Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A beginner's Guide To Politics

Announcements Posted on
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ma2k5)
    Taking the analogy, no it won't - maybe the term very extreme socialism - but not socialism by itself.
    So yeah, we're using extreme free market so we can use extreme socialism too.

    So the OP needs to either make his account of free market more moderate, or his account of socialism more extreme - in the interests of fairness. See my point yet?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    My explanations do look to be uneven when you look at them - i have more explanation of moderate socialism and extreme capitalism. I'll be correcting this balance.

    But to examine Nazi economic policy for a moment: highly protected home markets; appointment of high ranking party officials to senior positions within companies;government-made targets; Nazi Germany was not socialist - but neither was it as right wing as many believe when examining only the economic policy.

    Although the origins of the terms left/right wing may support the associations that come with the terms, that is no longer what people actually mean when people say 'right wing' etc.

    Captain Crash, how would you propose labelling both axes? you can't label one end of both as 'liberal' as it causes confusion.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
    My explanations do look to be uneven when you look at them - i have more explanation of moderate socialism and extreme capitalism. I'll be correcting this balance.

    But to examine Nazi economic policy for a moment: highly protected home markets; appointment of high ranking party officials to senior positions within companies;government-made targets; Nazi Germany was not socialist - but neither was it as right wing as many believe when examining only the economic policy.

    Although the origins of the terms left/right wing may support the associations that come with the terms, that is no longer what people actually mean when people say 'right wing' etc.

    Captain Crash, how would you propose labelling both axes? you can't label one end of both as 'liberal' as it causes confusion.
    To me liberal means freedom from government intervention and as such socially it's "down" i.e. opposite to totalitarian, and economically it is free market.

    However most people these days use liberal to mean left-wing, hence the confusion. Whatever definitions you use you'll need to explain the context quite clearly because there is so much misuse these days.

    I say socialism - free market as economics. Authoritarian - liberal socially.

    (I always call Nazis lefties, incidently.)
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
    But to examine Nazi economic policy for a moment: highly protected home markets; appointment of high ranking party officials to senior positions within companies;government-made targets; Nazi Germany was not socialist - but neither was it as right wing as many believe when examining only the economic policy.

    Although the origins of the terms left/right wing may support the associations that come with the terms, that is no longer what people actually mean when people say 'right wing' etc.
    But if you ask the average person what defines right wing they'll describe it as authortarian or thatcherite, both perfectly valid. Equally if you ask what left wing means you'll either get collectivism or socially liberal (indeed the lib dems are left wing for this very reason). And it isn't limited to the lay either. I went to a talk once by QC Griffiths, one of the most reputable people in law and he described the then home secretary Blunkett as 'the most right wing he ever seen' with regards to ID cards and such. So the right/left defination still hold today. As such I think their clumsy terms to define someone's political attributes.
    (Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
    Captain Crash, how would you propose labelling both axes? you can't label one end of both as 'liberal' as it causes confusion.
    Well I'd label it as tis me lord said.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A good start and a good overview. The next challenge is to try and incorporate the most accurate comments - the challenge being picking out those ones.

    Things it might be worth considering:
    1) Comparing what parties have stood for in the past to what they stand for now rather than the "theory and practice." That way you are looking at "practice then vs practice now."

    2) Working with someone grounded in economics to help you with that section. The tricky bit is making it impartial.

    3) You'll need to include a section on the civil service and special advisors. The country really would grind to a halt if we (I'm a civil servant) were to disappear overnight. (Basically none of the emergency services would get paid as it's civil servants who collect the taxes that pay for them.)

    4) You'll need to update the local government section as the system is swinging back the other way on the back of Local Area Agreements and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Have a look at http://solutions4inclusion.org/Proje...ndicators.aspx and http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8399555 - on the latter have a look at the LAA tracker and the areas that your local authority has selected as priorities.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
    But to examine Nazi economic policy for a moment: highly protected home markets; appointment of high ranking party officials to senior positions within companies;government-made targets; Nazi Germany was not socialist - but neither was it as right wing as many believe when examining only the economic policy.
    Obviously this depends on how you understand 'right-wing' but Nazi economic policies were favourable to corporate industries (though not their workers) many of which which thrived provided they were working towards Nazi aims in their production. There's no question of the Nazis being socialist in the sense of seeking any actual redistribution of social and economic power to the people, indeed their core enthusiasts were drawn from the reactionary elements of the middle classes who were utterly antagonistic to the real socialists - many of whom they quickly imprisoned and/or murdered.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sarcastic pratchett fan)
    ...The left tends towards extreme socialism whilst the right tends towards capitalism...
    Erm, how come you talk of the left tending to the 'extreme' yet the right don't? That's a pretty obviously biased sentence there.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    There's no question of the Nazis being socialist in the sense of seeking any actual redistribution of social and economic power to the people, indeed their core enthusiasts were drawn from the reactionary elements of the middle classes who were utterly antagonistic to the real socialists - many of whom they quickly imprisoned and/or murdered.
    The funny thing is, if you replace 'Nazis' with 'communists' in your post - which was supposed to show the difference between the two doctrines - you pretty accurately describe the USSR.

    Both Naziism and socialism are statist ideologies to their core. The end result of both, whether or not it is admitted, is an all powerful state controlling every aspect of life. It's no coincidence that most of the leading fascists were at one point Marxists, and it's no coincidence that fascists and extreme socialists hate each other more than anything else. Freud, I think, called it the narcissism of small differences.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    One of the risks of the guide is that it becomes too complicated. What audience do you want to aim it at? What "outcomes" do you want from the guide? (i.e. what do you want the reader to come away with after having read the book?)

