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

What is you're view on the celebrations of Margaret thatcher's death? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katehlouise)
    I think it's disgusting. Now I wasn't alive when she was PM and I don't really know the full extent of what she did, but she's still a person. She had family. To celebrate a persons death is horrible. At least have the decency to stay quiet with the hate.



    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Thats a pretty crap excuse, Hitler and Stalin also had families of their own.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    My mother hasn't done a thing to harm this country. The same unfortunately cannot be said for Thatcher, yet the media canonize her, forgetting that large sections of society hated and still hated her. It's pure hypocrisy. Like I said, by all means, lover her if you want! But don't bring the argument of respect into this when she showed nothing but contempt for many. How can I respect a woman that told us what a lovely man Pinochet was? That supported Pol Pot for godsake!

    Her economic policies were a short term solution, in the long run our economy is weak and in tatters. Did we enter a golden age of green energy once she closed down all those pits? No, 50% of British energy was produced from foreign coal last year. Also I recognise that austerity is needed from a Capitalist perspective to stop the system collapsing, I also recognise that Keynesianism or quantitative easing or anything else doesn't work. Also it depends what we mean by "work". If we define a working system as one where the top percentage of the wealthy increase their riches by more than the current deficit, while ordinary working wages slowly decrease, living costs increase, while the progressive advances of the past 70 years are also being stripped back, then yes Capitalism works 100%. It might appear meaningless to you atm, but watch as life in Britain gradually becomes more and more difficult, people won't stand for it.

    Well she was pulling Major's strings, she was a strong supporter of the Iraq war, and her ideology and influence lives on, in both Labour and Conservative, and the culture of greed and selfishness we see today. Also the financial de-regulation that allowed bankers to gamble away public money. Also the severe shortages of industry we have in the British economy. Thatcherism didn't end with Thatcher.

    What has Scargill done to harm British people? Thatcher used the full force of the British state to crush the miners and the unions. 6 billion pounds were used in total, and I don't think that includes the legislation passed to deprive striking miner's families of benefits, literally starving them into submission. It's a bad comparison. Tell me that wasn't hatred, tell me calling fellow British citizens the "enemy within isn't hate". And I'm the one pushing "hateful rhetoric"? Of course it wasn't hate for hate's sake but a desire to crush the working class and advance her own agenda. I'm not a miner, and I don't pretend to have lived through what some of them have gone through, but I empathise. I hate her personally because of the consequences of her actions, it's as simple as that really. And do I don't hate the middle or upper classes either, and I certainly don't hate you! In fact Steevee I've found you one of the more respectful members of TSR right wing, if you don't mind me describing you as such. Also as a Marxist I believe there are only 2 main classes, the working class (whoever provides their labour power for a wage) and the ruling class (whoever owns the means of production) so I don't draw any distinction between me and you.

    I think this will be my last reply since I've spent more time arguing about Thatcher on Facebook and TSR than revising for my exams, which probably is a bad idea.
    I'm sure there are people who have felt wronged by your mother at some point in her life, how would you feel if they celebrated her death? And to add to that, your problem is with Thatcher's government's legacy. She was removed from politics by 30 years, if she'd died in office, perhaps you would have had some justification, but as it is? No, it's disgusting. There is no hypocrisy, it's a custom. When someone dies, you pay your respects to them, if you have none to pay, you keep silent. You don't start dancing around telling everyone how much you hated them. But it seems common decency is lost on you as you didn't personally know her, which is a very sad statement about you. The compassionate Left everyone, that so cares for everyone, except those who disagree with them.

    Our economy is weak and in tatters? Have you seen our GDP lately? Our economy is anything but in tatters, typical hyperbole from the Left. Are we in a worldwide economic spot of turbulence? Yes, of course we are, it's slowing growth and so on, noone wil deny that. But what would you have then done, in 1979? When the Unions would make no concession, when they were holding the nation to ransom. And to add, in what world do you suppose the closures of the Pits were done for environmental reasons? :lolwut:

    Ah, so someone had a legacy in Politics? Well blow me down :rolleyes: And do define 'a severe shortage of industry.' What are you going to throw around? A comparison to the German model? And the areas of unemployment? If so, then I'd refer you back to my earlier question as regards the utterly failing industry Thatcher inherited. The move toward a service based economy and the financial sector kept us relevant in the world and is what allowed us to stay in the top ten for world GDP. If you think we'd be there without Thatcher's actions against the Unions and about industry you are utterly mad.

    Why was he labelled such? Shall we examine his conduct? He demanded a payrise that he knew he could never achieve, purely in order to precipitate strikes. When he could not achieve a majority for strike action, he called strikes anyway. He activley encouraged striking miners to force other mines to close, despite the fact their workers wished to work. He made a situation over pay into a full scale class war, it was his escalation first, Thatcher merely responded. Scargill was the head of a movement literally holding the nation to ransom, he was an enemy within. As much as you guys hate the phrase, he was threatening the security of the nation.

