Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/288/ Feudal Limpets (Bunga Goes Royal) (Patreon)

Published:
2022-09-13 06:00:03
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

[Patreon Exclusive]

On the death of Queen Elizabeth, a 20th century figure

To our own surprise, we are doing an episode on the Queen of England. How will her death impact the UK when she was basically the only institution that still retained popular trust? Will Britons be made to face up to the question of what kind of country they want?

We revisit the Nairn-Anderson theses about how and why Britain had so many seemingly feudal remnants, and ask whether there is still something to bourgeois modernisation. And we look globally at the response to the Queen's death and ask why so many people care?

Readings:

The Revolutionary Monarchy of Elizabeth II, Adrian Wooldridge, Bloomberg

The House of Windsor, Tom Nairn, NLR (pdf attached)

'London Bridge is down': the secret plan for the days after the Queen’s death, Sam Knight, The Guardian

Files

Comments

Blake

A Charles X for the modern age, Charles XR.

SeaWorldOrBust

As badly wrong as Nairn might have gotten the European question in 1971, I still think it's correct that the British ruling class developed along fundamentally different lines than those created by later, more mature bourgeois revolutions, and it seems equally true that this has shaped its contemporary ruling class and — perhaps relatedly — it's political economy, as Anderson has discussed at length in his (notably more Eurosceptic) recent writing. Even at the time, Nairn's argument for the common market seems to me to have been less to do with his particular perception of British backwardness ("Ukania" came much later) and more the belief that the nation state itself — regardless of its character — was increasingly less relevant to the global order, which I likewise think was essentially correct, though the degree to which this was overdetermined perhaps remains an open question. Nairn's error was in believing that embracing this trend represented fertile ground for the revolutionary left; what he imagined such a revolution to look like, I can't possibly fathom, but I equally struggle to imagine how a more united left could have meaningfully resisted this trend, even if they'd managed to forestall (or even outright prevent) Britain's entry into the common market in the 1970s. While it may be more or less fair to regard the new left as having been the vanguard of capitalist ideology in the 20th century, Nairn isn't wrong to characterise Labour (then as now) as essentially its rear guard, and I don't imagine it would have ultimately provided any more fertile ground for working class interests. Either way, while Phil may well be right that Britain at that point was more modern than Nairn gave it credit for, it was arguably precisely this modernity that made the economic transition britain saw in the late 20th century inevitable. To what degree that modernity was already inherent to British state, vs the result of a particular modernising project (and how important the likes of Nairn were to that project) seems to me rather beside the point.

Davka Smolah Collective

Listened through the intro monologue wondering when Alex was gonna say "psyke" or "deez nuts".

Elias B

The Queen as the carpet from The Big Lebowski is definitely the best take I've heard since her death

Andrew Mountford

Fascinating episode. I do think it's clear that the British bourgeoisie was/is more malleable than many assume and that as long as the capital flows the principles/systems we associate with classical liberalism are expendable. That being said I have more sympathy with the left's attack on monarchy than you guys. The monarchy doesn't stand for the popular interest and the lefts job is to point that out because it is a reality. If people do have illusions in the monarchy then they are essentially wrong. This may not be because they are innately stupid but it's nevertheless the case that they are acting against their interests in bolstering or having faith in an institution which is an impediment to socialism. It may not be the sole or main impediment but that doesn't mean it's insignificant. It appears to me that one function of the continued existence of monarchy is to obscure Britain's revolutionary past. To erase the British bourgeoisies radical history. To imply continuity and to downplay the English revolution among other things. I wonder if you'd agree that it plays this useful function for the present ruling class?

Richard Mischook

I enjoyed this episode, and, despite (as a native of Québec), not being at all fond of the Queen, I was struck by your observation of the role she plays in the hearts and minds of so many Brits. In particular her constancy since the creation of post-Imperial Britain in the aftermath of the Second World War. The negative stories about King Chuck already out today in the Guardian and the New York Times. I suspect he will not share in the popularity of his mother. It will be interesting to see what if any consequences this will have on the fragility of the British state.

Alex McAuliffe

Occurred to me while listening to this (specifically George's comment about the monarchy as a reminder of social democracy) that Elizabeth was the Queen 'reigning' through all of England's Labor governments. I hadn't seen that remarked upon by any of the pundits sounding off about her ties to colonialism, empire, the bourgeoisie, etc., and it is probably significant in her status as a figure for all of England.

Paul Brewer

I very much enjoyed this episode, with Phil in particular echoing some of the sentiments I felt on reading reacitions to the news. I drafted various comments that eventually were discarded. However, one thing that struck me about the 'New Elizabethan Era' was to wonder if we are looking in the wrong place for Neoliberalism, or at least neglecting its proto-history. I think it's generally acknowledged that the 1970 'Selsdon Man' manifesto of the Conservatives somehow foreshadowed Thatcherism, and gave the rise to the 'Lady's Not for Turning/U-Turn' Tory meme. But how does the 1966 manifesto fit into that development? (It might not at all. I'm just wondering aloud.) Is there room for a 'Archaic Neoliberalism' episode? (I know you chaps are more about PoliSci/IR and looking forward, but it's just an idea in case you are ever stuck for one.)