The Queen of England (as well as of Australia, Canada and numerous other former
British colonies) has died. Mass media have suspended normal programming to talkabout nothing else and their actions can best be described as competitivehagiography, not only of the Queen herself, but even of the Empire sherepresented. ---- Behind the non-stop coverage there is a real anxiety. Thedeath of a monarch has always been a moment of crisis, and when the dead monarchhas had an exceptionally long reign the crisis is especially acute. In days whenthe monarch wielded political power (which is still the case in some countries),it could open windows of opportunity for struggle, and even for power to changehands (a potential which was sometimes realised). Today, under capitalism,'constitutional monarchies' are nationalist spectacles for the masses, so thecrisis is different. It is the end of one show and the beginning of another.Will it rate as well? How will people feel about the new star? How should thenew show be promoted? Will it help to perpetuate subservience to tradition, themanufactured image of a unified nation, and a seemingly unchangeable ‘natural order'?For us, the death of the monarch raises a few different issues. Firstly, there isthe question of inherited privilege: Elizabeth's eldest son is due to take thethrone as Charles III, but how did he acquire that right? He hasn't been votedin, he didn't top the class in a competitive examination, and he wasn't subjectedto a process of interviews and submission of references. He became heir to thethrone by, as some would say, choosing his parents carefully.As the epitome of inherited privilege, monarchy is an affront to everylibertarian and egalitarian sensibility. Once upon a time, the emergingcapitalist class was enthusiastic about abolishing monarchies, seeking to replacethem with democratic republics based on a formal recognition of equal rights. Itwas promised (with varying levels of sincerity and radicalism) that a system ofprivate property, operating in a competitive market, would create equality ofopportunity - a level playing field, where wealth could be earned through hardwork, thrift and enterprise. Revolutions were made under this banner and aparticularly recalcitrant French king lost his head over the matter.Things are different today. The ideology of capitalism still requires thepretence that wealth is earned, but faces the problem of capital's inherenttendency towards concentration, as well as the earnest desire of each successivegeneration of capitalists to pass their fortunes on to their descendants.Inherited wealth can certainly be secure under a republican system of government,but the privilege of inheritance has, over centuries, given the bourgeoisie anatural affinity for hereditary power.Australia provides an illuminating example. There has been a campaign for anAustralian republic for about thirty years, but the argument advanced for it isthat the monarch is English and, as Australia is now a grown-up country,Australia's head of state should be Australian. It is an argument that wouldsimply not apply if the debate was being had in England. As a result, publicsupport for a republic is tepid and far weaker than the full-throated defence oftradition on the part of social reactionaries. The 'progressive' case for arepublic offers no benefits other than the elimination of a relic so antiquatedit should be embarrassing.Replacing the monarchy with an Australian republic would not necessarily addressAustralia's original sin: colonisation and the dispossession of the Aboriginalpeople that followed. The current republican movement would definitely notaddress it, given its determination that the one and only change to theConstitution would be to create an Australian head of state. Meanwhile, themovement supporting Aboriginal sovereignty grows yearly, demanding a reckoningwith dispossession and genocide. One movement is based on a pretended nationalunity, while the other is based on resistance to a real and monstrous injustice.Still, clearly some capitalists fear that making a democratic, rather thannationalist, argument for a republic calls into question all other inheritedprivileges, including those of far more significance than a symbolichead-of-state. It would be to declare that James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, AnthonyPratt, Gina Rinehart and Ryan Stokes have no right to the billions they inheritedor stand to inherit, and which will serve as the basis for their continuedexploitation of the working class. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Theold money of Sydney and Melbourne, built on the foundations of genocide, andoriginally accumulated by bloodthirsty squatters, or by shysters who gougedgullible miners during the Gold Rush, has been laundered by a succession of heirsbefore reaching its present hands.We are members of the working class. We have no great fortunes to defend.Instead, the Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group raises the banner of liberty,equality and solidarity. These principles, as promised by the foundation ofliberal, democratic republics, can only be made real when there are no morebosses, or governments, or the threat of poverty hanging over our heads. Such asociety, based on libertarian communism, will be freer than any democracy, bemore equal than any capitalist republic, and unleash a solidarity unknown to thecapitalist class and which can never exist between classes. The new world willrelegate monarchy, along with every other form of government, to the historybooks - and King Charles III will be known, we hope, as Charles the Last.DOWN WITH THE KING!FOR WORKERS' POWER & INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION!https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2022/09/14/the-queen-is-dead/_________________________________________A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C EBy, For, and About AnarchistsSend news reports to A-infos-en mailing listA-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten