Communism or Fascism
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sleepysnooze
I think you've missed the point - just because it's radical that doesn't mean it's going to be more successful in any respect. all the evidence shows that government management/ownership is a failure.
It has not been done properly. I know its idealistic but ultimately the people in charge of planning and distribution should keep the peoples interest as no.1. Communism either way does not make the poorest poorer unless it is done badly. If we put all our resources into making a system that can work then i believe it is possible but it isnt an overnight thing
Original post by ssnipertitsss
It has not been done properly. I know its idealistic but ultimately the people in charge of planning and distribution should keep the peoples interest as no.1.
why would they do that though? people don't like socialism because it fails. so the only way to keep socialism, therfore, would be via the kind of governments in the eastern bloc.
Communism either way does not make the poorest poorer unless it is done badly.
in the human world, you can't do socialism "well" - if you do things that are counter to rational human incentives, you'll always find unintended consequences, i.e. a lack of productivity, wealth-generation from trade, competition, further stagnation, inflation, etc.
If we put all our resources into making a system that can work then i believe it is possible but it isnt an overnight thing
why would they do that though? people don't like socialism because it fails. so the only way to keep socialism, therfore, would be via the kind of governments in the eastern bloc.
Communism either way does not make the poorest poorer unless it is done badly.
in the human world, you can't do socialism "well" - if you do things that are counter to rational human incentives, you'll always find unintended consequences, i.e. a lack of productivity, wealth-generation from trade, competition, further stagnation, inflation, etc.
If we put all our resources into making a system that can work then i believe it is possible but it isnt an overnight thing
I used to be a big socialist but it took a lot of rationalising to get out of that midnset - if you have capitalism, you have competition. if you have competition, you have incentives to produce and alack of incentives to shirk. if you have high outputs and low prices, you get demand. if you get demand and sales, you get profits (only in the sense that everybody involved benefits - it's simply the other party that is *monetarily* better off, as opposed to being better off in terms of pleasure or something similar). if you get profits (not from a zero sum game but from generation) then they *will* eventually, in some manner, "trickle down". not just in wages, but in resources; goods get better and prices go down because of competition and production. that benefits *everybody*. that's why capitalism appeals to ouyr humanity - because we have incentives to be productive under capitalism. socialism simply funds things that, when properly inspected, are sources of inefficiency; to tax the rich to give to the poor is to tax the productive to give to the unproductive. also, democracy is terrible for socialism, like I said; the people will never prefer a system where money over time goes down. the only way to hide the situation of money going down is totalitarian control over information and media, i.e. the eastern bloc, like I already told you
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
I used to be a big socialist but it took a lot of rationalising to get out of that midnset - if you have capitalism, you have competition. if you have competition, you have incentives to produce and alack of incentives to shirk. if you have high outputs and low prices, you get demand. if you get demand and sales, you get profits (only in the sense that everybody involved benefits - it's simply the other party that is *monetarily* better off, as opposed to being better off in terms of pleasure or something similar). if you get profits (not from a zero sum game but from generation) then they *will* eventually, in some manner, "trickle down". not just in wages, but in resources; goods get better and prices go down because of competition and production. that benefits *everybody*. that's why capitalism appeals to ouyr humanity - because we have incentives to be productive under capitalism. socialism simply funds things that, when properly inspected, are sources of inefficiency; to tax the rich to give to the poor is to tax the productive to give to the unproductive. also, democracy is terrible for socialism, like I said; the people will never prefer a system where money over time goes down. the only way to hide the situation of money going down is totalitarian control over information and media, i.e. the eastern bloc, like I already told you
I acknowledge that the fundamental flaw in communism is greed and desire for money but society can perfectly function with everyone benefitting from social welfare. I disagree that everyone here is better off, and the drive for profit does eventually cut wages so that will almost give the opposite result. The truth is, the additional benefit we get from capitalism is something we'd rather have than free the plight the poor face.
