{"id":24875,"date":"2023-05-12T12:23:34","date_gmt":"2023-05-12T12:23:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=24875"},"modified":"2023-05-12T12:41:43","modified_gmt":"2023-05-12T12:41:43","slug":"stuff-single-person-leadership","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2023\/05\/12\/stuff-single-person-leadership\/","title":{"rendered":"Stuff ‘single person’ leadership"},"content":{"rendered":"

We are reposting this article, written by Mike MacNair, which was first published by Weekly Worker<\/a>. He argues that despite its ostensible archaism, the coronation of Charles III reflects the thoroughly modern practice of one-man management.<\/strong><\/p>\n

STUFF ‘SINGLE PERSON’ LEADERSHIP<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
from bella caledonia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In March 1649, after the execution of Charles\u00a0I, parliament passed \u201cAn Act for the abolishing the Kingly Office in England and Ireland, and the Dominions thereunto belonging\u201d:<\/p>\n

\u2026 whereas it is and hath been found by experience, that the Office of a King in this Nation and Ireland, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burthensom and dangerous to the liberty, safety and publique interest of the people, and that for the most part, use hath been made of the Regal power and prerogative, to oppress, and impoverish and enslave the Subject; and that usually and naturally any one person in such power, makes it his interest to incroach upon the just freedom and liberty of the people, and to promote the setting up of their own will and power above the Laws, that so they might enslave these Kingdoms to their own Lust;<\/p>\n

Be it therefore Enacted and Ordained by this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same, That the Office of a King in this Nation, shall not henceforth reside in, or be exercised by any one single person; and that no one person whatsoever, shall or may have, or hold the Office, Stile, Dignity, Power or Authority of King of the said Kingdoms and Dominions, or any of them, or of the Prince of Wales, Any Law, Statute, Usage or Custom to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

On April 20 1653 – just over 470 years ago – Oliver Cromwell dissolved the \u2018rump parliament\u2019 which had passed this act. After some discussions and negotiations, the \u2018Instrument of Government\u2019 – or written constitution adopted by the army officers\u2019 council on December\u00a015 1653 – provided:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Cromwell himself was appointed as the \u201cLord Protector\u201d – the \u201csingle person\u201d of this scheme – and retained the title until his death on September\u00a03 1658, though various constitutional schemes were improvised in between. Cromwell had the power to nominate his successor, but may not have done so – secretary of state John Thurloe \u2018manufacturing\u2019 a nomination of Oliver\u2019s son, Richard, after his death.2<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Richard, who had no military and limited political experience, lasted only nine months, before being deposed by the army – followed by a confused period, which ended with the restoration of the monarchy under Charles\u00a0II in 1660.<\/p>\n

    The English republic returning to a \u2018single person\u2019 in Cromwell was by no means unique. The US 1777 Articles of Confederation did not provide for an executive presidency, but made the Congress the governing authority;3<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0the 1789 constitution, in contrast, gives the presidency most of the powers of an 18th century English king (a lot more than those of Charles\u00a0III today). In the French Revolution, the Committee of Public Safety answerable to the convention was replaced by the indirectly elected directory, and that in turn by the 1799 coup of Napoleon Bonaparte – initially as \u2018First Consul\u2019, later as emperor. The revolution of 1848 produced as its eventual outcome the \u2018Second Empire\u2019 of Louis Bonaparte (Napoleon\u00a0III). The Third Republic was characterised by Engels as \u201cthe empire of 1799 without the emperor\u201d. De Gaulle\u2019s 1958 coup against the Fourth Republic created an executive presidency. The Weimar republic in Germany (1919-33) similarly involved a presidency with strong reserve powers.<\/p>\n

    Modern constitutions are commonly monarchies, including recreated ones (eg,\u00a0Spain – re-established 1978); or else they have executive presidencies; or, even where the monarchy or presidency is ceremonial, involve the \u2018single person\u2019 in the form of the prime minister, with the media promoting cults of the personalities of party leaders as a normal element of \u2018constitutional\u2019 politics.<\/p>\n

