Their world and ours

Workers' Fight workplace bulletin editorials
25 April 2011

In our world, the decision made by William Windsor-Mountbatten and Miss Kate Middleton to share the same roof, would have been a private affair. But just because William happens to be the heir of a dynasty of former royal tyrants, it will be an expensive pageant, which will involve no fewer than 1,900 guests, an RAF squadron for an air display, 7,000 journalists and 5,000 police - not to mention bodyguards for VIPs, even more CCTV and air surveillance, etc..

The real cost of this extravaganza to the taxpayer has not been disclosed and probably never will be. But the fact that it would take the equivalent of over 5 months-worth of unemployment benefits just to pay for the hotel room where the bride will spend the last night of her single life, probably says it all!

No doubt all those of us who are being told by ministers and bosses that our jobs, wages, pensions, benefits and services, are "unaffordable" due to the crisis, and "must" be cut accordingly, will appreciate this arrogant display of luxury!

A celebration of parasitism

The selection of guests is just as telling. This is definitely one of the largest assemblies of parasites seen for a long time. But then, it is an established fact of class society that the privileged feel best at home with their own kind. So, in addition to 50 members of the British royal family, 46 royal families and their dependants from all over the world have been invited. Royal advisers were caught unawares when their invitation to the King of Bahrain caused a media furore - leading to his withdrawal.

But what should it matter to the British royals if their guests have blood on their hands? Hasn't William himself said how much he looked forward to training the guns of his helicopter on the Afghans fighting the Western occupation?

Significantly, although the monarch of Bahrain has declined "voluntarily" by now, his partner in crime, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, whose troops crushed the protests in Bahrain, has not! But then, isn't Saudi Arabia one of the big customers of British arms merchants?

And what does it matter either to the Royals, if many of these monarchs and heads of state live off the poverty of their population. Like the king of Swaziland, a poor African country, and, once again, the Saudi monarch whose hands, in addition to being stained with blood, are also dripping with with the sweat of millions of immigrant workers from South East Asia, who are deprived of any rights.

Of course, next to charity high-flyers and many figures straight out of the pages of "Hello" magazine, numerous business tycoons are also to be found on this guest list. Not much has been revealed about their names. The Mirror gave a few hints though - among others, Allbritton, a US billionaire banker who used to be linked to Chilean dictator Pinochet, a representative from Audi luxury cars, the former owner of NCP, a Kazakh oil millionaire. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

A stained symbol of empire

In fact, the so-called "charitable" links between the royals and big business are but one expression of the parasitism of British capital on the state. Nothing in this capitalist world comes without a payback in return! Not even Prince Charles' free flights onboard Allbritton's private jet.

But the working population has no use for the "charity" of the capitalists and their royal errand boys. What we need is control over the means of production and over the product of our labour, so that society can cater for all.

Probably the most preposterous claim is that this monarchy represents in some way what they call a symbol of the "British nation".

What, with a royal family whose ancestors were brought from Holland in 1688 and which only changed its surname to Windsor, in 1917, when George V decided that its original name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha sounded a bit too German?

Plus the fact that this royal family claims to rule over 16 independent states across the world - all remnants of the bloody past of the British empire, whose population was never consulted and would certainly refuse, such tutelage!

A "symbol of the British nation"? No, merely a convenient, albeit expensive, cover for the rule of British capital in Britain and for its looting across the world. And this symbol is doomed to disappear into the dustbin of history when the working population finally moves to get rid of the profit system.

As Marx's Communist Manifesto already said, in 1848, "the workers have no country, but they have a world to win". And this world will have to be free of all forms of parasitism, monarchic, capitalist and otherwise.