Original post by ssnipertitsss
I acknowledge that the fundamental flaw in communism is greed and desire for money but society can perfectly function with everyone benefitting from social welfare. I disagree that everyone here is better off, and the drive for profit does eventually cut wages so that will almost give the opposite result. The truth is, the additional benefit we get from capitalism is something we'd rather have than free the plight the poor face.
again, you're not factoring in unintended consequences
for instance, I suppose you're desiring minimum wage laws?
well what if somebody's labour per hour isn't worth the minimum wage?
how will they get a job?
that's the problem for the youth in such a system - they lack experience, but they need experience to become employed. the only way they'd be able to compensate would be, you guessed it, demanding a lower wage to justify their relative absence of profitability for the respective company
ergo, with such laws, you get more unemployment, and hence, a higher need for welfare and taxation, draining the economy.
let's also consider government provisions of, say, water
the government doesn't profit from those provisions, so they will have less incentives to provide it more effectively than companies that do. if they don't have competition (and they don't if it's paid by the tax payers) then they'll have no reason to continuously increase their quality
if companies have incentives to appeal ot the public/consumers, then they will eventually be finding out ways to appeal more to their market than their competitors - they will eventually be cheaper water provisions and higher quality provisions overall compared to the government that doesn't need a reason to increase its quality.
also, let's think about taxation
how do you get more social welfare?
via taxing the wealthy (unless you want the poor and middle class to be poorer)
but to tax the rich, you are giving them incentives to leave the country to go somewhere where they'll get taxed less. either this or there will be less wealthy people because the basic incentives to become rich in the first place are lower now seeing as the maximum amount of money one might be able to easily make via a good marketing strategy or good business idea is going to be guaranteed to be lower, or more regulated in some sense for the benefit of the poor (i.e. price controls, even).
if you have less rich people to tax, you'll have less government revenue to spend on welfare
and it goes on, and on, and on
(edited 7 years ago)
Communism you mean that belief that the entire world will eventually be united, moneyless, stateless and classless. I don't think it will happen and it sounds good but will lead to disaster.
Fascism is pretty vague but horrible isolationist authoritarian nationalism will always lead to mindless hatred and war.
I'd rather die to a regime trying to do good and failing than dying in a pointless war I had no say in.
Fascism is pretty vague but horrible isolationist authoritarian nationalism will always lead to mindless hatred and war.
I'd rather die to a regime trying to do good and failing than dying in a pointless war I had no say in.
Fascism.
What's the difference?
Communism commits evil when it goes wrong; fascism commits evil when all goes to plan. No one, not even Stalin, ever became a communist in order to do evil, whereas that's the whole point in becoming a fascist.
I've noticed, too, that people who throw around the number of deaths under Stalin and Mao as if that was the final word on the matter tend to throw up their hands in horror if anyone suggests that the millions who have died in the name of religion serve as witnesses to the fact that it is inherently evil. You could even, following the same piles-of-corpses logic, make a case for the family being inherently evil, on the grounds that some 80% of killings take place in it.
But no one would dream of claiming that. Communism alone is slandered as nothing more than the sum of its deaths. Indeed, if you were serious about evaluating the evil of a regime by the number of deaths it caused, you'd have to say the British Empire was worse than the Nazis. Which I don't for a moment believe.
When we feel more revulsion for the smaller crimes of fascism, we are not being illogical but recognising that a philosophy that is noble but that sometimes goes horribly wrong is still superior to one based on cruelty and inequality. Communism, like Christianity, is a willingness of the heart as much as anything else; a desire for a better world that is easy to mock but hard to live without. Fascism is about killing people.
At the end of the day, any moderate democrat who pours equal scorn on both extremes had probably best not look too hard into the mirror. Because, while we can quantify the deaths caused by both communism and fascism, we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.
Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end.
