deregulation".
Labor unions differ from in structure in UK than in France as an example.The difference is in the size and thus the number of the unions. In case of asymmetric shocks in the economy labor unions in UK tend to increase the wages more than Germany's given the same shock. Because small union seeks the benefit of ts members. This causes inflation. They affect the choice of forming a monetary union.
So it makes no sense to talk of laying-off unproductive workers, but workers in unproductive roles being layed-off. The most committed and hard working worker in a job which is now cheaper done by computers will be layed off. Labour unions are unable to raise wages to the fair rate, as at such a rate no profit could be made by the capitalists.
False.Since if you have the required tech in the first place why should hire a person to do the job.You increase your profit by being more efficient and non productive workers whatever there job is will be replaced no matter what the situation is if the firm whats to maximize profit.Most importantly,the definition of productivity is the change in output per unit change in input.Productivity depends on human and physical capital, tech and resources.Revise your basics!
As I explained before productivity is determined by the capitalist, but the worker. There are no "unproductive workers". Workers are layed-off when less human labour is required to do the job they previously did, or when demand for the firm's produce is reduced. This is nothing to do with the worker. A hard worker can be made redundant when he is replaced by a machine and a lazy incompetent worker can hang onto a job if he has a skill which can't be replaced by technology.
Determinants of productivity are physical capital i.e.machinery,human capital, natural resources i.fuel, and technology.Any increase in these determinants increase productivity and quantity supplied.You will always need human capital even robots are driven by humans.If you are short in credit and want to lower your expenses you will lay off unproductive workers or replace them by more productive physical or human capital whichever is cheaper.
Do you not see that you have contradicted yourself (multiple times on the same point)? You make a statement about how productivity is determined and then go and contradict this by using the term 'unproductive worker'. Labour power is variable capital, its productivity is determined by the conditions under which it is performed.
I apologize if a made a mistake.What I said is the definition of productivity and its determinants. Second, I meant by unproductive worker is the worker that does not produce at his potential or max output that is because he is unskilled.There is no such thing as labor conditions, a skilled worker or professional produce the same output everywhere and anytime.Can you clarify this point?
Believe me what I mentioned about productivity is taught in freshmen classes 101 for god sake!
All qualities of the labour of a worker being equal his productivity is a function of the efficiency of the means of production, specifically the constant capital.
Consider worker A employed in job X and worker B in job Y. Due to recent technology upgrades A's department is producing twice the output per unit input of B's. Worker A and B are otherwise identical.
Productivity is not a quality which can be associated with a worker, productivity is the rate at which commodities are produced per cost of labour. From the worker is bought an amount of labour power but it is the goal and responsibility of the capitalist to increase the efficiency of that labour (bringing in machines being the typical way).
Nobody want you to give up income to those who haven't earned it, we want prosperity (income, in a money system) to reflect labour (the amount of work you do).
You currently are giving away earnings to someone who hasn't earned it: your boss.
To answer you, the more productive you are the more you'll earn and that is what we see nowadays: companies are laying off non productive employees.Accumulating income is not necessarily wealth without taking into consideration the real value of money and possessions.Labor unions tend to raise the wages above the fair rate in some countries. Moreover, if you consume whatever you earn then you don't have savings which promote investments and that is not true!
Wealth is nothing to do with how hard you work, its accumulated income. In order to accumulate income (and thus purchase the capital which is needed if you are increase your rate of accumulation) you need to have a high excess income. The market value of wages (in jobs without very high demand/low supply) tends towards the income necessary to sustain the average worker within the social conditions in which they live (no excess).
Intelligent debate at its best. This is the sort of rational analysis that offers such hope for the future. Bet my ideology's bigger than your ideology!
Mate, Am 15 and it doesny take an adult to know what you are sayin is a load of shit and whats worse is your humor. Bet you sit up all night in your we 1 bedroom flat and think of thigs to say all night. And if you want to give people advice why dont you join the samaratins ! Tit!
Ah. Well, "Tit" and "fanny" may not seem like insults much longer. Some people agree with me, some don't. Some find me funny, some don't. That's life. You may find the same yourself. Check out your library and see that there is a history behind the sort of things which I'm saying. Do you really think that people should not express ideas with which you disagree?
Definately disagree, the people in which agree with you should get to fuck and let us BRITTISH people and who respect the king queen and everything that comes with them get on. You should get on a boat and get yourself back to Ireland or Germany ect and go. We dont need people like you trying to cause unrest. you may think you are being a little guru trying to spread information but i must say the thing that confuses me is why would you want to video yourself!
YouTube videos can help people to communicate ideas with each other. Ideas seem to be foreign to you. Normally, I wouldn't comment on people's lack of education but, having exposed yourself as a rascist, I'd suggest you should learn how to spell "British". You're now blocked but, should you ever wish to challenge yourself, look at the history of Third Lanark football club, destroyed by stupidity and greed ; the wishes of the supporters, players etc. counted for nothing. That's capitalism.
Thank you for explaining the illogical reasoning behind having a "monarchy". The right of divine rule is a stupid principle. It basically establishes that 1 human being is born superior to another.
And the "God save the Queen" bit is stupid.
If there was a Dod, we shouldn't make demands of him or her to save one individual, while millions of others on this planet suffer.
Moreover, being poor or rich all over the Universe is related to you and your struggle in life starting from getting education as an example. Billionares around the world didn't achieve what the have because of any political institution. They struggled to do thatOf course certain political institutions might help in making people rich. Failing to any extent in the end is something to do with you and life is about making decisions and sacrifices You might want something but you dont work for it
So someone who is born the child of a billionaire and can live extremely well off the interest without ever having to work is in the same position as someone born into desperate poverty? You probably won't like it, but can I refer you to the new video (The Rich Laugh At Us) which I have just posted?
Your are right. But for how many generations will the rich survive? Eventually,unless their off springs are well equipped, they will fail to continue and run their business.
Each of us has only one lifetime. Shouldn't we all have an equal chance and doesn't the rule of capital automatically discriminate against those who start without any?
I think the whole world agree that the benefit of the society as a whole is above the welfare of an individual. Why a person should become a scientist and spend his whole life in the lab and gets money that he has no time to spend it? Economics deals with efficiency rather than equity thats why capitalism or free markets survived while communism etc failed to so.What about distributing Earth's scarce natural resources equally among people?
We've never had true communism. The current crisis within capitalism is an example of both its inherent contradictions and unfairness. The truly rich make money from money, producing nothing. Is it efficient (or moral) to dump food in the sea in order to keep profits high while millions starve? That's the "logic" of capitalism.
The current crisis happened because of banks reducing minimum requirements on getting mortgages so much(which is good from point of views other than economics)later on people couldn't pay back and the banks failed. Its not a problem of capitalism but it happened because the FED failed to monitor growing off balance sheet activities of the banks.I I cannot think of a billionaire who dose not have charity activities or organization.
"Good from points of view other than economics"? Don't you think that a good society would have social and economic policies which work together? The bankers were greedy and greed is the driving force of capitalism. In return for boosted egos and assuaged guilt, these "philanthropists" give away some of their interest, not their capital. The rich tend to avoid tax. How many poor people do you know with money stashed in secret accounts and offshore tax havens?
Everybody will ask for more even poor people;in the end you have limited and scarce resources. Whether we agree or not on equal economic and social policies this would never change this truth.You cannot expect a baker to give up his production feeling sympathetic for unfortunate people who don't want to lift themselves up? If I have extra cash why should I give it to people who don't! I earned it and didn't find it in the street!
Some people start off with more. Why shouldn't resources be shared fairly? If people didn't work in the sewers etc. then everyone, including the rich, would get cholera. This is necessary work ; it is also low-paid work. If it weren't for financial speculators, then what exactly? Why not have a rationally planned economy in which all necessary work is fairly divided? How is hereditary wealth earned?
You seem as if you were paying the cost of the monarchy?!
I can't wait to know that God has never existed nor there is a reason for creating you or the universe?!
Royals are humans in the end like me and you and they should make mistakes. They provide political stability and cause to people. You can try to sell yourself in auction and HM the Queen and see who people value most.
From where do you think their land, houses etc. come from? Thin air? God? Is there no possibility of "stability" (and by a "stable" situation, I assume you mean one in which there is an enormous division between rich and poor?) without a monarchy? Give me a few decades in which I own vast amounts of wealth and have the support of the media and THEN see how things stand. Of course, you probably don't favour a fair test?
This is the message i got from this prick- Would you be a fascist by any chance? I'm just guessing from the combination of hatred, lack of reasoned argument and problems using "your own" language.
Any doubts about this person's fascist tendencies can be dispelled by checking out his site. My reasons for blocking fascists are explained in my Channel Comments.
Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents. Normal for left wingers to try and shut people up with one word eg, Racist, facist etc.
It is true that since 1945, most fascists pretend to be something else, (though a few self-proclaimed fascist groups do exist in Britain and have written to this site). Judging from the discrepancy between the language in your comments, you can't make up your mind whether to debate or simply abuse.
However, judging from your site, you meet my definition of a fascist and are now blocked.
fuckin wanker i hate people like you left wing knob head its people like you that want to destroy britain and take everythin away that means anythin to us die.