    I suppose your Marxist view is what drives the 'Them and Us' attitude you display, I understand it, but I cannot agree to it. It's a gross over-simplification of the real world situation, as you would expect from Utopian, untested ideology and it cannot handle the stresses of being applied to the real world, which is why discourse breaks down into the 'Us and Them' demonisation we've seen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    ...
    If you want a reply to that, you'll have to make an effort to reply in the style that is custom to TSR, that is, either quoting each of the poster's points individually and replying between the quotes, or quoting it in one lump and writing it all at the bottom. So the person replying can just press quote and doesn't have to make a huge effort fixing the post by copying and pasting before he has even begun to reply.

    Looking at many of your responses though, I bet you can't justify many of those statements.

    Example - why do you use such reserved language for Wilson, yet don't hold back when mentioning Thatcher?

    Wilson closed many more mines than Thatcher. He put almost double the numbers of miners out of work than Thatcher did.

    Do you have a drink on the anniversary of his death? Did you ever go and dance on his grave?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack93o)
    Thats a pretty crap excuse, Hitler and Stalin also had families of their own.
    Do you think Margaret Thatcher was as bad as Hitler or Stalin?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ihatebrownbread)
    Do you think Margaret Thatcher was as bad as Hitler or Stalin?
    objectively, no obviously

    but I was really making the point that while it can be argue that the 'majority' of their country people were better off as a result of their leadership, theres no denying that millions suffered hugely and its understandable that these people would rejoice in their deaths
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Margaret Thatcher loved personal attacks. She said that it meant that she knew she was doing the right thing, because her opponents had nothing else left.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the celebrations are distasteful and show those people in a poor light.

    Mrs Thatcher Gave Us Nasty Medicine


    George Galloway outdid himself in uncouth loutishness by commenting on the death of Margaret Thatcher : "Tramp down the dirt."
    Notice the sexist sub-text there - "tramp" is an insulting world for a woman, a synonym for "slut" and many other sexist terms were applied to Mrs Thatcher in her time. B**ch, c**t, the whole lot.
    I never voted for Mrs Thatcher and I never liked her style, but I was younger and more ignorant then. Having grown up in a world where there were strikes and bombings on the news every week, I regarded that as normal. I did not realize that Britain, once a world power, was going downhill faster than a snowball on skis.
    To understand Mrs Thatcher's career, and her historical importance - which is immense - you have to realize that the Labour movement in Britain had already failed when she was elected in 1979. Of course you can't expect Labour supporters to admit that, but it is true. The Labour movement had broken down completely, as large and powerful unions defied the decisions of a series of Labour Prime ministers. Jim Callaghan could not handle the unions that were reducing the country to chaos any more than Edward Heath could do. They were both ineffectual. The country was in a state of dysfunction, torn by incessant strikes and crippled by inflation. When Thatcher came to power, inflation was running at more than 20% and the cycle of inflation-strike-inflation was spiralling out of control....
    [read more http://juliagasper.blogspot.co.uk/20...-medicine.html ]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I didn't. Merely called those of the left who are celebrating to be bigoted and blinkered. I never said this was the case with everyone on the left.

    As I have already said, capitalism is not ideal, but socialism is worse. That's why capitalism works for all of the world's top economies.

    Regardless of whether small groups of people are trying communism on a small scale, so what? I think we all know the way that always has ended up on the end, particularly when applied to national politics.
    How can you be so sure that socialism or communism could not work? Surely there are come conditions - albeit in the far off future - in which they could work more successfully than capitalism? And how does capitalism "work"? By keeping people moderately peaceful and out of poverty?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NadezhdaK)
    How can you be so sure that socialism or communism could not work? Surely there are come conditions - albeit in the far off future - in which they could work more successfully than capitalism? And how does capitalism "work"? By keeping people moderately peaceful and out of poverty?
    Evidence based lessons of history.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Evidence based lessons of history.
    History is an incredibly vast thing and I would argue otherwise. When people think communism, they think Russia, China and Korea. That isn't communism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know absolutely nothing about politics, and so i know very little about Margret Thatcher as a politician. However, from what i understand she made some bad decisions that caused suffering for many people. However i think the way people are behaving is disgusting. Many of the people celebrating were not alive during her time as PM. Similarly many of them have no idea why they are really on the streets celebrating and are simply following the crowd. I wonder if these people have considered her family and how this will affect them at an already difficult time. They can't help who their mother or granny etc. is. How would these people feel if people celebrated the passing of their own mother?

    I feel that if people cannot be respectful for the sake of Baroness Thatcher, they should be respectful for the sake of her immediate family and friends.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NadezhdaK)
    History is an incredibly vast thing and I would argue otherwise. When people think communism, they think Russia, China and Korea. That isn't communism.
    LOL, of course it is.

