MRLX69
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#41
Report 11 years ago
#41
(Original post by Socrates)
Shame it would never work.
Exactly - someone must rule. Then if that person gets killed, the killer inherits all the power of the previous ruler, there can be ooooooonly one.
0
reply
CartesianFart
Badges: 0
#42
Report 11 years ago
#42
(Original post by MRLX69)
Exactly - someone must rule. Then if that person gets killed, the killer inherits all the power of the previous ruler, there can be ooooooonly one.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a "shared power" between two rulers?
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#43
Report 11 years ago
#43
I think he's saying that he likes films of a dubious quality
0
reply
undercover agent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 11 years ago
#44
in my opinion being right-wing means a person has an in-built desire to see others oppressed, and yes it is also very much about self-interest.

I cannot help but be suspicious of people with very conservative political views and I cannot help but question their integrity as a person. Because by its very definition to be right-wing is to be somewhat devoid of conscience and empathy, in my opinion.
0
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report 11 years ago
#45
(Original post by mark renton)
in my opinion being right-wing means a person has an in-built desire to see others oppressed, and yes it is also very much about self-interest.

I cannot help but be suspicious of people with very conservative political views and I cannot help but question their integrity as a person. Because by its very definition to be right-wing is to be somewhat devoid of conscience and empathy, in my opinion.
Yet leftists want to see more state control... odd, huh.

Out of conservatives and leftists, who do you think gives more money to charitable causes?
0
reply
Collingwood
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 11 years ago
#46
I don't think "right wing" is a very meaningful political label. When you start lumping fascists togethers with classic liberals, you should start getting suspicious.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#47
Report 11 years ago
#47
(Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
Yet leftists want to see more state control... odd, huh.

Out of conservatives and leftists, who do you think gives more money to charitable causes?
Interestingly, it's possible to see charity (as a concept) as part of the hegemony of inequality; charity doesn't so much challenge the various forces which render people in need of charity as contribute to their perpetuation by ameliorating (sp?) their impact.
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#48
Report 11 years ago
#48
(Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
Yet leftists want to see more state control... odd, huh.
Depends what breed of left you happen to be.

(Original post by Socrates)
Shame it would never work.
Would never happen now It may do in the future.
0
reply
The Solitary Reaper
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#49
Report 11 years ago
#49
(Original post by ukebert)
Depends what breed of left you happen to be.
Give me an example of a leftist that doesn't want economic control to whatever degree? :p:
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#50
Report 11 years ago
#50
(Original post by The Solitary Reaper)
Give me an example of a leftist that doesn't want economic control to whatever degree? :p:
Anarchist.
0
reply
The Solitary Reaper
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#51
Report 11 years ago
#51
(Original post by ukebert)
Anarchist.
Is anarchism really leftist though? Many modern anarchists are active in rejecting "left" as being entirely inappropriate.

Certainly, it seems more than absurd to class communism and anarchism on the same 'wing'.
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#52
Report 11 years ago
#52
(Original post by The Solitary Reaper)
Is anarchism really leftist though? Many modern anarchists are active in rejecting "left" as being entirely inappropriate.

Certainly, it seems more than absurd to class communism and anarchism on the same 'wing'.
If you look at it from the political compass point of view it makes more sense, but I get what you mean.

There are such things as left libertarians and so on.
0
reply
tractorboy1990
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 11 years ago
#53
I think some people here are getting confused, and bundling all left wingers into wanting more total state control. I personally think the state should have more economic control, to reduce income inequality and reduce poverty. Despite this, I would like to see the state have less control over the social aspects. There's a big difference between social and economic.

Also, to the right-wingers saying that 'capitalism gives more to charities', well, frankly it's (i dont want to swear!) as the need for charities is greatly increased if you can't be bothered to look after the poorer members of society!

And whoever said that having less taxes and a freer market makes society richer as a whole needs to look at the Thatcher government who proved that 'Trickle-down' economics doesn't work!!
0
reply
darktidus
Badges: 0
#54
Report 11 years ago
#54
(Original post by The Solitary Reaper)
Is anarchism really leftist though? Many modern anarchists are active in rejecting "left" as being entirely inappropriate.
They just don't like being associated with Stalinists and the Democrat party in the same way one presumes many Tories don't like being grouped together with fascists.