Would you be a fascist by any chance? I'm just guessing from the combination of hatred, lack of reasoned argument and problems using "your own" language.
You never know - the aristocracy have always enjoyed occasional sex, (but not marriage) with us commoners! To be serious, I don't favour revenge : I'd rather just let them run their own souvenir shop. Actually, of course, the experience of being treated like everybody else would, in itself, be experienced as a form of punishment.
Be fair, your country is very democratic. I can not imagine in what way your queen could threaten democracy. I guess you don't know your countries laws. Don't you think that your queen is good cultural attraction, heritage. Don't be so stupid and be nice.
And that your idea about gold medal for Russian revolution - for murders of millions, total anarchy in place of slowly reforming monarchy. Even most radical nowadays communists don't say that is was good. It really seems that you have missed out a lot of classes.
Somehow I've not missed out on the vital differences between the classes. Try to learn the difference between Lenin and Stalin. Try to understand the reasons for the Russian Revolution and the reasons for what then happened. According to the UN, (hardly a Communist organisation) the world currently produces approx. 150% of the food which the world's population needs. Yet how many millions will die of hunger? Enjoy the wonderful pageantry of our state banquets!
in various boxes below and you'll find answers to your comments. Thanks for the advice about stupidity and niceness - could you pass it on to thse in power who preside over widening gaps between rich and poor, who send others to die in wars which they wage for profit and power? By the way, there isn't a royal attraction in Britain's top ten tourist attractions.
Less can you give me an example of any such veto being used in the last 200 or so years, i.e. since modern British parliamentary democracy began?
As for class, many of our biggest businesses are owned by entrepreneurs who have worked their way up from what you would call the 'working class'. Businesses aren't based on a hereditary system, you rise up depending on how well you perform.
Check below, I was querying what excessive powers the monarchy has ever vetoed? It doesn't serve as a "balance" - why would it? The Royal Prerogative can be used undemocratically. Check Tony Benn's campaign. Can you justify the wealth of Crown, Church and aristocracy? How is inherited wealth (Rockefellers) earned? Are Murdoch's kids earning theirs? Yes, there are examples of "working your way up" (single-handedly, of course, no thanks to employees) but as an exception to the class rule.
The Queen has a job to do, just like any other public figure. She earns her keep.
The symbolic function is a very important one because it means the Head of State is a non-party political person. She is a constitutional safeguard against the government seizing too much power.
As for a 'class system', it doesn't exist anymore. It should be obvious from how modern businesses and government work that anyone can succeed, regardless of background.
Have you checked out the lack of social mobility? Even the government admits it's a problem. And Cameron's got all his ex-Eton chums lined up for us. What are the statistical chances of that? What excess "power" has the constitutional monarchy ever vetoed? Its "royal prerogative" has been used to force through undemocratic measures, though. If there's no class system anymore, is it just coincidence that some people own the means of production while others work for them?
I always thought Elvis was still alive. Maybe that makes you like kings and queens? If you'd stayed on the downhill slalom course, you'd have got the "Not So Great Britain" joke. Not saying you'd hsave laughed, though.
In the interest of accuracy, I should explain the difference between the UK and GB. Many organisations, including the Olympic Committee, treat them as synonyms, but the important difference is that GB is the island of England, Scotland & Wales, whereas the UK also includes Northern Ireland and a number of smaller islands. I don't like the term GB because I think Ireland should be united and I don't like UK because I want a republic. Maybe call it Funland , then we could all have a good laugh!
My point was that the monarch is no longer treated as some kind of holy figure, and although the institution of course has had its history entwined with religion, doesn't mean the title itself is a religious one and has to go on being religious. I'm all for removing 'Defender of the Faith' from the monarch, and having a new national anthem too. I sing along to it, recognising it as symbolic (but I'd still prefer a new, secular one).
I didn't suggest that the monarch is seen as "holy". However, the monarch is clearly seen and treated as a special person and has a symbolic function (and occasionally a practical purpose) on top of a class system, a system which I oppose.
As a st00pid American, I can only say that I do not have any sympathy for your problem of a Queen do to my own self-indulgence. Okay, seriously, yeah: the entire existence of a monarch seems to be pretty unnecessary. Obviously, changing the government in any radical fashion creates friction on the system, but that sort of argument really only goes so far. Diana was pretty, but I guess I shouldn't hold her higher than our very own Paris Hilton.
I'm an atheist monarchist. Its been a long time since monarchy = divinity. We had a whole civil war over the issue, it was rather important, perhaps you'd better look it up.
Yes, very important ; that must be why I've read so many books about it. Did you actually listen to the whole video? The civil war was really a struggle between feudalism and capitalism which was, then, a progressive force. The monarch is automatically head of the C of E. So, as an "atheist monarchist", do you just hum the national anthem?
But if you look at the US, there are Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Rockefeller etc families, those are fucking rich but also fucking influential too ... and people go and VOLUNTARILY vote for them, over and over again ... people want to be slaves and neglected by their rulers. That's in our DNA
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I like the Royal Family. I think they are an important part of British culture and heritage. They also do a lot of good work, raising the profile of charities and, dare I say, the military. There would be very little gained by removing the monarchy, and a lot lost in terms of our national identity. As for their 'wealth', if you want to dislike someone for that, choose someone more worthy. Say, David Beckham?
Yes, the royals have proudly been figureheads for slavery, empire and glaring inequalities.
Perhaps they could do a little more for charity such as donating their enormous lands, buildings, assets and wealth? That way, some of our other forms of "heritage" such as poverty and homelessness might be eliminated?
Actually, I was thinking more of them being 'figureheads' for the abolition of slavery, resistance to religious dominion and later, assuming a role in a system of parliamentary democracy. If they didn't own their 'enormous lands' then ten to one they would simply be owned by business tycoons, celebrities or the government. Capitalism isn't always fair; if you don't like the system, I suggest you go and live in Cuba.
Did the royals urge the abolition of slavery? They certainly fought to hang on to feudalism. The monarch is automatically head of the church. The lands could be owned by the people. Ah yes, the old "If you don't like it.... " suggestion so beloved of "democrats". Presumably, if we still had feudalism, you'd be saying : "Well, if you don't like it.... " What kind of "democrat" thinks we can't have change? Life could be fair - that's the whole point.
The monarch is automatically head of the Church of England, yes, an invention designed to resist interference and control from the Vatican. How could life 'be fair' in your opinion? Would you also take land off business and celebrity millionaires? Pay everyone the same wage? We can have change of course, but I don't think radical change is needed. Well, other than a serious reform of the benefits system. Are you a communist? Honestly, I'm asking seriously.
Well, the C of E was set up to allow Henry 8to keep shagging. If you're ill, you need a doctor. And nurses. Medicines. Maybe surgical instruments. Researchers. Designers. Engineers. They / we all need sewage workers, otherwise a lot more illness. Clean water. Food. Electricity. Transport. People to build the hospitals etc. There's a lot of necessary work and workers. Are the royals necessary? Yes, I'm a Communist, but not a Stalinist. If you check out some of my other videos, they'll explain.
Do you think monarchies and their empires,(not to mention capitalism and imperialism have only been responsible for spreading peace and love around the world? The monarchy wanted to retain feudalism - how do you feel about that?
So after much reading, I get it. My original question was, "if the royals didn't exist how would britain be a better society; and from what I'm reading it appears you just hate them for their wealth. Life isn't fair, some are born rich, some are born poor, and some never have a chance, it's sad, but true, and I can't hate the royals (or anyone) just because they're wealthy. Though, I sure could use a few extra dollars to get a 2nd monitor for my Mac. LOL. I'm done. Have a Great Day!!
It's not a matter of the rich as individuals, it's the fact that the rich can only exist as a class if there's another class who are poor. As an example, the vast fortune of the royal family could be spent on schools and hospitals. Their huge estates could be public parks. Their mansions and palaces could be public museums and galleries. What's wrong with that? Hope you get those extra dollars!
How do you think I feel... The Queen is on all our Canadian Money, and the person who holds the highest authority here in Canada is the Governor general who is our representative to the queen.
I do not like the Ideal of Monarchy, even though under Law they are supposed to be the embodiment of the People, but I would never advocate violence toward them as you do, calling for the queens head on a spike. People like you hide behind words like democracy and those like you who call for death to members of the monarchy are mirrors of those responsible for tens of millions of deaths across the world who spoke out against what eventually replaced Monarchy.
Have another listen and you may detect a few jokes. That was one, followed by another suggestion, (waxworks) which was also a joke. I'm not into revenge. Simply abolishing the monarchy deals with the problem : the "royals" are no longer royal. "People like you... " Let's not genreralise, shall we?
Ah, A joke was it?. Calling for the head of someone on a spike is not a joke. It is however a clear indicator to the mentality of a person who attempts to use humour to mask a desire to humiliate or murder those they despise. Not into revenge? ....Your video clearly suggests otherwise. "People Like you".... are not merely content with abolition as you claim, It is clear you want revenge, just like those who changed the rule of Monarchy in Russia for the murderous obcenity that is Communism.
