The real answer to this question is "habit". The people who drew up the Australian Constitution in the 1890's thought of themselves as British citizens, even though they were literally making plans for a new nation that would be independent of England. In terms of taxes, I don't believe Commonwealth membership costs us much - though I'm not super informed on this point. I could be swayed on the matter.

Even as citizens of the new nation of Australia, that generation of Australians still thought of themselves as British, too. It took a few more generations for us to really think of ourselves as purely and exclusively Australian.

If the constitution were being drafted up today, we'd have a serious conversation about whether we'd be a Constitutional Monarchy or some sort of Republic. But, it's not and we're not.

There are real advantages to being a member of the Commonwealth of nations. I'm not entirely dissatisfied with the status quo. If we ever do split from the Commonwealth, I'd want to look closely at what is proposed to replace it. I would not for example want our government to end up like what our friends in the USA have.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 8 points 1 month ago

Becoming a republic wouldn't necessarily exclude us from the Commonwealth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republics_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

While America is certainly a dumpster fire I would argue getting rid of all monarchist influence was one of the few good things it did. Of course over time it went from a progressive country to a regressive country and today a country of reactionaries.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would argue getting rid of all monarchist influence was one of the few good things it did.

What is the problem with the monarchy? That they're unelected? Well, neither are the Billionaires who fill that same niche in US politics. Except Billionaires have a strong agenda and really drive the popular and political narrative. Even here, we're not entirely immune to the influence of the Billionaire class. Only, I find myself at odds with just about everything the Billionaires say. By contrast, the royals rarely engage with politics. When they do, I find myself in agreement with the things they champion more often than not.

I do understand that the royals have a lot of influence on our government. And that when they speak, we're all but obligated to give them at least an audience. But that brings me back to the previous sentence: I can't think of anything they've said that I took substantive issue with. I say this also as someone who never much liked Charlie. I liked his mum and first wife, though.

This is coming across as me being pro-royal. I'm not really black-or-white on them like that. My own stance is more that I don't have anything strongly against them - rather than being particularly pro-royal. I won't cry myself to sleep if Australia cuts ties with the monarchy. But, I'm not marching in the streets seeking that outcome, either.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Im a Anarcho-Syndicalist, I hate government and capitalism

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The only place I have seen that work was the Internet in the 90's. Nowhere in the real world.

Humanity just isn't spiritually evolved for anarchy. It may never be.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The only place I have seen that work was the Internet in the 90’s. Nowhere in the real world.

There are real world success stories of anarcho-socialist societies (although perhaps not syndicalist) even in the present day. I'm not saying this to claim whether it's viable or not in our industrialized conditions with imperialist empires at play, just pointing out relevant info.

The largest scale anarchist-style societies I know of are:

FEJUVE in Bolivia, population >100,000, ongoing for 45 years
Chiapas autonomous areas (formerly MAREZ) in Mexico, population >300,000, ongoing for 30 years, although reorganised structurally last year

And while I'm aware they don't technically qualify as anarchist, they are certainly evidence of autonomous modes of social organisation at a scale larger than many existing states.

Tagging @kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone for relevance.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks. Despite my scepticism I have sought out such communities and had not heard of those two.

There is also Mondragon in Spain..

I know of only one community in my country of Australia: Tuntable Falls. I can only find pages related to the school or real estate. It is 20 minutes drive from Nimbin which in turn is 40 minutes from Byron Bay, NSW.

I suppose there is Kibbutzim in Israel.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh, I didnt know about Tuntable Falls. Thanks.

If we include smaller communes, then Wikipedia has a sizable list of intentional communities which is fun to explore. I found Cheran interesting, they had problems with organised crime coming into town and logging, disappearing people who tried to stop them, and the police and politicians were complicit, so the town kicked them all out. Now if you try to drive in with a political sticker on your car, it will get torn off at the checkpoint. A short Vice video on the place had some interesting interviews, including a local patroller who said crime plummeted and is now basically as simple as pub fights that locals can split up, and an interview with a political representative who was voted in, despite them not really wanting the job as they would get paid more in their previous job at the university. Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:

[...] To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. [...]

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago

A close friend in a long term relationship told me his partner wanted kids but he wasn't sure he would make a good father. My advice was along the lines of Douglas Adams.

Both kids are now in their 20's and doing fine.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

It worked for a time in Catalonia until the Fascists destroyed them, in Ukraine it worked very well but the soviets destroyed them as well. Its not that it doesn't work but rather that the right conditions haven't been met yet.

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It is historical. We have a reasonably stable political system as does the UK and so our government has evolved through consensus since the restoration of the British monarchy.

Australia slowly but steadily made all the necessary legal changes to become a fully independent sovereign nation but we retained an Australian monarch who follows the same rules of succession as the British monarch. I expect the people who worked to obtain our sovereign independence thought the monarchy would be dealt with next. There was an attempt and it got sunk by a nasty scaremongering campaign. Some of the misinformation still circulates today and it has become part of many people's beliefs.

We need a massive campaign to educate the population so we can achieve the sort of constructive and sensible consensus that are the hallmark of our successful and stable democracy. Unfortunately both social and mainstream media will promote increasingly partisan and divisive misinformation for their own purposes. I am sure many advocates for reform don't want to deal with the hyper-partisan negativity and army of cookers that will arise flying monarchist flags. Perhaps if the monarchy is left alone they will disappear up their own arses and make it easier.

[–] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's more expensive to become a republic at this point. Australia would need a referendum to change the Constitution. The last referendum attempt to become a republic was in 1999 and failed, but cost $66m.

The last referundum in Australia was last year and while the AEC has not fully costed it, I've seen one estimate of it costing $450m.

[–] Joshi@aussie.zone 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't care what it costs. The idea that one person has the right to rule over others is offensive whether it is symbolic or not.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago

As far as offensiveness, for me it's about the same whether it's one person or a hundred 'representatives'. In either case they're all completely alienated from me and what decisions would actually help us.

But on a pragmatic level, we've seen what happened to Gough Whitlam so we know this isn't merely a symbolic monarchist structure. It has a real impact.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago

$66m is absolutely nothing in terms of the state.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 1 month ago

Because they gave us a shitty choice in the vote.

It should have simply been should Australia become a republic Yes/No. The specifics could be reached later.

Instead it specified a specific type of presidential republic appointed by parliament or simply no.