    Ideology<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The notion of \u2018government of a single person\u2019 is ideology, not reality. Cromwell was engaged under the Protectorate in a balancing act between \u2018civilian\u2019 and \u2018military\u2019 factions on the Protector\u2019s Council, and was unable to get much actually implemented in domestic policy due to lack of a broad political support beyond the army. James VII and\u00a0II found in 1688 that he could not implement his policies, or defend the country against a Dutch invasion (with English and Scots dissident support), without the practical support of people \u2018out of doors\u2019 who were prepared to take positive action to implement his decisions.4<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0This phenomenon underlies Marx\u2019s early point that \u201cdemocracy is the resolved mystery of all constitutions\u201d: monarchs can only be monarchs with support from those below them.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    Even in terms of the control of information and decision-making at the centre, real one-man decision-making is unworkable. Witness the dependency of early Roman emperors on various sorts of advisors and deputies (and the extraordinary burden on emperors, discussed by Fergus Millar); witness the chaos of the first years of Bolshevik government, which was over-dependent on personal interventions by Lenin, as discussed by Laura Douds.6<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Witness the incoherence of Boris Johnson\u2019s administration, discussed in the media extracts from, and reviews of, Anthony Seldon\u2019s and Raymond Newell\u2019s\u00a0Johnson at\u00a010: the inside story<\/em>. The king or leader who cannot commit to effective delegation for fear of losing control cannot take effective decisions.<\/p>\n

    The basis of the ideology is in part military. Decision-making on the field of battle requires that\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0decisions be made very quickly; it is commonly as bad for no decision to be made at all as for a wrong decision to be made. This means that authority has to be given to an individual to decide. The same is true of other forms of emergency management operations, and of some other sharply time-controlled decisions. Fairly clearly, however, this will not justify a\u00a0general<\/em>\u00a0principle of one-man or single-person management.<\/p>\n

    Rather, the \u2018single person\u2019\u00a0ideologically represents<\/em>\u00a0the right of private property: a right which is, like military command, given to such a single person, (even if they may be corporations, that is, fictitious individuals), but which does not have the practical justification of sharp, temporal urgency of decision-making.<\/p>\n

    For the artisan or artist – or the hobbyist –\u00a0small<\/em>\u00a0private property may be justified on the ground of freedom to choose in creation; but this will hardly justify the large property of the landlord or capitalist. Indeed, this latter under capitalism is founded on the expropriation of the petty producers, and is the \u201cnegation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor\u201d, as Marx remarked in\u00a0Capital<\/em>.7<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0By making the principle of \u2018single person\u2019 or \u2018one-man management\u2019 into a general principle, monarchist and presidentialist constitutionalism, as well as prime ministerialist media-politics, offer a concealed justification for the rights of the landlord and the boss.<\/p>\n

    \u2018Moderate\u2019 and later royalist MP Edmund Waller made the point in debating bishops – another form of \u2018single person\u2019 \u2013 in\u00a01641:<\/p>\n

    I look upon Episcopacy, as a Counter-scar[p], or outwork, which if it be taken by this assault of the people, and withall this Mysterie once revealed, that we must deny them nothing when they aske it thus in troopes, we may in the next place, have as hard a taske to defend our propriety [property], as we have lately had to recover it from the prerogative.8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    Political democracy thus implies economic \u2018levelling\u2019. It was the rejection of \u2018levelling\u2019 which led men like Waller to join the royalist side; it was also the rejection of \u2018levelling\u2019 which supported the return of the idea of the \u2018single person\u2019 in the Instrument of Government (and which in turn led to the Restoration of 1660) – and the various other instances of constitutional commitments to the \u2018single person\u2019.<\/p>\n

    The British monarchy very strikingly combines the figures of military command, and of the legitimacy of unlimited and absolute property. We endlessly see the royal menfolk in military uniform at public events. Nor is it merely their extensive honorary posts; great play is made in the media of their (limited) actual military service.9<\/sup><\/a>Meanwhile, the British monarchy, perhaps to a greater extent than other European monarchies, is an actual celebration of extraordinary\u00a0rentier<\/em>\u00a0wealth. The left commonly imagines that this is a weakness of the monarchy (imagining that complaining about royal wealth will undermine the institution). The reverse is the case: the open display of royal wealth lends to\u00a0rentier<\/em>\u00a0wealth in general the\u00a0cachet<\/em>\u00a0of the constitutional celebration of the institution of the \u2018single person\u2019.<\/p>\n