A kebab shop spike, actually. In my video on the USA, I said I'd just got back from America where I was teaching irony as a foreign language. Do you know something? I hadn't really! If a child ever tells you the "My dog's got no nose...." joke, try not to accuse it of being complicit in hideous vivisectionist experiments. Mind you, the royals are quite keen on tearing foxes to bits. Wonder what desires they're failing to mask there? It's not "clear" I want revenge, because I don't.
Gosh! I didn't realise I was responsible for millions of deaths. Well, what can I say? It was a Friday night and I'd had a few drinks.... Any crimes for which you feel responsible or for which "our" rulers may be responsible or is it hands clean round your way?
Doesn't it just make you sick (no phun intended) when queeny goes of on one of her little trips to Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (probably senile), which she seems to do several times a year, and you just know that she's being paid thousands for the honour and the hospital always needs more money....
Perhaps, one of the helpful Brits out there could help clarify some information for me. I'm an American, and as such, woefully uneducated governing specifics of other countries.
I'd read that in the 18th century, Geo III gave up the Crown Estate in exchange for the Civil List. The Crown Estate produces something like 190 million pounds (2006) for the Treasury. Does it cost more than that to maintain the Royals? If not, it sounds like a pretty sweet deal for you folks. :)
Perhaps Crown Paints could stake a claim? Actually, if you look at the lineage, there have been breaks due to lost battles and intrigues. But that's not the point. The monarchy is a feudal hangover and has no place in the C21st.
Preserving history in no way has to mean maintaining a Monarchy.
I am proud that my people destroyed the Russian Monarchy a long time ago, the Czars where supported by millions of starving peasants in the countryside.
I have talked to many Brits, and alot tell they support the current system.."The Royal Family is part of our history, and the production in tourism in the end balances out the Monarchy's existence."
This is completely false, who would want to remember a history of imperialism & opression?
The tourism argument is also ridiculous. In my home town of St. Petesburg(Leningrad), we have the Hermitage museum former palace of the Czar, a very attractive site to world-wide tourism.
I sort of agree but the royals were born into the monarchy. It's not there fault as they had no choice. Don't think you have a reason to execute them. And what to do with all the palaces, they will still need to be looked after as they are wonderful pieces of architecture. The monarchy are very much no more than a tourist attraction and caretaker for the palaces. Think best left alone.
How much of the tax payers money goes to supporting the image that the visitors like. I would not do the royals job for all the money in the world. They had no choice. They were born into it. I don't agree with the royal family but we should not attack the royals on a personal basis. We should feel sorry for them.
If you abolish the monarchy, they cease to be royal. They probably wouldn't be much use, but they could try other jobs. I'm not into revenge. I agree about the palaces etc. Imperial architecture can be very impressive, (of course that's their purpose!). Museums, art galleries etc. The possibilities are endless. But NOT for governmental use - this would create a very bad mindset.
I think of the royals more as caretakers anyway and i think the palaces will become museums. Buckingham palace is already partly a museum and is falling apart. The royals do however have far to many hangers on with there fingers in the tax payers pie.
OK. I respect what you're putting out, and please pardon my American ignorance; but don't the brits vote on the PM who is supposedly the leader of the country? I guess your main argument is that the royals exist at all? I don't really have an opinion on it. Coming from the other side of the pond, they're entertaining, it's kinda uppity, i like that...the whole pomp and circumstance. If the royals didn't exist, how would british society become a better place?
it wouldnt make a great deal of difference to british society. The royal family have no influence or say in british politics or the way the country is run. They are just like an incredibley wealthy celebrity family imo but i agree with this guy that the national anthem is outdated and should be changed.
the royal family costs the average british taxpayer around 62p a year LOL thats what you'te complaining about? Tourist attraction for the royal family, buckingham palace etc brings in more money than the royal family spends. they may have alot of land and wealth but its all been inherited and passed down. what do you suggest we do? strip them of their wealth, land and kick them out on their arse? lol the UK is a democracy not a monarchy stop whinging about nothing
This 62p per year stuff is propaganda nonsense. The real costs lie in their capital and its use. The land and the initial wealth was originally stolen by force. Inherited wealth? Great idea. Kids born with nothing. Bad luck. Kids with no parents. Bad luck. Kids with wealthy families? Jolly good show! Very well done! Britain is a bourgeois democracy run for and by capital. Noticed any poverty or inequality or injustice? Well, probably best not to whinge, eh?
I hope it's not any more than 62p, based on 65 million people in this country that is over £40million. Think of all that money spent on the NHS. The NHS would even be able to afford to pin back charlies ears.
Interested POV's. I don't think it's right to strip them of their land and wealth. Wealth has been created all over the world for few, on the backs and the blood of many. Should the American's give back the land their forefathers stole from the "Native Americans"? Should the companies and people that became wealthy and are still wealthy to this day on the backs of slaves lose their wealth? As a black American (the descendent of slaves), even I don't even think that should happen.
On the other hand, should Native Americans and black Americans continue to suffer disproportionate poverty and exploitation?
If I steal your house, how long do I have to hold onto it by force before you think it's rightfully mine? I'm interested in justice and equality, not revenge. The practical task of dismantling the monarchy really wouldn't be difficult.
Well, that would be a whole different tangent. LOL. Because even though the Native Americans continue to get screwed to a certain extent, they're making up for it with the gaming casinos (they're right up there with Vegas) and yes there's a disproportionate number of blacks living in poverty. However, on the other hand, I think a lot of the suffering happening to Black Americans is self induced, and is a cycle of under achievement, which isn't related to resources.
I grew up on Merseyside, which prospered on the slave trade. Though a long time ago, blacks there remain clearly disadvantaged. Capitalism makes us fight for a living, but some start off already bruised, with one arm tied behind their back. I appreciate we're both generalising, but I wouldn't blame the victims. Of course, there are individuals who are "bad" people in all sorts of ways, but, to refer back, it's a casino where the dice are loaded.
Yes, we do digress and generalize. I used "Black Americans"; such as myself as an example, of why I don't feel the royals should be striped of their land and wealth; not to start a conversation on the disenfranchisement of Blacks, and other groups (especially the poor), and I still stand by my "I don't think the royals should be stripped of their land and wealth". What you're speaking of appears to smell of racism, and that is separate from the royals and if they should be "kicked out".
that's still MY 62 pence, but on top of that is the income from land and property that MY money and the money of millions of others has bought, that they benefit from and i don't!
"strip them of their wealth, land and kick them out on their arse? "
sounds like a damn good idea to me - remove the parasites and the tourism thing is bullshit - buck house will still be there and completely open to the public in a commercial venture would make even more!
They do have enormous wealth, property, land "rights" and some political influence. All the pomp is part of a process (from feudalism) of persuading people to accept inequality and privilege.
The argument that they bring in money for tourism is a joke, Im sure Buckingham Palace would pull in more cash if the entire place was open to the nosy public.
Why on Earth would anybody seek to replace a figurehead monarch with an executive president? The monarch does nothing for our constitution except act as a contact point for the prime minister to go and pick up his keys when the BBC announces who has won the election. The Speaker of the House of Commons could perform that function with no need to directly elect anybody to such a non-job.
Actually, there are still various usages of the "royal prerogative". That well-known "republican" Tony Benn is one of various privy counsellors. The crown does still wield influence and, obviously, economic clout. The role of symbolism is important to the ruling class. I'd replace the monarchy with a worker's state.
"Over the bodies of the workers"? No. What an strange idea. Perhaps you wrongly equate Communism with the worst aspects of Stalinism? They're no more synonymous than equating the results of drunk driving with the invention of the internal combustion engine. What's special about work? Well, I could be wrong, but I reckon things like houses, sanitation, transport and the computers which we both use are all the result of work. Inheriting a vast fortune is the result pf an accident of birth.
The workers are not asking for power or the abolition of the monarchy either, do you intend forcing them to want what you think they should want or just doing what you want to do in their name against their will?
Why specifically the workers rather than the people? I have always considered qualified democracy not to be true democracy. What would qualify somebody not to be a worker and so be stripped of the power to have your comrades govern in their name?
Capitalism divides people into classes. The capitalists would be free as individuals but not free to organise politically and economically as a class. Similarly, "royalty" would be free as individuals, but there wouldn't be any royalty anymore. Political aspirations and demands change according to conditions and the perceived possibilities. I would agree that Britain is hardly on the verge of a worker's revolution, but that doesn't make it impossible or wrong.
Marxist theory divides people into classes. If Marx was alive today he'd probably tell you all to stop being so silly, and couldn't you see that history had proven his theories fundamentally wrong? No country is on the verge of a worker's revolution, least of all Britain.
It's interesting that Marx's work (especially economics) has long been among standard reference books for capitalists. Many people have swallowed the "end of history" and "postmodernist" ideas which have been used to demoralise oppositional forces since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Capitalism was a progressive force when it overthrew feudalism, but not now and its internal contradictions will destroy it - or us. It's socialism or barbarism. Britain's not the world and conditions change.
Capitalism's fatal internal contradictions. Right. You have the same credibility with me as those people who announce that the end of the world is nigh because your sacred scripture tells you so and it cannot be wrong. The world is now much further away from a socialist revolution than it has ever been.
What evidence would convince you that your faith has been futile and no revolution will ever come? If you cannot conceive of such a circumstance you are a dangerous faith-head.