I've noticed, too, that people who throw around the number of deaths under Stalin and Mao as if that was the final word on the matter tend to throw up their hands in horror if anyone suggests that the millions who have died in the name of religion serve as witnesses to the fact that it is inherently evil. You could even, following the same piles-of-corpses logic, make a case for the family being inherently evil, on the grounds that some 80% of killings take place in it.
But no one would dream of claiming that. Communism alone is slandered as nothing more than the sum of its deaths. Indeed, if you were serious about evaluating the evil of a regime by the number of deaths it caused, you'd have to say the British Empire was worse than the Nazis. Which I don't for a moment believe.
When we feel more revulsion for the smaller crimes of fascism, we are not being illogical but recognising that a philosophy that is noble but that sometimes goes horribly wrong is still superior to one based on cruelty and inequality. Communism, like Christianity, is a willingness of the heart as much as anything else; a desire for a better world that is easy to mock but hard to live without. Fascism is about killing people.
At the end of the day, any moderate democrat who pours equal scorn on both extremes had probably best not look too hard into the mirror. Because, while we can quantify the deaths caused by both communism and fascism, we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.
Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end.
Original post by sleepysnooze
no I was referring to that all-important quote:
Original post by DMcGovern
Communism commits evil when it goes wrong; fascism commits evil when all goes to plan. No one, not even Stalin, ever became a communist in order to do evil, whereas that's the whole point in becoming a fascist.
I've noticed, too, that people who throw around the number of deaths under Stalin and Mao as if that was the final word on the matter tend to throw up their hands in horror if anyone suggests that the millions who have died in the name of religion serve as witnesses to the fact that it is inherently evil. You could even, following the same piles-of-corpses logic, make a case for the family being inherently evil, on the grounds that some 80% of killings take place in it.
But no one would dream of claiming that. Communism alone is slandered as nothing more than the sum of its deaths. Indeed, if you were serious about evaluating the evil of a regime by the number of deaths it caused, you'd have to say the British Empire was worse than the Nazis. Which I don't for a moment believe.
When we feel more revulsion for the smaller crimes of fascism, we are not being illogical but recognising that a philosophy that is noble but that sometimes goes horribly wrong is still superior to one based on cruelty and inequality. Communism, like Christianity, is a willingness of the heart as much as anything else; a desire for a better world that is easy to mock but hard to live without. Fascism is about killing people.
At the end of the day, any moderate democrat who pours equal scorn on both extremes had probably best not look too hard into the mirror. Because, while we can quantify the deaths caused by both communism and fascism, we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.
Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end.
I've noticed, too, that people who throw around the number of deaths under Stalin and Mao as if that was the final word on the matter tend to throw up their hands in horror if anyone suggests that the millions who have died in the name of religion serve as witnesses to the fact that it is inherently evil. You could even, following the same piles-of-corpses logic, make a case for the family being inherently evil, on the grounds that some 80% of killings take place in it.
But no one would dream of claiming that. Communism alone is slandered as nothing more than the sum of its deaths. Indeed, if you were serious about evaluating the evil of a regime by the number of deaths it caused, you'd have to say the British Empire was worse than the Nazis. Which I don't for a moment believe.
When we feel more revulsion for the smaller crimes of fascism, we are not being illogical but recognising that a philosophy that is noble but that sometimes goes horribly wrong is still superior to one based on cruelty and inequality. Communism, like Christianity, is a willingness of the heart as much as anything else; a desire for a better world that is easy to mock but hard to live without. Fascism is about killing people.
At the end of the day, any moderate democrat who pours equal scorn on both extremes had probably best not look too hard into the mirror. Because, while we can quantify the deaths caused by both communism and fascism, we will never know how many deaths have been the result of capitalism; of nothing more noble than a rich man wanting to be even richer, and sacrificing the health and lives of millions of workers to achieve this.
Don't even try to count how many people capitalism has killed, because not only will you not know where to begin, but also it will never end.
the quote was true though. capitalism might widen economc inequalities in society, but at least it increases wealth for everybody over time. socialism does not accomplish that because it doesn't play to the incentives to produce and generate wealth.