(Original post by The Solitary Reaper)
Certainly, it seems more than absurd to class communism and anarchism on the same 'wing'.
Why? Libertarian Marxism and Left-communism have very much in common with anarchism.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#55
Report 11 years ago
#55
(Original post by tractorboy1990)
I think some people here are getting confused, and bundling all left wingers into wanting more total state control. I personally think the state should have more economic control, to reduce income inequality and reduce poverty. Despite this, I would like to see the state have less control over the social aspects. There's a big difference between social and economic.
Unfortunately for you, there's no real difference between a state having 'economic control' and 'social control' - they're just two sides of the same coin, namely coercion.

On top of this, you dearly need to read The Road to Serfdom if you think there's any chance of a government having the restraint to regulate only the 'economic sphere' of life while leaving the social side free. Once a state has that sort of power over its citizens' lives there's no going back, as history has shown time and time again.

Also, to the right-wingers saying that 'capitalism gives more to charities', well, frankly it's (i dont want to swear!) as the need for charities is greatly increased if you can't be bothered to look after the poorer members of society!
Yes, the need for charity is greatly increased if there is no organised centralised state coercion and 'redistributive' theft. But this might well explain why the right are much more willing to give to charity in the first place, because they realise this. I'm not sure how you get from my position of 'it's moral, and even morally necessary, to give money to those less well off but immoral to force others to do the same' to 'I can't be bothered to look after the poor.' In fact, it's the right who can be bothered to look after the poor, and they show this by putting their money where their mouth is. It's all very easy to claim you're dedicated to helping those less well off when you're taking other people's money to do so.

And whoever said that having less taxes and a freer market makes society richer as a whole needs to look at the Thatcher government who proved that 'Trickle-down' economics doesn't work!!
Apart from the fact that Thatcherism did wonders for the stagnant economy (ever heard any stories from the 70s? how about 3 day working weeks with no electricity half the time), I don't think any of us libertarians are claiming that she was our ideal government. It's a bit like us saying that Communism/strictly enforced egalitarianism certainly just makes society poorer (much as I hate that expression) - just look at the Soviet government! Or the North Korean government, or the Cuban government, or the Chinese government before the reforms, or...
0
reply
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#56
Report 11 years ago
#56
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Unfortunately for you, there's no real difference between a state having 'economic control' and 'social control' they're just two sides of the same coin, namely coercion.
The classic anarchist line...there is a difference and it is real. You (or anyone else) denying it doesn't change that. For example, governments in Britain have exercised control over the markets (through regulation etc) but that has not necessarily translated into social control, and even under New Labour, social control is becoming increasingly common, it is not linked to economic control (because like it or not, the market does not regulate itself).
0
reply
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#57
Report 11 years ago
#57
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Never is a long time... maybe not in the Feudal ages, but I see no reason why a modern, technologically advanced, post-enlightenment civilisation couldn't operate perfectly well without a central government.
Two words: human nature.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#58
Report 11 years ago
#58
(Original post by Socrates)
Two words: human nature.
And aside from that we have to ask ourselves why human history seems to show a general drift towards ever more substantive and 'involved' government, whether of a liberal, conservative or socialist orientation. It might just be that social, material and technological 'advance' is very much related to such historical transformations.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#59
Report 11 years ago
#59
(Original post by Socrates)
Two words: human nature.
How so? If anything, governments exacerbate the worse aspects of human nature by offering more power in one place than you can get any other way.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#60
Report 11 years ago
#60
(Original post by Oswy)
And aside from that we have to ask ourselves why human history seems to show a general drift towards ever more substantive and 'involved' government, whether of a liberal, conservative or socialist orientation. It might just be that social, material and technological 'advance' is very much related to such historical transformations.
Except that you have to realise that the vast majority of technological innovations that improve peoples' lives (and yeah, that is what real advance is, no scare quotes needed) come from... you guessed it, the free market and the profit motive. At any rate I think historicism has been refuted pretty thoroughly, not just theoretically but empirically too. Which is why it's hard to find any Marxists even (Oswy excepted, of course) who believe in it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (109)
17.99%
It's just nice to be back! (163)
26.9%
Not great so far... (217)
35.81%
I want to drop out! (117)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All