Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Stalinest Seumas Milne to be Corbyn's communication and strategy chief watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I honestly don't how feudalism is "leaving you alone". Like you are tied to a plot of land if you are a pleb.
    Apparently it was very similar to the modern welfare state. Their lords looked after them, y'know.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    As opposed to serfdom,
    I'm not defending serfdom. I think capitalism is a better economic system. However monarchies existed for centuries in a number of countries where serfdom had already withered away.

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    involuntary military servitude,
    The draft hasn't existed under democratic rule? Long and brutal wars are actually less likely under monarchism because the monarch had to finance most of the costs out of his own estate rather than just turn on the printing press.

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    indoctrination through the Church,
    Which didn't entail having your children spend most of the week in state schooling where left-wing teachers tell them exactly how to think..

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    oh, and still being taxed to ****.
    Taxation was no more than a fifth of what it is now and the state did not have the right to inflate the money supply thereby taxing the citizens by stealth.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Apparently it was very similar to the modern welfare state. Their lords looked after them, y'know.
    It's bizarre considering the right wing conservatism was generally about protecting the rising capitalist mode of production from the old elements of feudalism that didn't like it and were trying to stop it. As far as I'm aware, I'm a bit ignorant on all this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's bizarre considering the right wing conservatism was generally about protecting the rising capitalist mode of production from the old elements of feudalism that didn't like it and were trying to stop it. As far as I'm aware, I'm a bit ignorant on all this.
    The equivalent of the left at that time (17th and 18th centuries) were the Whig factions i.e. pro-capitalist, pro-free trade classical liberals. Now the modern supposedly conservative parties are far to the left of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I admittedly don't know much about the history of taxation but that seems very low.
    That is what happens when you have a healthier society of self-reliant people and real, familial ties rather than a society with a number of socialist policies and a society that thinks the family isn't vitally important.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    I'm not defending serfdom. I think capitalism is a better economic system. However monarchies existed for centuries in a number of countries where serfdom had already withered away.
    Sure, but if we're talking about general trends in monarchism - serfdom is a pretty big aspect. I mean, you can't talk about how monarchies have historically tended to be so much freer than democracies and ignore that huge part of it.

    The draft hasn't existed under democratic rule? Long and brutal wars are actually less likely under monarchism because the monarch had to finance most of the costs out of his own estate rather than just turn on the printing press.
    Fair point in the first sentence, not so sure about the rest. We are living in the most peaceful age in history, and looking back, the prospect of bankruptcy or even bankruptcy itself didn't seem to do much to dissuade many monarchs from waging wars.
    Which didn't entail having your children spend most of the week in state schooling where left-wing teachers tell them exactly how to think..
    Because those schools didn't exist. I don't see how having a severely uneducated population can be seen as a plus.
    Taxation was no more than a fifth of what it is now and the state did not have the right to inflate the money supply thereby taxing the citizens by stealth.
    Mainly because things like inflation weren't really understood. Looking at you, Spain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    1) The very idea that workers were treated as property at risk of being 'poached' by another lord should tell you all you need to know about how free these people were.
    2) Free to believe what they liked? Tell that to the Cathars. Or anyone who happened to live near a Cathar. Or the Protestants under Mary. Or any non-conformist who lived under the Clarendon Code. Or anyone killed in the European wars of religion.
    3) Can't think of any books that have been banned lately
    4) So they could internally believe whatever they wanted, they just couldn't be seen to be believing those things or practice those beliefs. Cool. I'm guessing the <2000 figure refers only to the Spanish Inquisition, and it doesn't tell us anything about the numbers of people imprisoned, tortured or given penances. There were punishments other than execution. Regardless, 2000 people is still 2000 more than the number of people killed for religious non-conformity under modern liberal democracies.
    5) I admittedly don't know much about the history of taxation but that seems very low.
    1) No different to modern immigration law, and the debate on emigrants' rights. They just had a more solid system than the one we have, where poor governments train doctors and nurses, who immediately flee to rich countries and abandon their responsibilities. Besides, where would serfs go exactly? To the neighbouring village when that nobleman offered better prices? Free markets, sure, but ignoring the feudal investments of the nobleman in said serf (for example, healthcare, or training).
    2) The wars of religion had nothing to do with what people believed - it was that Protestants demanded the right to force others to believe what they believe (i.e. Catholics were the heretics - and catholics should change - and catholics should abandon their relationship with the state). There was plenty of "heresy" in the catholic church since its inception. Or rather, debate. The Catholics were, essentially, relativists. What we believe is right is okay with us, and what you believe is right is okay for you, so let's leave it at that. The Cathars were persecuted for economic reasons if i recall correctly, although I have not studied them for a very long time.
    3) Lol. You must not go to a modern university. Or have the breadth of comprehension to see how restricted permissible thought is, these days.
    4) Lol cool story bro. Number of people killed under the more progressive modernist regimes? Let's start counting.
    5) Of course it is. You've done very little research. I hope that is a good starting point on a spiritual journey of discovering reactionary thought in yourself.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    1) No different to modern immigration law, and the debate on emigrants' rights. They just had a more solid system than the one we have, where poor governments train doctors and nurses, who immediately flee to rich countries and abandon their responsibilities. Besides, where would serfs go exactly? To the neighbouring village when that nobleman offered better prices? Free markets, sure, but ignoring the feudal investments of the nobleman in said serf (for example, healthcare, or training).
    2) The wars of religion had nothing to do with what people believed - it was that Protestants demanded the right to force others to believe what they believe (i.e. Catholics were the heretics - and catholics should change - and catholics should abandon their relationship with the state). There was plenty of "heresy" in the catholic church since its inception. Or rather, debate. The Catholics were, essentially, relativists. What we believe is right is okay with us, and what you believe is right is okay for you, so let's leave it at that. The Cathars were persecuted for economic reasons if i recall correctly, although I have not studied them for a very long time.
    3) Lol. You must not go to a modern university. Or have the breadth of comprehension to see how restricted permissible thought is, these days.
    4) Lol cool story bro. Number of people killed under the more progressive modernist regimes? Let's start counting.
    5) Of course it is. You've done very little research. I hope that is a good starting point on a spiritual journey of discovering reactionary thought in yourself.
    1) The problem isn't where else a serf could go under feudalism, it's that feudalism itself is structurally and inherently unfree. Sure, under feudalism, the serf wouldn't have many options - but that's why feudalism is bad. The fact that he is a serf to begin with is the issue. Not even going to address the immigration comparison.
    2) Just go back and read your first sentence there.
    3) Do elabourate.
    4) Remember we are not talking about just any deaths here (or deaths, full stop, for that matter. You kinda turned it into that). We are talking about persecution and suppression of those with non-conformist beliefs. You seriously think there was less of that back then?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    The equivalent of the left at that time (17th and 18th centuries) were the Whig factions i.e. pro-capitalist, pro-free trade classical liberals. Now the modern supposedly conservative parties are far to the left of them.
    That's what's called progress. Conservatism of today is the progressive of a century ago
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    I'm not defending serfdom. I think capitalism is a better economic system. However monarchies existed for centuries in a number of countries where serfdom had already withered away.