Original post by sleepysnooze
the quote was true though. capitalism might widen economc inequalities in society, but at least it increases wealth for everybody over time. socialism does not accomplish that because it doesn't play to the incentives to produce and generate wealth.
There is no proof that it increases everyone's wealth, all we've seen it do globally over the past few hundred years is it 'outsource' poverty to less developed countries.
Depends what form of socialism you're talking about, but as we've seen in Scandinavian social-democratic countries and socialist countries such as the Seychelles, this is not the case.
Since their independence from Britain in 1976, per capita output in the Seychelles has increased nearly sevenfold. In recent years, the government has encouraged foreign investment in order to upgrade these sectors. Today, Seychelles boasts the highest nominal per capita GDP in Africa. It is one of only a handful of countries in Africa with high Human Development Index.
Original post by DMcGovern
There is no proof that it increases everyone's wealth, all we've seen it do globally over the past few hundred years is it 'outsource' poverty to less developed countries.
Depends what form of socialism you're talking about, but as we've seen in Scandinavian social-democratic countries and socialist countries such as the Seychelles, this is not the case.
Since their independence from Britain in 1976, per capita output in the Seychelles has increased nearly sevenfold. In recent years, the government has encouraged foreign investment in order to upgrade these sectors. Today, Seychelles boasts the highest nominal per capita GDP in Africa. It is one of only a handful of countries in Africa with high Human Development Index.
Depends what form of socialism you're talking about, but as we've seen in Scandinavian social-democratic countries and socialist countries such as the Seychelles, this is not the case.
Since their independence from Britain in 1976, per capita output in the Seychelles has increased nearly sevenfold. In recent years, the government has encouraged foreign investment in order to upgrade these sectors. Today, Seychelles boasts the highest nominal per capita GDP in Africa. It is one of only a handful of countries in Africa with high Human Development Index.
mate...
western europe vs eastern europe
south korea vs north korea
the bahamas vs cuba
hong kong vs vietnam
why do you think that the former are wealthier than the latter?
Original post by sleepysnooze
mate...
western europe vs eastern europe
south korea vs north korea
the bahamas vs cuba
hong kong vs vietnam
why do you think that the former are wealthier than the latter?
western europe vs eastern europe
south korea vs north korea
the bahamas vs cuba
hong kong vs vietnam
why do you think that the former are wealthier than the latter?
Not socialist, but considering that you've compared some terrible examples:
Cuba's GDP is $77.1 billion which ranks 67th in the world.
Bahamas's GDP is $8.88 billion which ranks 141st in the world.
Cuba has the higher GDP growth, higher life expectancy and higher literacy rates.
As well as the fact that I've not said they're wealthier since they're not socialist, but the social-democratic Scandinavian countries have the best quality of life and the Seychelles have the highest HDI in Africa...
Original post by DMcGovern
Not socialist, but considering that you've compared some terrible examples:
Cuba's GDP is $77.1 billion which ranks 67th in the world.
Bahamas's GDP is $8.88 billion which ranks 141st in the world.
Cuba's GDP is $77.1 billion which ranks 67th in the world.
Bahamas's GDP is $8.88 billion which ranks 141st in the world.
oh right, I forgot that cuba used to be a very successful CAPITALIST country and they still have the wealth from the 50s. that's why they don't have any modern cars or modern buildings.
also, how the hell would socialism make a country wealthier?
Cuba has the higher GDP growth, higher life expectancy and higher literacy rates.
As well as the fact that I've not said they're wealthier since they're not socialist, but the social-democratic Scandinavian countries have the best quality of life and the Seychelles have the highest HDI in Africa...
As well as the fact that I've not said they're wealthier since they're not socialist, but the social-democratic Scandinavian countries have the best quality of life and the Seychelles have the highest HDI in Africa...
oh my god
scandinevia is not socialist.
they have a free market economy with welfare. that's basically it.
they are not what you want them to be
they even have lower corporate taxes than the USA - quite a lot lower.
