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

Why don't left-wing radicals start a revolution in Britain? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Because people don't want to be arrested and imprisoned.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why would democrats be wary of left wing revolutionaries? Why would people who love liberty want to put them in jail? What is the threat?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It will never happen. People don't want it and rightly so. Move to Cuba if you want to live in a left wing paradise.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Nazism was an epitome of big government. So was socialism.

    The (economic) far right want a small as possible government. Not a 'dear leader'.
    And so we come to the whole left-right problem again. Actually, until it started to be co-opted by conservatives in the 1970s, classical liberalism was almost never considered to be on the right of the spectrum. Originally it was considered to be on the left - for example, Frederic Bastiat always sat on the left side of the French National Assembly. As socialism became more prominent, it shifted to either being seen as on the centre (as modern liberalism was starting to take off too) or not really fitting on the spectrum at all.

    Socialism and social democracy grew out of the revolutionary socialist (at this time most of them didn't call themselves 'anarchist') movement which desired the abolition of the state. Anything less is a compromise of the idea of socialism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    What is the outcome of a left wing revolution? It is either internationalist or nationalist socialism. Would you want either option?Attachment 208330
    Not really a good spectrum. Firstly, if you asked anarchists if they were internationalist and socialist they'd overwhelmingly say yes.

    Secondly, early 20th century fascism was, in general, a very reactionary and conservative movement. Nazism, which gets most of the attention, was a slight exception.

    Thirdly, minor things like Labour and the SNP apparently being closer to dictatorship than Russia? Oh and the BBC....

    The media are largely to blame for people being socialist
    Haha, that was a good one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    And so we come to the whole left-right problem again. Actually, until it started to be co-opted by conservatives in the 1970s, classical liberalism was almost never considered to be on the right of the spectrum. Originally it was considered to be on the left - for example, Frederic Bastiat always sat on the left side of the French National Assembly. As socialism became more prominent, it shifted to either being seen as on the centre (as modern liberalism was starting to take off too) or not really fitting on the spectrum at all.

    Socialism and social democracy grew out of the revolutionary socialist (at this time most of them didn't call themselves 'anarchist') movement which desired the abolition of the state. Anything less is a compromise of the idea of socialism.
    I couldn't care less who sat where hundreds of years ago or the intricacies of the left. I go by economic terms; right wing = private ownership, left wing = state ownership. Everything else is just hot air.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Because they can't even achieve 5x GCSEs?
    Actually I did that, while having terrible family issues at the time.

    I'm not bragging, just contradicting your generalisation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    I couldn't care less who sat where hundreds of years ago or the intricacies of the left. I go by economic terms; right wing = private ownership, left wing = state ownership. Everything else is just hot air.
    False dichotomy; it doesn't leave room for rejecting both 'state' and 'private' ownership or seeing them as the same thing.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    What I find hypocritical, about such people, is that they live such comfortable lives, doing so little to help GENUINELY needy people. I mean, how much do they give to charity? It's all very well going on about how unfair unequal wealth is, whilst living comfortably in a large house, with everything you need. Even the poor in this country, are relatively rich, in terms of the entire world.

    Hating the privileges others have, yet ignoring the ones THEY have. Go and live in poverty-stricken parts of Africa, and THEN you'll have room to talk.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    False dichotomy; it doesn't leave room for rejecting both 'state' and 'private' ownership or seeing them as the same thing.
    What you advocate is not private ownership (if I remember correctly). Despite the absence of a government, you're still collectivising. That still falls into the right-left economic paradigm.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    Ha converts are always the most zealous, please share with us your veiw of a better governed (national socialist???) Britain.
    Not National Socialist, just Nationlist with strong Fascist aspects.

    Essentially look at all UKIP and EDL policies, take out the racist thuggery and move them more right, mix it with Mussolini's Italty prior to him stupidly getting involved with WW2 and pandering to Hitlers anti-semetism.