    So what is your problem. We live in a monarchy?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Taxation was no more than a fifth of what it is now and the state did not have the right to inflate the money supply thereby taxing the citizens by stealth.
    You do realise that was because it was all levied on the very richest and on the land owners so the rate could be like 5% and nothing for all the normal people.

    It should be like that again but everyone who even suggests this sort of model like the Greens or various right wing libertarians people are like "lol no that's mad loony lefty etc"
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You do realise that was because it was all levied on the very richest and on the land owners so the rate could be like 5% and nothing for all the normal people.

    It should be like that again but everyone who even suggests this sort of model like the Greens or various right wing libertarians people are like "lol no that's mad loony lefty etc"
    Here here!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    You do realise that was because it was all levied on the very richest and on the land owners so the rate could be like 5% and nothing for all the normal people.

    It should be like that again but everyone who even suggests this sort of model like the Greens or various right wing libertarians people are like "lol no that's mad loony lefty etc"
    Sounds good to me. It does also require the size of the state to be significantly smaller (which it was at around an 8th of what it is now).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's what's called progress. Conservatism of today is the progressive of a century ago
    More like 5 years ago.

    Its not progress. The next 20 years will make that even more clear than it is now.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    More proof Corbyn is not taking this seriously and probably just wants out of the job as quick as possible. Why else would you appoint a Stalin apologist as your head of comms?

    Here's a taste of Milne's work

    https://shirazsocialist.wordpress.co...sing-millions/
    I don't understand how he can claim to be leader of Her Majesty's Opposition when he refused to meet her because he was "have a week off" after being leader for a month or so!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That's what's called progress. Conservatism of today is the progressive of a century ago
    I think youre mixing up the words degeneracy and progress with eachother
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Although I disagree with you, you make some good points. However:

    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)

    Which didn't entail having your children spend most of the week in state schooling where left-wing teachers tell them exactly how to think..

    .
    To be honest I'd rather my kid went to the most painful Owen Jones style multi cultural school than in a faith school- where he can learn about first hand child abuse and that an invisible dictator watches over him...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What does Bornblue make of Corbyns choice I wonder?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    What does Bornblue make of Corbyns choice I wonder?
    Somewhere between what Corbyn thinks and the hysterical media over-reactions on here and in the media.

    I'm more concerned about Cameron's choice to remove tax credits from some of the lowest paid in society..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Somewhere between what Corbyn thinks and the hysterical media over-reactions on here and in the media.

    I'm more concerned about Cameron's choice to remove tax credits from some of the lowest paid in society..
    Do you not think that much like the fiscal u turn debacle this is an own goal which prevents the opposition from effectively holding the government to account?

    I mean, I don't think you can even blame the right wing media on this one- the guy is pretty controversial.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 23, 2015
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.