Original post by sleepysnooze
oh right, I forgot that cuba used to be a very successful CAPITALIST country and they still have the wealth from the 50s. that's why they don't have any modern cars or modern buildings.
I never said they were capitalist, they're just not socialist. Whether they're state capitalist or a deformed workers state is another matter entirely.
also, how the hell would socialism make a country wealthier?
Reformist Keynesian policy has proved to end depressions, crashes and generally increase the general wellbeing of a nation and its economy.
"Although money, and so monetary calculation, will disappear in socialism (the transition stage before communism) this does not mean that there will no longer be any need to make choices, evaluations and calculations ... Wealth will be produced and distributed in its natural form of useful things, of objects that can serve to satisfy some human need or other. Not being produced for sale on a market, items of wealth will not acquire an exchange-value in addition to their use-value. In socialism their value, in the normal non-economic sense of the word, will not be their selling price nor the time needed to produce them but their usefulness. It is for this that they will be appreciated, evaluated, wanted. . . and produced."
oh my god
scandinevia is not socialist.
they have a free market economy with welfare. that's basically it.
they are not what you want them to be
they even have lower corporate taxes than the USA - quite a lot lower.
As I've said, they're a social-democracy, implementing a mixed socialist-capitalist economic system, 'taming' capitalism.
Democratic socialism can mean Social democracy as in Sweden, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries and that works, Denmark is the happiest country in the world while Sweden, Norway and Finland are among the happiest.
Original post by DMcGovern
I never said they were capitalist, they're just not socialist. Whether they're state capitalist or a deformed workers state is another matter entirely.
oh god, you really are quite left wing aren't you. I remember using terminologies like these...back before I started learning about which systems are empirically better, as opposed to morally better
Reformist Keynesian policy has proved to end depressions, crashes and generally increase the general wellbeing of a nation and its economy.
nope - the UK got out of the depression of the 30s a hell of a lot quicker than the USA, and the UK didn't have interventionist policies while thew USA did. that's only one example.
"Although money, and so monetary calculation, will disappear in socialism (the transition stage before communism) this does not mean that there will no longer be any need to make choices, evaluations and calculations ... Wealth will be produced and distributed in its natural form of useful things, of objects that can serve to satisfy some human need or other. Not being produced for sale on a market, items of wealth will not acquire an exchange-value in addition to their use-value. In socialism their value, in the normal non-economic sense of the word, will not be their selling price nor the time needed to produce them but their usefulness. It is for this that they will be appreciated, evaluated, wanted. . . and produced."
As I've said, they're a social-democracy, implementing a mixed socialist-capitalist economic system, 'taming' capitalism.
Democratic socialism can mean Social democracy as in Sweden, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries and that works, Denmark is the happiest country in the world while Sweden, Norway and Finland are among the happiest.
As I've said, they're a social-democracy, implementing a mixed socialist-capitalist economic system, 'taming' capitalism.
Democratic socialism can mean Social democracy as in Sweden, Denmark and other Scandinavian countries and that works, Denmark is the happiest country in the world while Sweden, Norway and Finland are among the happiest.
sweden was one of the best economies in europe in the 60s when it was a full free market capitalist economy without interventionism. as soon as it adopted internvetionist policies, its wealth-generation visibly slowed down. I don't know what you want me to tell you - capitalism is obviously the better fuel for wealth and growth. socialism might be better at giving poor people money now (money that they are not entitled to, even) but eventually the money supply will shorten. same exact story in the eastern bloc.
Fascism.
Original post by sleepysnooze
nope - the UK got out of the depression of the 30s a hell of a lot quicker than the USA, and the UK didn't have interventionist policies while thew USA did. that's only one example.
nope - the UK got out of the depression of the 30s a hell of a lot quicker than the USA, and the UK didn't have interventionist policies while thew USA did. that's only one example.