    Modern<\/strong><\/p>\n

    It is easy to imagine that the monarchy, because of its self-conscious, archaising imagery, is in fact a \u2018survival\u2019 of the pre-modern; or that the creation of the French Second Empire in 1852 was a symptom of capitalist decline – and hence the persistence of monarchies, presidencies and wider forms of the \u2018single person\u2019 institution are also symptoms of capitalist decline. The argument would be the standard \u2018permanent revolution\u2019 story of \u2018uncompleted tasks of the bourgeois revolution\u2019: that is, the failure to deliver \u2018bourgeois democracy\u2019 displayed by the continuation of monarchism. Regular\u00a0Weekly Worker<\/em>\u00a0writer Dan Lazare offers a variant form, in which the constitution of the USA is another\u00a0ancien regime<\/em>, with the centralised (absolute) state legislator of French Jacobin republicanism figured as the modern.10<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    I wrote about this issue at considerable length in 2021,11<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0and will not repeat here the elaborate arguments I made then. (My critics then did not\u00a0respond<\/em>\u00a0to my historical or theoretical argumentation, but merely reasserted their existing views.) I will repeat only the point made in the fifth article in that series (September\u00a030 2021): the fundamental test of \u2018modernity\u2019 is the test of war and, in that test, the Anglo-American constitutional models in the 20th century\u00a0defeated or outperformed<\/em>\u00a0their \u2018modernist\u2019 Bonapartist rivals in not only the French regime, but also those of the German Kaiserreich and the Nazis, as well as the post-1921 Soviet model.<\/p>\n

    They succeeded because the Anglo-American models – complete with their apparently \u2018pre-modern\u2019 features – more perfectly expressed the interests of\u00a0actual<\/em>\u00a0capitalist modernity. In contrast, the\u00a0ideological<\/em>\u00a0apparent modernity of Bonapartism in all these French, German and Russian forms actually rested on the artificial preservation both of peasant agriculture and of bastard-feudal clientelism in the state bureaucracy.<\/p>\n

    It is worth flagging, however, a particular aspect of the monarchy – its celebration of\u00a0rentier<\/em>\u00a0wealth – as more than just a \u2018survival\u2019. It might be imagined to be surprising that (except Singapore12<\/sup><\/a>) no capitalist state has moved towards the \u2018Ricardian\u2019 or \u2018Georgist\u2019 idea of funding the state through land nationalisation, charging rent to the users, while leaving manufacturing, merchant and financial capital \u2018free\u2019.13<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The point is that the sanctity of property is\u00a0more<\/em>important to the regime of capitalist rule than it was to feudal rule.<\/p>\n

    The underlying reason for this is the difference between the proletariat as a class, on the one hand, and feudal (or other pre-capitalist) peasants and artisans, on the other; or, conversely, between the capitalist class and feudal, etc, classes and castes. Peasants and artisans possess their own means of production. Feudal and similar landlords claim shares of the social surplus product on the basis of their supposed inherited skills at government and war (reflected in the literary figure of the \u2018lost heir\u2019, whose nobility comes out in the wash). Priests, monks (Christian or Buddhist), \u2018Ulama\u2019, and so on, claim shares of the social surplus product on the basis of their individual or corporate sanctity.<\/p>\n

    In contrast, proletarians are forced to work for wages by their\u00a0exclusion<\/em>\u00a0from possession of the means of production. And capitalists claim their share of social surplus product\u00a0merely by virtue of their ownership of the means of production<\/em>. Pro-capitalist ideologues may from time to time talk about entrepreneurship as a skill or about the rewards of risk-taking. But this story fails to account for the fact that \u201cthe first million is the hardest\u201d, the role of inheritance, and other sources of capital.14<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The claim to a right to flows of social surplus product\u00a0merely<\/em>\u00a0by virtue of ownership of assets is not a claim that capitalists can ever discard in favour of entrepreneurship as a skill or profit attributable to risk.<\/p>\n

    In consequence, neither the Georgist policy nor JM Keynes\u2019s \u201ceuthanasia of the\u00a0rentier<\/em>\u201d is acceptable to capital. Just as Waller saw the bishops as an outwork to gentry property rights, so the pure\u00a0rentiers<\/em>\u00a0– like the British royal family and so on – are a necessary outwork to\u00a0capitalist<\/em>\u00a0property rights. The constitutional figure of the \u2018single person\u2019 commits the constitutional order to this interest.<\/p>\n