A bit insulting. It's not a faith with "sacred" books ; it's a process of dialectical reasoning and analysis, incl.
errors a & failures. Are you saying that the world can continue on a capitalist course? That requires endless expansion & profits generated by exploitation. Competition for dwindling resources.... trade wars.... then actual wars. The rich are rich because others are poor. Injustice and its enforcement are built into a capitalist system. A fair, happy world would convince me.
The poor are poor because they are not involved in the capitalist economy beyond being a target for charity which ensures their population keeps rising. The world has been continuing on a capitalist course without discovering new continents to rape and without huge wars. But somehow this process which isn't happening you see as inevitable and unavoidable because of your theory which cannot be wrong. That's faith.
This "faith" nonsense is a bit tedious. Let's look at some evidence. The wars of the C20th, not to mention this one so far? The squaring up starting over oil.... water.... People working in sweatshops (here as well, as abroad) are involved in the economy and they don't receive charity. Watch out for "exploitation rights" disputes over the ocean beds, the Arctic and Antarctic and eventually the rest of the solar system, initially, of course, just satellite and "defence" system "rights".
The 20th century was a time of fewer wars and lower levels of death by violence (against population size) than any period of human history or prehistory. You are like a faith-head using every scrap of evidence to support your analysis, wars over resources are wars over resources, not proof that Uncle Karl was right on page 679. You may have a theoretical explanation for events of type A but the existence of events of type A is not proof of the validity of *your* theory, that's a logical fallacy.
You are factually) wrong. There is a fascinating (now sadly obscure) book by Gil Eliot called "Twentieth Century Book Of The Dead." His background is in business and market research, his purpose humanitarian. The book was published by Penguin in 1972 and it goes through all the slaughter in itemised detail. His clearly stated conclusion (yes, taking into account population sizes) also disagrees with yours. On what evidence is your assertion based? Please refer to this book.
I think you should check your responses : your dislike and disdain is visceral rather than reasoned. The philosophical line comes from Kant and Hegel and then Marx. This is an evidential, reasoned, analytical approach, similar to Darwin. You (and I) have probably met many "Marxists" who are absurdly and blindly dogmatic but that's not Marxism and it's not me either.
I am well aware of Marx and his roots, I discovered his works to be a natural insomnia cure. After a century & a half if there was real value in his theories and methods they would have moved on and spread and become absorbed into the culture and nobody would be hearkening back to what he wrote because it would have been improved upon and evolved. Modern biologists only mention Darwin in passing, they don't use quotations and phrases from Darwin all the time. They are all Darwinians and know it.
Am I constantly quoting Marx? How many direct quotes can you find in my videos or responses? The point is to build on theory and practice. History never repeats exactly and Marxism is supposed to be a tool in a toolbox rather than a booklet for flat pack assembly. Globally, an enormous number of people have come into contact with Marx's ideas, (yes, many unhappily) through the C20th
and it continues. The current triumphalism of capitalism is not the last word. Today is not tomorrow.
The problem that we British republicans have is that Aunt Lillibet is basically quite a nice woman who has queening down to a fine art. Just think of the fun we will have if Charles the Mad takes over the family firm.
This family has all the best educational advantages that money can buy and yet none of them has got anything better than a desmond to show for it. They've got to go, and they have to take their dreary dirge with them.
Long Live The Queen!
1stTier 5 months ago
Please prove God does not exist before making these treasonous statements.
1AdrianR 6 months ago
what a prick
LeeDzTiNg 6 months ago
WTF why did you call this Never Mind The Monarchs?
jarvis911 9 months ago
I'm happy with things as they are, the monarch, to be truthful, has no real power. It's all in the hands of parliament...Sure I'd love a Republic, but that being said, we're one of the few countries that haven't got out of hand with extremist views in modern times
Elltrixer 9 months ago
GOD SAVE THE FOSSIL CUNT !!! god really need to save her because if she isn't alive then all british people will die because of hunger because she is breast feeding the britain and she is not using the tax money at all. every day she wakes up and goes early morning to her shop to sell sandwiches and she pays 60% of her earnings for tax to give a good life to british people. she even has built a ship and many aircraft for her majesty from the sandwich shop. Elly! can I have some chips pleeease
zederish 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD SAVE THE FOSSIL CUNT !!! god really need to save her because if she isn't alive then all british people will die because of hunger because she is breast feeding the britain and she is not using the tax money at all. every day she wakes up and goes early morning to her shop to sell sandwiches and she pays 60% of her earnings for tax to give a good life to british people. she even has built a ship and many aircraft for her majesty from the sandwich shop. Elly! can I have some chips pleeease
zederish 9 months ago
Wow you and me are on exactly the same page!
meanmrmustard89 11 months ago
Why does everyone get all pissed off when you insult the monarchy? I mean, I think monarchy is fun to have around, but it's not like they're actually better than anyone else. Yet everyone takes personal offense when you make fun of them. What are they, the Pope?
dylantuzyk 1 year ago
@dylantuzyk The Pope is no different though, both The Monarchy and The Pope take advices from someone else so ya
2Guys1Contour 1 year ago
Is this intended to be comedy? Ignorance? Jealousy? Or all three?
jpreston1620 2 years ago
@jpreston1620
Comedy, Ignorance and Jealousy? Weren't they The Three Stooges? Or was that Jesus, Mary and Joseph?
less004 2 years ago
I love your videos, 5*. You make some true and urgent points. Ah, if only Thomas Paine were alive today.
(However, I disagree with you about the Russian revolution. Rather than central (state) ownership, we should try equitable universal ownership: "Distributism" . Everyone starts monopoly with £1000, and no one is allowed to go above £2,000. Google: Harrington, Agrarian Law.)
Monarchy: "Dangling pearls before the proletarian swine to keep our piggy faces in the trough since 1689".
RadicalWhig 2 years ago
I hope the queen dies in a car fire lmao
cno1488 2 years ago
Er... What about the American revolution?
leiserd22 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i can see your not a royalist. sorry i am. It means nothing to day, but with the way our country is nudging to a communist state maybe my sovreign will kick sum parliament butt.
marktruckingkelly 2 years ago
fuck the queen.
Xiber1 2 years ago
You should be a politician
a worthy adversary
However, say we remove the monarchy, say we elect the House of Lords.
We end up, without a House of Lords because a lesser chamber with delaying powers of a year elected but yet without representing any one really serves no purpose. So first check and balance against the government GONE.
Without the Queen, second check on government gone!
If you love democracy so much why do you want to focus power to the executive?
caversmill 3 years ago
House of Lords reform is a red herring. The reason policians are willing to talk about it finally is because people were starting to talk about House of Commons reform.
But the HoL and the Monarch are illegitimate checks on government power. They're there to restrict the one institution of power in the United Kingdom which "we the people" CAN influence (a little). If we want a non-partisan check on government power we should select the upper house by lot. The monarch isn't a significant check
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
against executive power. Besides why should we expect a monarch to serve the interests of the people and democracy? Her position of privilage is entirely antithetical to the role constitutional monarchists would asign to her.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Clearly A's labour is more productive than B's, But this reflects on the application of the labour by their employer rather than the internal qualities of A and B (which are equal). This quite clearly shows that productivity is in no small way a function of the workers environment (labour conditions) not intrinsic qualities for which he is at fault.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
I agree. I did really mention that technology increase productivity and hence output.But when I compared the productivity of a worker verse another I assumed the same level of capital , technology and resources to have a fair comparison.Thats what a firm does when recruiting:Why should I hire Worker A rather than Worker B ?
Thanks to you and Mark for this nice debate.I really appreciate your comments.
bayyoumi 3 years ago
Anti-Unionism is an attack on democracy and freedom to organise, unions are unable to raise wages to the fair rate, as at such a rate no profit could be made by the capitalists. Unions are a natural part of the market forces and opposition to them demonstrates the hypocrisy of the liberal paradigm. Laws restricting unions are universally a feature of neo-liberal "deregulation".
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Labor unions differ from in structure in UK than in France as an example.The difference is in the size and thus the number of the unions. In case of asymmetric shocks in the economy labor unions in UK tend to increase the wages more than Germany's given the same shock. Because small union seeks the benefit of ts members. This causes inflation. They affect the choice of forming a monetary union.
bayyoumi 3 years ago
So it makes no sense to talk of laying-off unproductive workers, but workers in unproductive roles being layed-off. The most committed and hard working worker in a job which is now cheaper done by computers will be layed off. Labour unions are unable to raise wages to the fair rate, as at such a rate no profit could be made by the capitalists.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
False.Since if you have the required tech in the first place why should hire a person to do the job.You increase your profit by being more efficient and non productive workers whatever there job is will be replaced no matter what the situation is if the firm whats to maximize profit.Most importantly,the definition of productivity is the change in output per unit change in input.Productivity depends on human and physical capital, tech and resources.Revise your basics!
bayyoumi 3 years ago
As I explained before productivity is determined by the capitalist, but the worker. There are no "unproductive workers". Workers are layed-off when less human labour is required to do the job they previously did, or when demand for the firm's produce is reduced. This is nothing to do with the worker. A hard worker can be made redundant when he is replaced by a machine and a lazy incompetent worker can hang onto a job if he has a skill which can't be replaced by technology.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Determinants of productivity are physical capital i.e.machinery,human capital, natural resources i.fuel, and technology.Any increase in these determinants increase productivity and quantity supplied.You will always need human capital even robots are driven by humans.If you are short in credit and want to lower your expenses you will lay off unproductive workers or replace them by more productive physical or human capital whichever is cheaper.
bayyoumi 3 years ago
Do you not see that you have contradicted yourself (multiple times on the same point)? You make a statement about how productivity is determined and then go and contradict this by using the term 'unproductive worker'. Labour power is variable capital, its productivity is determined by the conditions under which it is performed.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
I apologize if a made a mistake.What I said is the definition of productivity and its determinants. Second, I meant by unproductive worker is the worker that does not produce at his potential or max output that is because he is unskilled.There is no such thing as labor conditions, a skilled worker or professional produce the same output everywhere and anytime.Can you clarify this point?