Because of rearmament which was essentially an indirect Keynesian interventionist policy - anyone who's studied history knows this. Nazi Germany also got out of the Great Depression earlier because of public works projects and armament programmes which were Keynesian.
sweden was one of the best economies in europe in the 60s when it was a full free market capitalist economy without interventionism. as soon as it adopted internvetionist policies, its wealth-generation visibly slowed down. I don't know what you want me to tell you - capitalism is obviously the better fuel for wealth and growth. socialism might be better at giving poor people money now (money that they are not entitled to, even) but eventually the money supply will shorten. same exact story in the eastern bloc.
Again, not socialist countries.
Also it wasn't interventionist policies that slowed its growth down but the global transition of MDCs to service-based economies.
While in most other countries growth from the 1970s fell only in relation to growth rates in the golden post-war ages, Swedish growth fell clearly below the historical long run growth trend. It also fell to a very low level internationally.
The 1970s certainly meant the end to a number of successful growth trajectories in the industrial society.
At the same time new growth forces appeared with the electronic revolution, as well as with the advance of a more service based economy. This structural change hit the Swedish economy harder than most other economies, at least for the industrial capitalist economies. Sweden was forced into a transformation of its industrial economy and of its political economy in the 1970s and the 1980s that was more profound than in most other Western economies.
socialism might be better at giving poor people money now (money that they are not entitled to, even)
Except the working class who subsist on the sale of their labour are paid less than the true value of their labour and such surplus value, which they are entitled to and deserve, is deemed profit and kept by the rich.
Swedish GDP per Capita in Relation to World GDP per Capita, 1870-2004
Original post by sleepysnooze
nope - the UK got out of the depression of the 30s a hell of a lot quicker than the USA, and the UK didn't have interventionist policies while thew USA did. that's only one example.
nope - the UK got out of the depression of the 30s a hell of a lot quicker than the USA, and the UK didn't have interventionist policies while thew USA did. that's only one example.
Meanwhile, the Soviet economy arguably actually benefited from the Great Depression. The USSR hired specialized labor particularly from the USA to help fuel their industrialization. Farmers, engineers and industrialists were brought in to help develop the relatively backward and agrarian economy into one that was Urbanized and Industrialized. Many of Stalin's collective farmers were developed by American farmers, due to their experience on large scale farms in the USA.
The numbers of important engineers that were hired from the USA can be seen with the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power station in the present day Ukraine. 6 American engineers were awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Labor for their efforts during the power station's construction.
The GAZ automotive factory in Nizhny Novgorod was a vast industrial investment that was conducted for the USSR with Ford's help, both with the construction of the plant and engineers to supervise the manufacturing processes.
In conclusion the Great Depression if anything helped to fuel the industrialisation of the USSR and by the late 1930s it had come from being a backwards feudal country to the second-largest industrial power in the world.
Fascism, because I think communism will never work but fascism has a small chance to be not as bad as communism, if the leader is more concerned with protecting his country than oppressing his people.
That being said, I hate both as they are far too authoritarian for the likes of myself.
That being said, I hate both as they are far too authoritarian for the likes of myself.
Everyone on this thread is absurd. Communism and Fascism are not comparable. Communism is comparable to Neo-Liberalism. Fascism is comparable to Anarchism. Communism and Neo-Liberalism are Models of society, Fascism and Anarchism are belief systems.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- aqa italian fascism resources?
- History Alevel Sentence starter - 25 marker
- Are communists stupid?
- Politics or religious studies for A-level? Urgent!!
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- St. Andrews vs LSE: Which to pick?
- What A levels to pick with biology and psychology?
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Your Perfect Country
- How I got into Westminster School Sixth Form AMA
- Should i vote Labour?
- Guide: Which Language Should I Study?
- Psychological concept or theory on majority and minority
- Biology a level question - Ecology
- Succession/variation bio aqa
- Coventry University ba course
- Communication
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- 5 careers for criminology and criminal behaviour graduates
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