    Monarchist left<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Government by a \u2018single person\u2019 is an ideology, not a reality. And the constitutional figure of the \u2018single person\u2019 – whether king, president or prime minister – is the banner under which capital brings the lower orders under control after their mobilisation in a revolution (in England, in the USA, in France). In routine politics, the \u2018single person\u2019 – the prime minister or party leader – as well as the media cult of the personalities of individual leaders, is an instrument of capitalist control through corruption and the forced choice between rival gangs of bribe-takers: we are asked to pay attention to the choice between \u2018Rishi\u2019 and \u2018Keir\u2019 (or whatever the current offer is) and told that anything else is a wasted vote.<\/p>\n

    In war and foreign affairs it is the same story: the media ask us to back the US and its British yap dog against \u2018Putin\u2019 (the Russian police regime), just as earlier it was \u2018Assad\u2019 in Syria, \u2018Gaddafi\u2019 in Libya and \u2018Saddam\u2019 in Iraq, who were to justify the massive destruction inflicted by the US and its vassals. Go back to the 1790s, and the British press\u2019s target was \u2018Tipu\u2019 (Tipu Sultan of Mysore)\u00a0\u202615<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

    In this context what is remarkable is the extent to which the left has internalised the idea of the \u2018single person\u2019. Leave aside the very common practice of\u00a0tailing<\/em>\u00a0the capitalists\u2019 media on the characterisation of regimes our state opposes in the shape of their individual leaders. The cult of the personality of Jeremy Corbyn was a recent example on a large scale. But all those leftists who promote directly-elected officials of parties and campaigns are part of the same problem.<\/p>\n

    And, indeed, there is already such a problem in 1920-21 (and later) \u2018Leninism\u2019. The problem is that the\u00a0theory<\/em>\u00a0of the party adopted at the second and third congresses of Comintern were generalised on the basis of the Bolsheviks\u2019 minority-rule emergency measures in 1918-21 (treaty of Brest-Litovsk; Red Terror; one-man management; and so on). The generalisation argued that the proletariat as a class is necessarily\u00a0represented<\/em>\u00a0by the party, which is the \u2018advanced\u2019 minority, against the \u2018backward\u2019 majority. But then it follows from the logic of the argument for this role that the party itself is necessarily represented by the \u2018advanced\u2019 minority which is the central committee, against the \u2019backward\u2019 membership. And the CC, in turn, is necessarily represented by the \u2018advanced\u2019 minority, which is the politburo. And, at the end of the day, the politburo is necessarily represented by the \u2018advanced\u2019 minority, which was, from 1929, \u2018comrade Stalin\u2019; in modern \u2018Leninist\u2019 far-left groups a wide variety of\u00a0lider maximo<\/em>\u00a0types have wound up playing the role. British examples include Gerry Healy, Tony Cliff, Ted Grant, Peter Taaffe\u00a0\u2026<\/p>\n

    In short, the 1920-21 Comintern theory of the party, because it is minoritarian, logically tends to resolve itself back into the capitalist principle of the \u2018single person\u2019. The left makes\u00a0itself<\/em>\u00a0\u2018monarchist\u2019.<\/p>\n

    The idea had already been invented by Ferdinand Lassalle in the structure of the 1860s Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiter-Verein (ADAV), and continued by Lassalle\u2019s successor, Jean Baptista von Schweitzer: the need for strict unity of will required one-man rule by the ADAV\u2019s president. Unity of the ADAV with its \u2018Eisenacher\u2019 rivals became possible at Gotha in 1875, when this organisational conception was abandoned; and the result of the unification was the explosive growth of the German social democrats.<\/p>\n

    The effect of left monarchism is not, usually, to make the left group into an instrument of corruption like the two-party system (though there have been such cases). It is, rather, to disable the left itself from both unifying its own forces and from creating a party which permits the ranks in the localities and sectors to self-organise and grasp the party as\u00a0their<\/em>\u00a0instrument. The resulting grouplets (even quite large ones) cannot effectively serve as instruments of the proletariat as a class.<\/p>\n