Believe me what I mentioned about productivity is taught in freshmen classes 101 for god sake!
bayyoumi 3 years ago
All qualities of the labour of a worker being equal his productivity is a function of the efficiency of the means of production, specifically the constant capital.
Consider worker A employed in job X and worker B in job Y. Due to recent technology upgrades A's department is producing twice the output per unit input of B's. Worker A and B are otherwise identical.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Productivity is not a quality which can be associated with a worker, productivity is the rate at which commodities are produced per cost of labour. From the worker is bought an amount of labour power but it is the goal and responsibility of the capitalist to increase the efficiency of that labour (bringing in machines being the typical way).
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
Nobody want you to give up income to those who haven't earned it, we want prosperity (income, in a money system) to reflect labour (the amount of work you do).
You currently are giving away earnings to someone who hasn't earned it: your boss.
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
To answer you, the more productive you are the more you'll earn and that is what we see nowadays: companies are laying off non productive employees.Accumulating income is not necessarily wealth without taking into consideration the real value of money and possessions.Labor unions tend to raise the wages above the fair rate in some countries. Moreover, if you consume whatever you earn then you don't have savings which promote investments and that is not true!
bayyoumi 3 years ago
Wealth is nothing to do with how hard you work, its accumulated income. In order to accumulate income (and thus purchase the capital which is needed if you are increase your rate of accumulation) you need to have a high excess income. The market value of wages (in jobs without very high demand/low supply) tends towards the income necessary to sustain the average worker within the social conditions in which they live (no excess).
RevolutionarySpectre 3 years ago
what an absolute fanny!
macgregor9 3 years ago
Intelligent debate at its best. This is the sort of rational analysis that offers such hope for the future. Bet my ideology's bigger than your ideology!
less004 3 years ago
Mate, Am 15 and it doesny take an adult to know what you are sayin is a load of shit and whats worse is your humor. Bet you sit up all night in your we 1 bedroom flat and think of thigs to say all night. And if you want to give people advice why dont you join the samaratins ! Tit!
macgregor9 3 years ago
Ah. Well, "Tit" and "fanny" may not seem like insults much longer. Some people agree with me, some don't. Some find me funny, some don't. That's life. You may find the same yourself. Check out your library and see that there is a history behind the sort of things which I'm saying. Do you really think that people should not express ideas with which you disagree?
less004 3 years ago
Definately disagree, the people in which agree with you should get to fuck and let us BRITTISH people and who respect the king queen and everything that comes with them get on. You should get on a boat and get yourself back to Ireland or Germany ect and go. We dont need people like you trying to cause unrest. you may think you are being a little guru trying to spread information but i must say the thing that confuses me is why would you want to video yourself!
macgregor9 3 years ago
YouTube videos can help people to communicate ideas with each other. Ideas seem to be foreign to you. Normally, I wouldn't comment on people's lack of education but, having exposed yourself as a rascist, I'd suggest you should learn how to spell "British". You're now blocked but, should you ever wish to challenge yourself, look at the history of Third Lanark football club, destroyed by stupidity and greed ; the wishes of the supporters, players etc. counted for nothing. That's capitalism.
less004 3 years ago
Thank you for explaining the illogical reasoning behind having a "monarchy". The right of divine rule is a stupid principle. It basically establishes that 1 human being is born superior to another.
And the "God save the Queen" bit is stupid.
If there was a Dod, we shouldn't make demands of him or her to save one individual, while millions of others on this planet suffer.
gundamWWW 1 year ago
Moreover, being poor or rich all over the Universe is related to you and your struggle in life starting from getting education as an example. Billionares around the world didn't achieve what the have because of any political institution. They struggled to do thatOf course certain political institutions might help in making people rich. Failing to any extent in the end is something to do with you and life is about making decisions and sacrifices You might want something but you dont work for it
bayyoumi 3 years ago
So someone who is born the child of a billionaire and can live extremely well off the interest without ever having to work is in the same position as someone born into desperate poverty? You probably won't like it, but can I refer you to the new video (The Rich Laugh At Us) which I have just posted?
less004 3 years ago
Your are right. But for how many generations will the rich survive? Eventually,unless their off springs are well equipped, they will fail to continue and run their business.
bayyoumi 3 years ago
Each of us has only one lifetime. Shouldn't we all have an equal chance and doesn't the rule of capital automatically discriminate against those who start without any?
less004 3 years ago
I think the whole world agree that the benefit of the society as a whole is above the welfare of an individual. Why a person should become a scientist and spend his whole life in the lab and gets money that he has no time to spend it? Economics deals with efficiency rather than equity thats why capitalism or free markets survived while communism etc failed to so.What about distributing Earth's scarce natural resources equally among people?
bayyoumi 3 years ago
We've never had true communism. The current crisis within capitalism is an example of both its inherent contradictions and unfairness. The truly rich make money from money, producing nothing. Is it efficient (or moral) to dump food in the sea in order to keep profits high while millions starve? That's the "logic" of capitalism.
less004 3 years ago
The current crisis happened because of banks reducing minimum requirements on getting mortgages so much(which is good from point of views other than economics)later on people couldn't pay back and the banks failed. Its not a problem of capitalism but it happened because the FED failed to monitor growing off balance sheet activities of the banks.I I cannot think of a billionaire who dose not have charity activities or organization.
bayyoumi 3 years ago
"Good from points of view other than economics"? Don't you think that a good society would have social and economic policies which work together? The bankers were greedy and greed is the driving force of capitalism. In return for boosted egos and assuaged guilt, these "philanthropists" give away some of their interest, not their capital. The rich tend to avoid tax. How many poor people do you know with money stashed in secret accounts and offshore tax havens?
less004 3 years ago
Everybody will ask for more even poor people;in the end you have limited and scarce resources. Whether we agree or not on equal economic and social policies this would never change this truth.You cannot expect a baker to give up his production feeling sympathetic for unfortunate people who don't want to lift themselves up? If I have extra cash why should I give it to people who don't! I earned it and didn't find it in the street!
bayyoumi 3 years ago
Some people start off with more. Why shouldn't resources be shared fairly? If people didn't work in the sewers etc. then everyone, including the rich, would get cholera. This is necessary work ; it is also low-paid work. If it weren't for financial speculators, then what exactly? Why not have a rationally planned economy in which all necessary work is fairly divided? How is hereditary wealth earned?
less004 3 years ago
You seem as if you were paying the cost of the monarchy?!
I can't wait to know that God has never existed nor there is a reason for creating you or the universe?!
Royals are humans in the end like me and you and they should make mistakes. They provide political stability and cause to people. You can try to sell yourself in auction and HM the Queen and see who people value most.
bayyoumi 3 years ago
From where do you think their land, houses etc. come from? Thin air? God? Is there no possibility of "stability" (and by a "stable" situation, I assume you mean one in which there is an enormous division between rich and poor?) without a monarchy? Give me a few decades in which I own vast amounts of wealth and have the support of the media and THEN see how things stand. Of course, you probably don't favour a fair test?
less004 3 years ago
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
GOD BLESS BRITANNIA
chris25uk 3 years ago
HOT CHOCOLATE, DRINKING CHOCOLATE!
less004 3 years ago
This is the message i got from this prick- Would you be a fascist by any chance? I'm just guessing from the combination of hatred, lack of reasoned argument and problems using "your own" language.
BIGPRO83 3 years ago
Any doubts about this person's fascist tendencies can be dispelled by checking out his site. My reasons for blocking fascists are explained in my Channel Comments.
less004 3 years ago
Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents. Normal for left wingers to try and shut people up with one word eg, Racist, facist etc.
BIGPRO83 3 years ago
It is true that since 1945, most fascists pretend to be something else, (though a few self-proclaimed fascist groups do exist in Britain and have written to this site). Judging from the discrepancy between the language in your comments, you can't make up your mind whether to debate or simply abuse.
However, judging from your site, you meet my definition of a fascist and are now blocked.
less004 3 years ago
fuckin wanker i hate people like you left wing knob head its people like you that want to destroy britain and take everythin away that means anythin to us die.
BIGPRO83 3 years ago
Would you be a fascist by any chance? I'm just guessing from the combination of hatred, lack of reasoned argument and problems using "your own" language.
less004 3 years ago
Ha Ha what a dick head
madjaime2007 3 years ago
And the erudite debate of republic versus monarchy continues....
less004 3 years ago
Unfortunately it does but look on the bright side: that shows you the level of intelligence the "god save the queen bunch" possess.