    In actuality like most Fascist's my views are a lot more complex than that on many issues, but that's a good enough starting point considering im to tired to type.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    What I find hypocritical, about such people, is that they live such comfortable lives, doing so little to help GENUINELY needy people. I mean, how much do they give to charity? It's all very well going on about how unfair unequal wealth is, whilst living comfortably in a large house, with everything you need. Even the poor in this country, are relatively rich, in terms of the entire world.

    Hating the privileges others have, yet ignoring the ones THEY have. Go and live in poverty-stricken parts of Africa, and THEN you'll have room to talk.....
    Some people analyse what's happening in the capitalist world and deduce that the existence of huge inequality is an inevitable result of the way the system is structured, with very large ownership of productive wealth by a tiny minority and the rest excluded from capital. This then leads to the conclusion that the best way to get on the side of those who have no access to capital is to plot a way to overthrow the system.

    To quote Brazilian Liberation Theologist Helder Camara: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."

    Revolutions tend to happen after wars or during other periods when there is very large social dislocation and either conditions of famine or of profound poverty and the ability of some groups to organise. Things have to get quite extreme generally before people will feel angry enough to take up weapons and go on the offensive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Not National Socialist, just Nationlist with strong Fascist aspects.

    Essentially look at all UKIP and EDL policies, take out the racist thuggery and move them more right, mix it with Mussolini's Italty prior to him stupidly getting involved with WW2 and pandering to Hitlers anti-semetism.

    In actuality like most Fascist's my views are a lot more complex than that on many issues, but that's a good enough starting point considering im to tired to type.
    I wasn't aware there was anything but racist thuggery in EDL policies. So basically an isolated nationalist militaristic country... almost like North Korea without the commuunist label?

    Who should be our exalted leader, you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The left forces people into an unhealthy predicament within their own societies. Where they only LOSE. Left with the scraps. Then their defence is 'get over' or 'it doesn't matter'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    What I find hypocritical, about such people, is that they live such comfortable lives, doing so little to help GENUINELY needy people. I mean, how much do they give to charity? It's all very well going on about how unfair unequal wealth is, whilst living comfortably in a large house, with everything you need. Even the poor in this country, are relatively rich, in terms of the entire world.

    Hating the privileges others have, yet ignoring the ones THEY have. Go and live in poverty-stricken parts of Africa, and THEN you'll have room to talk.....
    Unfortunately, being in a capitalist world, they don't have very good opportunities to live as they would like to. You'd probably find that it is mostly capitalists who live 'the good life'. Plus, moving to Africa wouldn't demonstrate anything, it is totally different to a socialist world. Ideally, a socialist country would allow EVERYBODY to live well and leave nobody in poverty, something charity work alone cannot do since the people we try to help live in economies which benefit from their oppression.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    'Cos they aren't that many. Only a tiny percentage of the people are in favour of a revolution (and an even tinier percentage has any power whatever). Simple as. Why they don't want a revolution is a good question. But it's quite clear why radicals can't start one.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    What you advocate is not private ownership (if I remember correctly). Despite the absence of a government, you're still collectivising. That still falls into the right-left economic paradigm.
    Not necessarily collectivising; workers' self-management doesn't preclude the possibility of an individual enterprise such as a carpenter or artisan.

    And you yourself defined the left-right paradigm as state-private, so how does something that corresponds to neither fit into it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not necessarily collectivising; workers' self-management doesn't preclude the possibility of an individual enterprise such as a carpenter or artisan.

    And you yourself defined the left-right paradigm as state-private, so how does something that corresponds to neither fit into it?
    Would a carpenter be able to sell his goods and keep the profits? I'm struggling to understand what exactly you are for.

    When people can trade freely without intervention (that includes worker's management or whatever) that is a right wing economic cause. If you deviate from that you move to the left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Essentially look at all UKIP and EDL policies, take out the racist thuggery and move them more right
    Neither are racist.

    It is quite amusing that you are a fascist and your location is Sunderland!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    I wasn't aware there was anything but racist thuggery in EDL policies. So basically an isolated nationalist militaristic country... almost like North Korea without the commuunist label?

    Who should be our exalted leader, you?
    Islam isn't a race. Crying 'racist' lost its effect long ago. I suggest you find something more worthy of an insult.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.