    We should, then, take the opportunity of the coronation of Charles\u00a0III to reflect a little on – and reject – the general principle of government by a \u2018single person\u2019.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    References<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. CH Firth and RS\u00a0Rait (eds)\u00a0Acts and ordinances of the interregnum, 1642-1660<\/em>\u00a0London 1911 pp18-20.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    2. J Fitzgibbons, \u2018Not in any doubtfull dispute? Reassessing the nomination of Richard Cromwell\u2019\u00a0Historical Research<\/em>\u00a0Vol\u00a083, pp281-300 (2010).↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    3. www.archives.gov\/milestone-documents\/articles-of-confederation<\/a>.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    4. B Coward\u00a0The Cromwellian protectorate<\/em>\u00a0Manchester 2002, chapters\u00a04 and\u00a08; T\u00a0Harris\u00a0Revolution: the great crisis of the British monarchy<\/em>\u00a0London 2006.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    5. www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1843\/critique-hpr\/ch02.htm<\/a>.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    6. F Millar\u00a0The emperor in the Roman world<\/em>\u00a0Bristol 1992; L Douds Inside Lenin\u2019s government London 2018.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    7. www.marxists.org\/archive\/marx\/works\/1867-c1\/ch32.htm<\/a>.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    8. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography<\/em>: \u2018Waller, Edmund, poet and politician\u2019.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    9. en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Military_service_by_British_royalty<\/a>;\u00a0www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-11958461\/The-late-Queen-wanted-Harry-William-fight-Afghanistan-new-documentary-claims.html<\/a>\u00a0(April\u00a011).↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    10. Recently in \u2018Their militia and ours\u2019\u00a0Weekly Worker<\/em>\u00a0April\u00a027:\u00a0weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1440\/their-militia-and-ours<\/a>.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    11. \u2018Constitutions ancient and modern\u2019\u00a0Weekly Worker<\/em>\u00a0September\u00a02 2021:\u00a0weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1361\/constitutions-ancient-and-modern<\/a>. See also \u2018Artificial antiquity\u2019, September\u00a09 (weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1362\/artificial-antiquity<\/a>); \u2018Class, state and constitution\u2019, September\u00a016 (weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1363\/class-state-and-constitution<\/a>); \u2018Enlightened constitutions\u2019, September\u00a023 (weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1364\/enlightened-constitutions<\/a>); \u2018Decline and decay\u2019, September\u00a030 (weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1365\/decline-and-decay<\/a>). Plus the reply to critics in \u2018Modern ancient constitutions\u2019, October\u00a028 (weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1369\/modern-ancient-constitutions<\/a>); and my transcribed talk on the issue: \u2018In modern times\u2019, November\u00a018 (weeklyworker.co.uk\/worker\/1372\/in-modern-times<\/a>).↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    12. Singapore: A Haila,\u00a0Urban land rent: Singapore as a property state,\u00a0<\/em>Chichester 2016.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    13. \u2018Ricardian\u2019 from David Ricardo, 1772-1823; \u2018Georgist\u2019 from Henry George, 1839-97.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    14. Inheritance: G Clark, The son also rises Princeton 2015. Compare also \u2018original accumulation\u2019 in K\u00a0Marx\u00a0Capital<\/em>\u00a0Vol\u00a01, chapters\u00a026-31.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n
    15. W Dalrymple, \u2018An essay in imperial villain-making\u2019\u00a0The Guardian<\/em>May\u00a024 2005;\u00a0www.thequint.com\/voices\/how-did-tipu-sultans-worst-enemies-the-british-see-him-an-exhibition-explores-dag-museum<\/a>.↩\ufe0e<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      ________________<\/p>\n

      also see:<\/p>\n

      What does republicanism mean \u2013 Allan Armstrong, bella caledonia<\/a><\/p>\n

      The British 21st century monarchy: a \u201cglorious\u201d feudal class in 21st<\/sup> century trappings \u2013 Communist Union<\/a><\/p>\n

      Game of thrones \u2013 Mike Small, bella caledonia<\/a><\/p>\n

      EL&SD coverage of republicanism<\/a><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      We are reposting this article, written by Mike MacNair, which was first published by Weekly Worker. He argues that despite its ostensible archaism, the coronation of Charles III reflects the thoroughly modern practice of one-man management. STUFF ‘SINGLE PERSON’ LEADERSHIP In March 1649, after the execution of Charles\u00a0I, parliament passed \u201cAn Act for the abolishing…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1843,1855,1858,1867,1874,1864,1878],"tags":[6099],"class_list":["post-24875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-how-capitalists-organise","category-exploitation-and-emancipation","category-oppression-liberation","category-emancipation-liberation-and-self-determination","category-republicanism","category-our-history","category-england-against-unionism","tag-author-mike-macnair"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/mastodon.scot\/@rcfscotland\/110355691314346798","error":""},"views":1227,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24875"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24896,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24875\/revisions\/24896"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}