Torchmark 3 years ago
Fuck the Queen! Smash the Union and burn the Union Flag!
DropZoneRecords 3 years ago
Actually, I think I'd rather she just abdicated!
less004 3 years ago
Thats never happening tho is it... altho I wouldnt like to "fuck" her, hang her might be better. Or the good ol' french way with a guillotine? :)
DropZoneRecords 3 years ago
You never know - the aristocracy have always enjoyed occasional sex, (but not marriage) with us commoners! To be serious, I don't favour revenge : I'd rather just let them run their own souvenir shop. Actually, of course, the experience of being treated like everybody else would, in itself, be experienced as a form of punishment.
less004 3 years ago
Be fair, your country is very democratic. I can not imagine in what way your queen could threaten democracy. I guess you don't know your countries laws. Don't you think that your queen is good cultural attraction, heritage. Don't be so stupid and be nice.
skavotajs5 3 years ago
And that your idea about gold medal for Russian revolution - for murders of millions, total anarchy in place of slowly reforming monarchy. Even most radical nowadays communists don't say that is was good. It really seems that you have missed out a lot of classes.
skavotajs5 3 years ago
Somehow I've not missed out on the vital differences between the classes. Try to learn the difference between Lenin and Stalin. Try to understand the reasons for the Russian Revolution and the reasons for what then happened. According to the UN, (hardly a Communist organisation) the world currently produces approx. 150% of the food which the world's population needs. Yet how many millions will die of hunger? Enjoy the wonderful pageantry of our state banquets!
less004 3 years ago
Check out some of my, (and others') comments
in various boxes below and you'll find answers to your comments. Thanks for the advice about stupidity and niceness - could you pass it on to thse in power who preside over widening gaps between rich and poor, who send others to die in wars which they wage for profit and power? By the way, there isn't a royal attraction in Britain's top ten tourist attractions.
less004 3 years ago
Less can you give me an example of any such veto being used in the last 200 or so years, i.e. since modern British parliamentary democracy began?
As for class, many of our biggest businesses are owned by entrepreneurs who have worked their way up from what you would call the 'working class'. Businesses aren't based on a hereditary system, you rise up depending on how well you perform.
Matt7895 3 years ago
Check below, I was querying what excessive powers the monarchy has ever vetoed? It doesn't serve as a "balance" - why would it? The Royal Prerogative can be used undemocratically. Check Tony Benn's campaign. Can you justify the wealth of Crown, Church and aristocracy? How is inherited wealth (Rockefellers) earned? Are Murdoch's kids earning theirs? Yes, there are examples of "working your way up" (single-handedly, of course, no thanks to employees) but as an exception to the class rule.
less004 3 years ago
The Queen has a job to do, just like any other public figure. She earns her keep.
The symbolic function is a very important one because it means the Head of State is a non-party political person. She is a constitutional safeguard against the government seizing too much power.
As for a 'class system', it doesn't exist anymore. It should be obvious from how modern businesses and government work that anyone can succeed, regardless of background.
Matt7895 3 years ago
Have you checked out the lack of social mobility? Even the government admits it's a problem. And Cameron's got all his ex-Eton chums lined up for us. What are the statistical chances of that? What excess "power" has the constitutional monarchy ever vetoed? Its "royal prerogative" has been used to force through undemocratic measures, though. If there's no class system anymore, is it just coincidence that some people own the means of production while others work for them?
less004 3 years ago
The united kingdom didnt win anything at the olypics, it was Great Britain. Your accuracy went down hill from there.
elvisliveonstage 3 years ago
I always thought Elvis was still alive. Maybe that makes you like kings and queens? If you'd stayed on the downhill slalom course, you'd have got the "Not So Great Britain" joke. Not saying you'd hsave laughed, though.
less004 3 years ago
In the interest of accuracy, I should explain the difference between the UK and GB. Many organisations, including the Olympic Committee, treat them as synonyms, but the important difference is that GB is the island of England, Scotland & Wales, whereas the UK also includes Northern Ireland and a number of smaller islands. I don't like the term GB because I think Ireland should be united and I don't like UK because I want a republic. Maybe call it Funland , then we could all have a good laugh!
less004 3 years ago
My point was that the monarch is no longer treated as some kind of holy figure, and although the institution of course has had its history entwined with religion, doesn't mean the title itself is a religious one and has to go on being religious. I'm all for removing 'Defender of the Faith' from the monarch, and having a new national anthem too. I sing along to it, recognising it as symbolic (but I'd still prefer a new, secular one).
Matt7895 3 years ago
I didn't suggest that the monarch is seen as "holy". However, the monarch is clearly seen and treated as a special person and has a symbolic function (and occasionally a practical purpose) on top of a class system, a system which I oppose.
less004 3 years ago
As a st00pid American, I can only say that I do not have any sympathy for your problem of a Queen do to my own self-indulgence. Okay, seriously, yeah: the entire existence of a monarch seems to be pretty unnecessary. Obviously, changing the government in any radical fashion creates friction on the system, but that sort of argument really only goes so far. Diana was pretty, but I guess I shouldn't hold her higher than our very own Paris Hilton.
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
I'm an atheist monarchist. Its been a long time since monarchy = divinity. We had a whole civil war over the issue, it was rather important, perhaps you'd better look it up.
Matt7895 3 years ago
Yes, very important ; that must be why I've read so many books about it. Did you actually listen to the whole video? The civil war was really a struggle between feudalism and capitalism which was, then, a progressive force. The monarch is automatically head of the C of E. So, as an "atheist monarchist", do you just hum the national anthem?
less004 3 years ago
100% Agreed. I'm glad some people like to get the word out there.
KrissyKittyKat 3 years ago
do they receive taxpayers' money too?
those people are fucking disgusting, UK should reduce them to ordinary rich fucks, at most
semiliteratedgod 3 years ago 2
But if you look at the US, there are Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, Rockefeller etc families, those are fucking rich but also fucking influential too ... and people go and VOLUNTARILY vote for them, over and over again ... people want to be slaves and neglected by their rulers. That's in our DNA
semiliteratedgod 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I like the Royal Family. I think they are an important part of British culture and heritage. They also do a lot of good work, raising the profile of charities and, dare I say, the military. There would be very little gained by removing the monarchy, and a lot lost in terms of our national identity. As for their 'wealth', if you want to dislike someone for that, choose someone more worthy. Say, David Beckham?
adamgroup88 3 years ago
i totally agree with this, people should dislike people with new money, aka david and victoria beckham, football players, actress and actors etc.
dominicizgay 3 years ago
Why not go back to feudalism? That way, there'd never be any "new money". Surely what matters is the economic system?
less004 3 years ago
Yes, the royals have proudly been figureheads for slavery, empire and glaring inequalities.
Perhaps they could do a little more for charity such as donating their enormous lands, buildings, assets and wealth? That way, some of our other forms of "heritage" such as poverty and homelessness might be eliminated?
less004 3 years ago
Actually, I was thinking more of them being 'figureheads' for the abolition of slavery, resistance to religious dominion and later, assuming a role in a system of parliamentary democracy. If they didn't own their 'enormous lands' then ten to one they would simply be owned by business tycoons, celebrities or the government. Capitalism isn't always fair; if you don't like the system, I suggest you go and live in Cuba.
adamgroup88 3 years ago
Did the royals urge the abolition of slavery? They certainly fought to hang on to feudalism. The monarch is automatically head of the church. The lands could be owned by the people. Ah yes, the old "If you don't like it.... " suggestion so beloved of "democrats". Presumably, if we still had feudalism, you'd be saying : "Well, if you don't like it.... " What kind of "democrat" thinks we can't have change? Life could be fair - that's the whole point.
less004 3 years ago
The monarch is automatically head of the Church of England, yes, an invention designed to resist interference and control from the Vatican. How could life 'be fair' in your opinion? Would you also take land off business and celebrity millionaires? Pay everyone the same wage? We can have change of course, but I don't think radical change is needed. Well, other than a serious reform of the benefits system. Are you a communist? Honestly, I'm asking seriously.
adamgroup88 3 years ago
Well, the C of E was set up to allow Henry 8to keep shagging. If you're ill, you need a doctor. And nurses. Medicines. Maybe surgical instruments. Researchers. Designers. Engineers. They / we all need sewage workers, otherwise a lot more illness. Clean water. Food. Electricity. Transport. People to build the hospitals etc. There's a lot of necessary work and workers. Are the royals necessary? Yes, I'm a Communist, but not a Stalinist. If you check out some of my other videos, they'll explain.
less004 3 years ago
I THINK GREAT BRITAIN SHOULD HAVE THE HYMN JERUSALEM. because this is about british history. something they dont teach kids these days
themasteratarms 3 years ago
Well, I think England, Scotland and Wales should be a federation of socialist states,
(secular too). Maybe Status Quo "Down The Dustpipe" might be more appropriate. Hey! I feel a competition coming on! MORE SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE!
less004 3 years ago
French revolution beheaded thousands, communists millions. But it seems Ok because they don't have queen?
skavotajs5 3 years ago
Do you think monarchies and their empires,(not to mention capitalism and imperialism have only been responsible for spreading peace and love around the world? The monarchy wanted to retain feudalism - how do you feel about that?
less004 3 years ago
"God save the queen
She ain't a human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming"
god save the queen - Sex pistols :p
EdwardBerkana 3 years ago 2
Isn't John Lydon a propery developer now?
less004 3 years ago
I don't know :O
EdwardBerkana 3 years ago
Saw John Lydon / Johnny Rotten on TV last night - he's advertising Country Life butter. In a revolutionary, anarchist way, of course!
less004 3 years ago
So after much reading, I get it. My original question was, "if the royals didn't exist how would britain be a better society; and from what I'm reading it appears you just hate them for their wealth. Life isn't fair, some are born rich, some are born poor, and some never have a chance, it's sad, but true, and I can't hate the royals (or anyone) just because they're wealthy. Though, I sure could use a few extra dollars to get a 2nd monitor for my Mac. LOL. I'm done. Have a Great Day!!