    Do you want a beginner's guide to politics "as is" in the UK or do you want to go beyond that and look at what happened in Europe? Fortunately we don't have a recent history of political extremism. Therefore the amount of time you should be spending on explaining the smaller extremist parties of all spectrums should be kept to a minimum because the impact of these movements in the grand scheme of things is likely to be small - even though some try to have some of the trappings of mainstream organisations. (Press releases, media spokespersons etc.)

    Do you want readers to come away empowered, knowing what they can do if they are thinking "Bad stuff is happening in my neighbourhood and I want to do something about it."?

    You could do a lot worse than having some links to http://www.mysociety.org/ and the tools they have, in your book.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    "Extreme capitalism is based upon the principle of a completely free market – there is no safety net for those who fail and industry and commerce is very loosely regulated, allowing people to deceive you. In this society, anything in the world of business goes – there are no laws or regulations prohibiting false marketing, faulty manufacturing etc."

    Stopped reading there - that is simply NOT true. Any free market thinker accepts the necessity of government to get involved in economic matters.

    As Friedman says think of capitialism as a game which all individuals take part in. The role of government is to create rules to the game and enforce them fairly. The rules have to be kept to a minimum of course because each rule acts as a restrictive force on the individuals and avoiding coercion is what free market capitialism is all about.

    Here are some areas where government is necessary in an extreme free market economy:

    - Producing money
    - Making sure contracts are dealt with properly and fairly
    - That there are mutually agreed trades, and force is not used
    - To take measures in protecting against monopolies (in reality the government often ENCOURAGES monopolies but it shouldn't.)

    There are maybe more I have missed. But you can/should be a free market capitialist without being an anarchist. There is not "loose regulation" as you say - that defies the very point of capitialism, that people should be PROTECTED from being FORCED into a choice, as they are with nationalisation.
    This is false.

    There are some, while admittedly a minority, who believe in total laissez-faire. Economists of the Austrian school often do, as well as anarcho-capitalists.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    That's like defining socialism as ABSOLUTE control over peoples lives, job allocation, 100% taxes etc etc

    Why give the ultimate extreme definition of one and a moderate account of the other? That's not objective, and seeing as NOBODY would justify TOTAL free market it doesn't even warrant discussion.
    You'd be surprised. Have you ever heard of Murray Rothbard or David Friedman?
    To me anarchy (what you are talking about) shouldn't even be called a free market, because as I have tried to say, its not actually free at all. There should be a new definition of it, and free market should begin at libertarianism. "Uncontrolled market" or something could be anarchy.
    A free market by definition is when a government refrains from intervening in an economy. Even if a government only owned the armed forces, police and judicial system, it wouldn't be a total free market by definition.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sound chaser)
    This is false.

    There are some, while admittedly a minority, who believe in total laissez-faire. Economists of the Austrian school often do, as well as anarcho-capitalists.
    They blates just want the freedom to lock their children in cellars. :ninja:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    found this very useful
    • 12 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    I think you've got the 'traditional Lib Dem' wrong, saying they favour higher taxation but would spend on services rather than on benefits like Labour. Traditional Liberals have never been a party of heavy spending on public services, the traditional Labour party were far more oriented towards spending on services rather than benefits anyway. In fact I don't think there has been any party in the UK which has ever favoured much spending on transfer payments, the high tax approach has always been to fund nationalised industries and state education/NHS with benefit payments always being seen as a minimum safety net.

    The third party, traditionally, has been the Liberal party, which stood for increased democratic reform (changes to the constitution, proportional representation, elected second chamber), and protected civil liberties. Economically they have generally been a party of low tax and not too much public spending. The Lib Dems are a merger between the Liberal party and the SDP, (Social Democratic Party), which split out of the Labour party in the early 1980s and had a New Labour-ish flavour to it ie 'market social democracy'. This meant it took more of an interest in slight raising of taxation and spending in public services.

    Also remember that the Conservative Party was traditionally quite a paternalistic party, which did favour an extent of taxation and spending on public services, although it stood to protect the constitution and was sceptical towards reforms. This 'One Nation' Toryism was in place for most of the past century with only small elements of the party favouring a more free market low tax low public spending economy, this came to the fore only when Mrs Thatcher became PM with that philosophy.

    I would have said the 'traditional voters' of each party would be:

    Conservative - landowners, professions such as lawyers, doctors, farmers.
    Labour - working class people based in urban areas, a few benevolent well off intellectuals
    Liberal - small business owners, entrepreneurs

    Mrs Thatcher sought to cultivate the small business owners and entrepreneurs vote for her own form of Conservatism

    Students I would not align particularly with any of those parties traditionally, they were usually supporters of Green or Marxist groups, more recently they have been more aligned with Lib Dems
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A good effort.

    You'll need to consider who your audience is - is it aimed at the casual reader or someone starting out in the subject?

    The only glaring omission is the civil service.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Generally good

    But the end part is very biased against Labour T_T
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I smell sticky :ninja:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Hi!i'm not english and i would like to know if this list i made it's correct.

    Labour party: Daily Mirror, The observer and finalcial times.
    Tory: Telegraph, Daily mail, Sunday express and The times.
    L.Democratic: Independant.

    Also if you could tell me if the are actually relevant news papers.

    Thanks a lot!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Started very well but once you got into the ideologies bit you became extreamly biased and a lot of your assertions are high contentious...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    thank you for taking your time to write this . i'm finding your guide very interesting and useful

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: February 17, 2014
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.