Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[haroldeye]

Actually the Royal family's property they pay for themselves. It is the Nations properties that are being repaired at public expense. Sandringham - Queen pays for, Buck House we pay for.

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wanted a social revolution based on the economy and no violence was admitted.

In comparison, Karl Marx had no problem with violence.

Monsieur Proudhon was a utopian, petty-bourgeois socialist who lacked the understanding of how great historical upheavals occur. This is not to say that his writings should be waved aside as nonsense. Proudhon's writings like Qu’est-ce que la propriété? were certainly influental but much of its attraction was owed to Proudhon's sensational use of language. In other words, he expressed long-known truths in a new way. Also, his understanding of political economy was very poor as he never went beyond speculative philosophy.

Marx, on the other hand, perfectly understood the world he lived in and how it emerged in the first place. It was the bourgeois capitalist world of the 19th century. Its property relations and laws were the result of a specific epoch whereas Proudhon didn't seem to understand that there is a major difference between ancient property, medieval/feudal property and bourgeois/capitalist property.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Sandringham - Queen pays for.

Yeah! Out of the money she makes serving in Greggs on a Saturday.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Brecht

Monsieur Proudhon was a utopian, petty-bourgeois socialist who lacked the understanding of how great historical upheavals occur. This is not to say that his writings should be waved aside as nonsense. Proudhon's writings like Qu’est-ce que la propriété? were certainly influental but much of its attraction was owed to Proudhon's sensational use of language. In other words, he expressed long-known truths in a new way. Also, his understanding of political economy was very poor as he never went beyond speculative philosophy.

Marx, on the other hand, perfectly understood the world he lived in and how it emerged in the first place. It was the bourgeois capitalist world of the 19th century. Its property relations and laws were the result of a specific epoch whereas Proudhon didn't seem to understand that there is a major difference between ancient property, medieval/feudal property and bourgeois/capitalist property.

You are maybe little bit severe with Proudhon.
Proudhon was the only revolutionary theorist of the nineteenth century who had come from the working class. Marx was the son of a lawyer.
Proudhon is considered by many to be the father of anarchism.
In 1840, he declares himself as anarchist.
But he was not a violent anarchist. He wrote: « La liberté est anarchie, parce qu'elle n'admet pas le gouvernement de la volonté, mais seulement l'autorité de la loi, c'est-à-dire de la nécessité » ("Freedom is anarchy, because it does not admit the government of the will, but only the authority of the law, that is, of necessity")

In 1845, Marx writes: "Proudhon writes not only in the interest of the proletarians; He is himself a proletarian, a workman. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat ".
On May 5, 1846, Karl Marx proposed to him to be his correspondent for France, but Proudhon was not very warm about this.

But as you wrote and according several analysts, Proudhon was on some points a little bit "naiv" and that was not the fact with Marx.

If you remember well the French that you learned at school, here is a very interesting debate about Proudhon.

Exclusif : le débat Michel Onfray & Alain de Benoist

Actually in France, more and more farmers have decided to collaborate together without waiting and hoping the help of the state. After the years of the Presidencies of Mitterand, Chirac, Sarkozy and Holland, a lot of hard-working people consider the French state as a slave driver.

According to the philosopher Michel Onfray (who you can listen in the video, he's a son of farmer and a "social anarchist"), these people are following the current of thoughts of Proudhon.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Actually the Royal family's property they pay for themselves. It is the Nations properties that are being repaired at public expense. Sandringham - Queen pays for, Buck House we pay for.

In your point of view, should the Royal family be "spoiled" of several of their propreties?
Are they not far toooooo rich?
Or in other words, what did they make to be that rich?

Please, don't think that I want to create a revolution in England! These are just questions from a man who doesn't live in a country in which there are monarchs!

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

We're all thieves it's just some have thieved a lot more than others.

Really?

[haroldeye]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In your point of view, should the Royal family be "spoiled" of several of their propreties?
Are they not far toooooo rich?
Or in other words, what did they make to be that rich?

Please, don't think that I want to create a revolution in England! These are just questions from a man who doesn't live in a country in which there are monarchs!

The difference is between the private wealth of the monarch and the wealth that belongs to the nation. Sandringham and Balmoral are the homes of the Queen. She owns them outright and is responsible for their upkeep. The public wealth of the monarch is a different matter altogether. She does not own them but is the guardian of them for future generations. Buckingham Palace and Windsor and Holyrood nominally belong to the Queen but actually belong to the state. Their upkeep is a state responsibility.

The Windsors and their forbears made nothing to be that rich except perhaps to give the country stability. We had had the Stuarts as Monarchs for many years and they gave us nothing but trouble (and the King James Bible). The Civil war and its aftermath taught us to be wary of bad governance, but the reign of William and Mary and then Anne established something that we came to agree with. Peace and order within ourselves. A nation that changed but did so without violent revolution and bloodshed.

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You are maybe little bit severe with Proudhon.
Proudhon was the only revolutionary theorist of the nineteenth century who had come from the working class. Marx was the son of a lawyer.
Proudhon is considered by many to be the father of anarchism.
In 1840, he declares himself as anarchist.
But he was not a violent anarchist. He wrote: « La liberté est anarchie, parce qu'elle n'admet pas le gouvernement de la volonté, mais seulement l'autorité de la loi, c'est-à-dire de la nécessité » ("Freedom is anarchy, because it does not admit the government of the will, but only the authority of the law, that is, of necessity")

In 1845, Marx writes: "Proudhon writes not only in the interest of the proletarians; He is himself a proletarian, a workman. His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat ".
On May 5, 1846, Karl Marx proposed to him to be his correspondent for France, but Proudhon was not very warm about this.

But as you wrote and according several analysts, Proudhon was on some points a little bit "naiv" and that was not the fact with Marx.

If you remember well the French that you learned at school, here is a very interesting debate about Proudhon.

Exclusif : le débat Michel Onfray & Alain de Benoist

Actually in France, more and more farmers have decided to collaborate together without waiting and hoping the help of the state. After the years of the Presidencies of Mitterand, Chirac, Sarkozy and Holland, a lot of hard-working people consider the French state as a slave driver.

According to the philosopher Michel Onfray (who you can listen in the video, he's a son of farmer and a "social anarchist"), these people are following the current of thoughts of Proudhon.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Proudhon. It's only that I agree with Marx who criticized Proudhon for not keeping himself up to date. In order to work, socialism must be founded on scientific and empirical grounds. A thorough understanding of the existing conditions is indispensable.

Obviously Marx and Proudhon went separate ways. But Marx didn't hate Proudhon. He just thought that his ideas are too naive to be of any use for an actual system change. It's not that Marx embraced violence but it was clear to him that the political and economic establishment will never agree to a social transformation in the interest of all people. They are going to cling to their class rule with all means available and have been slaughtering people for that cause ever since class rule emerged. All revolutions have been violent so far. A peaceful transformation toward a just society would be humanity's greatest deed. It's just that I can't think of any such case in history.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

The Windsors and their forbears made nothing to be that rich except perhaps to give the country stability. We had had the Stuarts as Monarchs for many years and they gave us nothing but trouble (and the King James Bible). The Civil war and its aftermath taught us to be wary of bad governance, but the reign of William and Mary and then Anne established something that we came to agree with. Peace and order within ourselves. A nation that changed but did so without violent revolution and bloodshed.

Windsors? Oh you mean the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas yes Edward VIII was very interested in 'stability' and his German roots in the late 30s luckily he was guilty of the much more serious Royal offence of marrying a divorcee.
Glad to see we got our priorities right.

[Mal Hombre]

His Light O'Love had Her own German "roots"-With Joachim Von Ribbentrop..