SoapBoxEmpress 3 years ago
It's not a matter of the rich as individuals, it's the fact that the rich can only exist as a class if there's another class who are poor. As an example, the vast fortune of the royal family could be spent on schools and hospitals. Their huge estates could be public parks. Their mansions and palaces could be public museums and galleries. What's wrong with that? Hope you get those extra dollars!
less004 3 years ago
How do you think I feel... The Queen is on all our Canadian Money, and the person who holds the highest authority here in Canada is the Governor general who is our representative to the queen.
joshafool 3 years ago 2
josha, that ceremonial hatian (not canadian) who is our gov general has no power. king bying affair? get any canadian history done?
VeritasTruthEmet 3 years ago
I do not like the Ideal of Monarchy, even though under Law they are supposed to be the embodiment of the People, but I would never advocate violence toward them as you do, calling for the queens head on a spike. People like you hide behind words like democracy and those like you who call for death to members of the monarchy are mirrors of those responsible for tens of millions of deaths across the world who spoke out against what eventually replaced Monarchy.
fx02zbn 3 years ago
Have another listen and you may detect a few jokes. That was one, followed by another suggestion, (waxworks) which was also a joke. I'm not into revenge. Simply abolishing the monarchy deals with the problem : the "royals" are no longer royal. "People like you... " Let's not genreralise, shall we?
less004 3 years ago
Ah, A joke was it?. Calling for the head of someone on a spike is not a joke. It is however a clear indicator to the mentality of a person who attempts to use humour to mask a desire to humiliate or murder those they despise. Not into revenge? ....Your video clearly suggests otherwise. "People Like you".... are not merely content with abolition as you claim, It is clear you want revenge, just like those who changed the rule of Monarchy in Russia for the murderous obcenity that is Communism.
fx02zbn 3 years ago
A kebab shop spike, actually. In my video on the USA, I said I'd just got back from America where I was teaching irony as a foreign language. Do you know something? I hadn't really! If a child ever tells you the "My dog's got no nose...." joke, try not to accuse it of being complicit in hideous vivisectionist experiments. Mind you, the royals are quite keen on tearing foxes to bits. Wonder what desires they're failing to mask there? It's not "clear" I want revenge, because I don't.
less004 3 years ago
Gosh! I didn't realise I was responsible for millions of deaths. Well, what can I say? It was a Friday night and I'd had a few drinks.... Any crimes for which you feel responsible or for which "our" rulers may be responsible or is it hands clean round your way?
less004 3 years ago
Doesn't it just make you sick (no phun intended) when queeny goes of on one of her little trips to Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (probably senile), which she seems to do several times a year, and you just know that she's being paid thousands for the honour and the hospital always needs more money....
ClosedMind808 3 years ago
What more could the Queen possibly do? She's an OAP, so surely she must have to choose between eating and heating this Winter.
less004 3 years ago
Perhaps, one of the helpful Brits out there could help clarify some information for me. I'm an American, and as such, woefully uneducated governing specifics of other countries.
I'd read that in the 18th century, Geo III gave up the Crown Estate in exchange for the Civil List. The Crown Estate produces something like 190 million pounds (2006) for the Treasury. Does it cost more than that to maintain the Royals? If not, it sounds like a pretty sweet deal for you folks. :)
Stormsidhe 3 years ago
The question is who did it belong to before! I don't think there's anybody named "The Crown" is there.
ClosedMind808 3 years ago
Perhaps Crown Paints could stake a claim? Actually, if you look at the lineage, there have been breaks due to lost battles and intrigues. But that's not the point. The monarchy is a feudal hangover and has no place in the C21st.
less004 3 years ago
Preserving history in no way has to mean maintaining a Monarchy.
I am proud that my people destroyed the Russian Monarchy a long time ago, the Czars where supported by millions of starving peasants in the countryside.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
I have talked to many Brits, and alot tell they support the current system.."The Royal Family is part of our history, and the production in tourism in the end balances out the Monarchy's existence."
This is completely false, who would want to remember a history of imperialism & opression?
The tourism argument is also ridiculous. In my home town of St. Petesburg(Leningrad), we have the Hermitage museum former palace of the Czar, a very attractive site to world-wide tourism.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
"the Hermitage museum former palace of the Czar"
What like with real hermits? Sorry! British.
Are monarchies far enough back in are history to forget most of it I think. Gigantic Parasites, definitely yes!
ClosedMind808 3 years ago
Yet another outstanding video! Well said.
I also think it is sad that the British have not yet rid themself of their petty & useless Monarchy.
Even today the British tax-payer(Working class) must still have its labor syphoned to support the Royal Family, a group of parasitic scum-bags.
wnxsilence 3 years ago
we all pay for this celebrity useless slags do peopel forget this one odd factor lol , just a bunch of germanic zionistic slags
reptilehuNTah 3 years ago 2
r u a pat condel ripoff?^^ :D
Pat is cool^^
Dimitrij90 3 years ago
Quite right. Pat invented atheism. Check out my other videos and you'll see he's invented a lot of other ideas as well.
less004 3 years ago
:D okok iam sorry^^
Dimitrij90 3 years ago
I sort of agree but the royals were born into the monarchy. It's not there fault as they had no choice. Don't think you have a reason to execute them. And what to do with all the palaces, they will still need to be looked after as they are wonderful pieces of architecture. The monarchy are very much no more than a tourist attraction and caretaker for the palaces. Think best left alone.
garysvids 3 years ago
leave 'em alone when they leave the tax payers money alone
axiomizer 3 years ago
How much of the tax payers money goes to supporting the image that the visitors like. I would not do the royals job for all the money in the world. They had no choice. They were born into it. I don't agree with the royal family but we should not attack the royals on a personal basis. We should feel sorry for them.
garysvids 3 years ago
If you abolish the monarchy, they cease to be royal. They probably wouldn't be much use, but they could try other jobs. I'm not into revenge. I agree about the palaces etc. Imperial architecture can be very impressive, (of course that's their purpose!). Museums, art galleries etc. The possibilities are endless. But NOT for governmental use - this would create a very bad mindset.
less004 3 years ago
I think of the royals more as caretakers anyway and i think the palaces will become museums. Buckingham palace is already partly a museum and is falling apart. The royals do however have far to many hangers on with there fingers in the tax payers pie.
garysvids 3 years ago
Yes, but they are hangers on too.
less004 3 years ago
OK. I respect what you're putting out, and please pardon my American ignorance; but don't the brits vote on the PM who is supposedly the leader of the country? I guess your main argument is that the royals exist at all? I don't really have an opinion on it. Coming from the other side of the pond, they're entertaining, it's kinda uppity, i like that...the whole pomp and circumstance. If the royals didn't exist, how would british society become a better place?
SoapBoxEmpress 3 years ago
it wouldnt make a great deal of difference to british society. The royal family have no influence or say in british politics or the way the country is run. They are just like an incredibley wealthy celebrity family imo but i agree with this guy that the national anthem is outdated and should be changed.
radoxo 3 years ago
they are not just wealthy celebs, they are royal parasites sucking up the taxpayers money
axiomizer 3 years ago
the royal family costs the average british taxpayer around 62p a year LOL thats what you'te complaining about? Tourist attraction for the royal family, buckingham palace etc brings in more money than the royal family spends. they may have alot of land and wealth but its all been inherited and passed down. what do you suggest we do? strip them of their wealth, land and kick them out on their arse? lol the UK is a democracy not a monarchy stop whinging about nothing
radoxo 3 years ago
This 62p per year stuff is propaganda nonsense. The real costs lie in their capital and its use. The land and the initial wealth was originally stolen by force. Inherited wealth? Great idea. Kids born with nothing. Bad luck. Kids with no parents. Bad luck. Kids with wealthy families? Jolly good show! Very well done! Britain is a bourgeois democracy run for and by capital. Noticed any poverty or inequality or injustice? Well, probably best not to whinge, eh?
less004 3 years ago
I hope it's not any more than 62p, based on 65 million people in this country that is over £40million. Think of all that money spent on the NHS. The NHS would even be able to afford to pin back charlies ears.
garysvids 3 years ago
Interested POV's. I don't think it's right to strip them of their land and wealth. Wealth has been created all over the world for few, on the backs and the blood of many. Should the American's give back the land their forefathers stole from the "Native Americans"? Should the companies and people that became wealthy and are still wealthy to this day on the backs of slaves lose their wealth? As a black American (the descendent of slaves), even I don't even think that should happen.
SoapBoxEmpress 3 years ago 2
On the other hand, should Native Americans and black Americans continue to suffer disproportionate poverty and exploitation?
If I steal your house, how long do I have to hold onto it by force before you think it's rightfully mine? I'm interested in justice and equality, not revenge. The practical task of dismantling the monarchy really wouldn't be difficult.
less004 3 years ago
Well, that would be a whole different tangent. LOL. Because even though the Native Americans continue to get screwed to a certain extent, they're making up for it with the gaming casinos (they're right up there with Vegas) and yes there's a disproportionate number of blacks living in poverty. However, on the other hand, I think a lot of the suffering happening to Black Americans is self induced, and is a cycle of under achievement, which isn't related to resources.
SoapBoxEmpress 3 years ago
Don't think gaming casinos are the answer.
I grew up on Merseyside, which prospered on the slave trade. Though a long time ago, blacks there remain clearly disadvantaged. Capitalism makes us fight for a living, but some start off already bruised, with one arm tied behind their back. I appreciate we're both generalising, but I wouldn't blame the victims. Of course, there are individuals who are "bad" people in all sorts of ways, but, to refer back, it's a casino where the dice are loaded.
less004 3 years ago
Yes, we do digress and generalize. I used "Black Americans"; such as myself as an example, of why I don't feel the royals should be striped of their land and wealth; not to start a conversation on the disenfranchisement of Blacks, and other groups (especially the poor), and I still stand by my "I don't think the royals should be stripped of their land and wealth". What you're speaking of appears to smell of racism, and that is separate from the royals and if they should be "kicked out".
SoapBoxEmpress 3 years ago
that's still MY 62 pence, but on top of that is the income from land and property that MY money and the money of millions of others has bought, that they benefit from and i don't!
"strip them of their wealth, land and kick them out on their arse? "
sounds like a damn good idea to me - remove the parasites and the tourism thing is bullshit - buck house will still be there and completely open to the public in a commercial venture would make even more!
axiomizer 3 years ago
They do have enormous wealth, property, land "rights" and some political influence. All the pomp is part of a process (from feudalism) of persuading people to accept inequality and privilege.
less004 3 years ago
Almost as pathetic as "God bless America".
N37BU6 3 years ago 3
I do my best and remain your humble servant.
less004 3 years ago
God and the royal family are oppressing you how?
striketeam100 3 years ago
You've got me there. I must have been hallucinating this whole life.
less004 3 years ago
LOL I LOVE THIS VID well dun cracked me up putting in my favs lol
reptilehuNTah 3 years ago 2
Couldn't agree more.
The argument that they bring in money for tourism is a joke, Im sure Buckingham Palace would pull in more cash if the entire place was open to the nosy public.
Joeli086 3 years ago
Yes, and if all the palaces were opened, along with all their financial records, people might realise that they've been taken for mugs for so long.
less004 3 years ago
100% right British republic now!!
SamTremain 3 years ago
Why on Earth would anybody seek to replace a figurehead monarch with an executive president? The monarch does nothing for our constitution except act as a contact point for the prime minister to go and pick up his keys when the BBC announces who has won the election. The Speaker of the House of Commons could perform that function with no need to directly elect anybody to such a non-job.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
Actually, there are still various usages of the "royal prerogative". That well-known "republican" Tony Benn is one of various privy counsellors. The crown does still wield influence and, obviously, economic clout. The role of symbolism is important to the ruling class. I'd replace the monarchy with a worker's state.
less004 3 years ago
Over the bodies of the workers if necessary?
Why only the workers? What's so special about work?
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
"Over the bodies of the workers"? No. What an strange idea. Perhaps you wrongly equate Communism with the worst aspects of Stalinism? They're no more synonymous than equating the results of drunk driving with the invention of the internal combustion engine. What's special about work? Well, I could be wrong, but I reckon things like houses, sanitation, transport and the computers which we both use are all the result of work. Inheriting a vast fortune is the result pf an accident of birth.
less004 3 years ago
The workers are not asking for power or the abolition of the monarchy either, do you intend forcing them to want what you think they should want or just doing what you want to do in their name against their will?
Why specifically the workers rather than the people? I have always considered qualified democracy not to be true democracy. What would qualify somebody not to be a worker and so be stripped of the power to have your comrades govern in their name?
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
Capitalism divides people into classes. The capitalists would be free as individuals but not free to organise politically and economically as a class. Similarly, "royalty" would be free as individuals, but there wouldn't be any royalty anymore. Political aspirations and demands change according to conditions and the perceived possibilities. I would agree that Britain is hardly on the verge of a worker's revolution, but that doesn't make it impossible or wrong.
It's labour versus capital.
less004 3 years ago
Marxist theory divides people into classes. If Marx was alive today he'd probably tell you all to stop being so silly, and couldn't you see that history had proven his theories fundamentally wrong? No country is on the verge of a worker's revolution, least of all Britain.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
It's interesting that Marx's work (especially economics) has long been among standard reference books for capitalists. Many people have swallowed the "end of history" and "postmodernist" ideas which have been used to demoralise oppositional forces since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Capitalism was a progressive force when it overthrew feudalism, but not now and its internal contradictions will destroy it - or us. It's socialism or barbarism. Britain's not the world and conditions change.
less004 3 years ago
Capitalism's fatal internal contradictions. Right. You have the same credibility with me as those people who announce that the end of the world is nigh because your sacred scripture tells you so and it cannot be wrong. The world is now much further away from a socialist revolution than it has ever been.
What evidence would convince you that your faith has been futile and no revolution will ever come? If you cannot conceive of such a circumstance you are a dangerous faith-head.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
A bit insulting. It's not a faith with "sacred" books ; it's a process of dialectical reasoning and analysis, incl.
errors a & failures. Are you saying that the world can continue on a capitalist course? That requires endless expansion & profits generated by exploitation. Competition for dwindling resources.... trade wars.... then actual wars. The rich are rich because others are poor. Injustice and its enforcement are built into a capitalist system. A fair, happy world would convince me.
less004 3 years ago
The poor are poor because they are not involved in the capitalist economy beyond being a target for charity which ensures their population keeps rising. The world has been continuing on a capitalist course without discovering new continents to rape and without huge wars. But somehow this process which isn't happening you see as inevitable and unavoidable because of your theory which cannot be wrong. That's faith.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
This "faith" nonsense is a bit tedious. Let's look at some evidence. The wars of the C20th, not to mention this one so far? The squaring up starting over oil.... water.... People working in sweatshops (here as well, as abroad) are involved in the economy and they don't receive charity. Watch out for "exploitation rights" disputes over the ocean beds, the Arctic and Antarctic and eventually the rest of the solar system, initially, of course, just satellite and "defence" system "rights".
less004 3 years ago
The 20th century was a time of fewer wars and lower levels of death by violence (against population size) than any period of human history or prehistory. You are like a faith-head using every scrap of evidence to support your analysis, wars over resources are wars over resources, not proof that Uncle Karl was right on page 679. You may have a theoretical explanation for events of type A but the existence of events of type A is not proof of the validity of *your* theory, that's a logical fallacy.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
You are factually) wrong. There is a fascinating (now sadly obscure) book by Gil Eliot called "Twentieth Century Book Of The Dead." His background is in business and market research, his purpose humanitarian. The book was published by Penguin in 1972 and it goes through all the slaughter in itemised detail. His clearly stated conclusion (yes, taking into account population sizes) also disagrees with yours. On what evidence is your assertion based? Please refer to this book.
less004 3 years ago
I think you should check your responses : your dislike and disdain is visceral rather than reasoned. The philosophical line comes from Kant and Hegel and then Marx. This is an evidential, reasoned, analytical approach, similar to Darwin. You (and I) have probably met many "Marxists" who are absurdly and blindly dogmatic but that's not Marxism and it's not me either.
less004 3 years ago
I am well aware of Marx and his roots, I discovered his works to be a natural insomnia cure. After a century & a half if there was real value in his theories and methods they would have moved on and spread and become absorbed into the culture and nobody would be hearkening back to what he wrote because it would have been improved upon and evolved. Modern biologists only mention Darwin in passing, they don't use quotations and phrases from Darwin all the time. They are all Darwinians and know it.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago
Am I constantly quoting Marx? How many direct quotes can you find in my videos or responses? The point is to build on theory and practice. History never repeats exactly and Marxism is supposed to be a tool in a toolbox rather than a booklet for flat pack assembly. Globally, an enormous number of people have come into contact with Marx's ideas, (yes, many unhappily) through the C20th
and it continues. The current triumphalism of capitalism is not the last word. Today is not tomorrow.
less004 3 years ago
The problem that we British republicans have is that Aunt Lillibet is basically quite a nice woman who has queening down to a fine art. Just think of the fun we will have if Charles the Mad takes over the family firm.
This family has all the best educational advantages that money can buy and yet none of them has got anything better than a desmond to show for it. They've got to go, and they have to take their dreary dirge with them.
MartinJWillett 3 years ago