Student Marxist Societies?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by umfumfumf
what is communism about? wasnt blair the guy that introduced government funds for education like ema? what sort of neo liberal offers support to the unproved? neo liberalism is all about selective market forces and darwinianism not governmental funding -correct me if im wrong.
That what it is supposed to mean and what poeple are told it means.
In practice this is what it means. The government works with the giant money blocks to protect them and bail them out if things go tits up. It has nothing to do with proper free markets. The discipline of free markets only applies to the plebs. You have to wade through a whole heap of double speak to actually understand what is going on :/
Basically it is how it has always been. Those with power, whether it be private or governmental wield that power to protect themselves first and foremost and everyone else is given a lower priority.
(edited 9 years ago)
Out of interest does anyone here actually want a revolution?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Out of interest does anyone here actually want a revolution?
It depends what you mean -- a revolution in the traditional sense; violent overthrows, a workers' struggle, fighting then victory? No, not at all. Time has shown that revolutions like that do not end well.
A revolution in the sense of a large change in the way people think and vote? Sure.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
That was really depressing.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face... forever.
- George Orwell.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Out of interest does anyone here actually want a revolution?
im actually content with the governmental stuff i think the problem is the public. at the moment we have affluence and the power to fund humanitarian aid. we have education and healthcare and more recently womens rights. the problem is that under a conservative government people disrespect authority and under a socio liberal government not enough is reinvested in the economy. therefore either way governmental messages are distorted. its sad that many think this is because of bad education - maybe funding education should stop. maybe people are right in blaming the benefit culture - not enough emphsis is placed on consequence when support is at every angle. it would be sad to remove state support as people should care for each other. maybe thats what people should do though - care for the people and important things in their direct lives rather than discarding family and friends onto the system when things get tough. you know ihear so much that uni is low worth but these people overlook the value of chemists politicians and engineers in their day to day lives. if they quit the beer and talked to eachother more i bet the public could fund more students and get better returns thus leading themselves out of recession - or depression - by technological innovation. right now its just chavvy.
Original post by subject_delta
That's exactly what I see. These people are so set in their ways -- many of them campaigning for 40 years. They don't realise what got people to take action in 1970 is not what people respond to today.
What's funny is Marxism has become the very thing Marx and Engels did not want, they wanted a 'guide to action' not a dogma. I can't stand all of the 'capitalism is about to collapse' crap, even Lenin recognised it needs to be forced from the outside over 100 years ago (has it been so long!? Inevitable right guys!).
Original post by subject_delta
It depends what you mean -- a revolution in the traditional sense; violent overthrows, a workers' struggle, fighting then victory? No, not at all. Time has shown that revolutions like that do not end well.
A revolution in the sense of a large change in the way people think and vote? Sure.
A revolution in the sense of a large change in the way people think and vote? Sure.
This won't work. The workers are too passive because they are bribed by social democracy, they have been chucked crumbs and take it because they enjoy a higher quality of life than ever before, we as socialists need to acknowledge this simple fact. Also what happens when these people get in power? The bourgeoise remove them because they are against their own interests.
What is liberal democracy? Dictatorship of the bourgeoise. Politics financed by the bourgeoise in the interests of the bourgeoise.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Moosferatu
Aye. The left needs to think of something, and fast. I fear it's going to take a series of major catastrophes to bring about real social change though, if it can even be achieved. We're in for a rough while for now while the current lot are cashing in. The socialists and communists are just closed off throwbacks, alarm clocks permanently ringing for a revolution that was never really on the minds of the British public.
The condition of the workers means (I predict) that there never will be one unless forced from above. Even after the economic crisis the conditions of the workers remains good. The key success of the Bolshevik revolution was how it effortlessly seized power through convincing the military, if it were not for the imperialist nations the White Army would have been crushed with little blood shed. Capitalists simply exploit third world countries like China where their workers are treated like crap instead.
Thankfully my Universities were free of such filth.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Out of interest does anyone here actually want a revolution?
Eventually yes, but not now.
Original post by Zen Baphomet
Thankfully my Universities were free of such filth.
What about them is filthy?
Original post by subject_delta
What about them is filthy?
It's just an emotionally charged term to represent my level of disagreement with Marixst Ideologies and philosophy's.
I apologise, I am sure they have good levels of personal hygiene, by and large.
Original post by Zen Baphomet
It's just an emotionally charged term to represent my level of disagreement with Marixst Ideologies and philosophy's.
I apologise, I am sure they have good levels of personal hygiene, by and large.
I apologise, I am sure they have good levels of personal hygiene, by and large.
What exactly about that is so disagreeable?
Original post by subject_delta
What exactly about that is so disagreeable?
I object to there ideologies of complete equality, multiculturalism, unfetteded tolerance ,economic and cultural socialism etc.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