    Once parasites get too greedy, their host dies, and Communism fails. When you hear a Communist talking about how Communism hasn't been tried the right way, they mean no one has figured out how to keep the host alive while the parasites feed.

    You don't understand that your fairlyland doesn't exist, and neither does a Communist/Socialist utopia anywhere in the world.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    LOL, of course it is.

    Once parasites get too greedy, their host dies, and Communism fails. When you hear a Communist talking about how Communism hasn't been tried the right way, they mean no one has figured out how to keep the host alive while the parasites feed.

    You don't understand that your fairlyland doesn't exist, and neither does a Communist/Socialist utopia anywhere in the world.
    Describing the USSR as communist is like describing Pinochet's Chile as libertarian.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Describing the USSR as communist is like describing Pinochet's Chile as libertarian.
    LOL!

    Basically whatever criticism people have of Communism, you are GUARANTEED that a Communist will answer - Of *COURSE* that wasn't *REALLY* Communism... DUH! They just did it wrong!

    Still can't get away from the fact that every time people tried it around the world, it ended up going wrong though.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    LOL!

    Basically whatever criticism people have of Communism, you are GUARANTEED that a Communist will answer - Of *COURSE* that wasn't *REALLY* Communism... DUH! They just did it wrong!

    Still can't get away from the fact that every time people tried it around the world, it ended up going wrong though.
    Let's see. Stateless? Nope. Classless? Nope. Moneyless? Nope.

    Perhaps you could explain the ways it was communist? Could you do that for me?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Let's see. Stateless? Nope. Classless? Nope. Moneyless? Nope.

    Perhaps you could explain the ways it was communist? Could you do that for me?
    Again with "It wasn't Communism" :rolleyes:

    Communism is all well and good in theory, but in practice it's nothing but an extreme form of capitalism without even the most basic freedoms, rights and liberties.

    Communism is only ever praised by those at the top of the gravy train, and by those who have never experienced *true* Communism - the reality, not that found in their copy of the Ladybird book of Communism.

    It suits certain people because like religion, it tells you what to think so you don't have to.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Again with "It' wasn't Communism" :rolleyes:
    But it wasn't. And you seem unable to explain how it was. You don't get to change the definition of Communism to suit your argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Again with "It wasn't Communism" :rolleyes:

    Communism is all well and good in theory, but in practice it's nothing but an extreme form of capitalism without even the most basic freedoms, rights and liberties.

    Communism is only ever praised by those at the top of the gravy train, and by those who have never experienced *true* Communism - the reality, not that found in their copy of the Ladybird book of Communism.

    It suits certain people because like religion, it tells you what to think so you don't have to.
    I don't believe communism is something that can be achieved by a sudden revolution forced by a select number of individuals, as was the case in Russia. Communism should be a very gradual process, an evolution. This is the ideology, and we know that we can't make a utopia overnight. But nevertheless it's important to keep a vision, something to highlight our current flaws, if anything, so that instead of arguing for far-left and far-right, we use our brains and energy to come together and try to aim towards something a little fairer and a little better.

    Perhaps in the process, as we are seeing today, more people will chose to live in small-scale communes, but that would just be my presumption for the far-off future. But I believe that in the mean time, we don't fight over extremes but try to agree for something to aim towards open-mindedly. It's not the same thing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NadezhdaK)
    I don't believe communism is something that can be achieved by a sudden revolution forced by a select number of individuals, as was the case in Russia. Communism should be a very gradual process, an evolution. This is the ideology, and we know that we can't make a utopia overnight. But nevertheless it's important to keep a vision, something to highlight our current flaws, if anything, so that instead of arguing for far-left and far-right, we use our brains and energy to come together and try to aim towards something a little fairer and a little better.

    Perhaps in the process, as we are seeing today, more people will chose to live in small-scale communes, but that would just be my presumption for the far-off future. But I believe that in the mean time, we don't fight over extremes but try to agree for something to aim towards open-mindedly. It's not the same thing.
    This is all wishful thinking.

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    But it wasn't. And you seem unable to explain how it was. You don't get to change the definition of Communism to suit your argument.
    You're the one trying to make out that all those Communist / Socialist failed states weren't really Communist at all so I have to laugh at how you are claiming *I* am the one redefining Communism.

    It was the ones who defined Communism at the beginning with who started all this off in the very country who you are trying to argue wasn't really Communist in the first place, and it was somehow corrupted.

    Wow, big surprise that some people wanted to be better than others in a society where everyone was supposed to be equal when they saw that actually, they weren't equal at all.

    They tried it, and failed, and do you know why? Because humans like owning stuff. They like working to improve themselves, not for the good of society, but for the good of themselves and their families. Combine this and Communism and you end up with an elite walking on top of the workers, all of whom will be poor.

    Socialists like yourself view successful people's achievements with jealousy, and as something that has cost other citizens' their prosperity. But when you look around at high achievers in your own circles, how many times is that truly the case?

    In my experience, these people have usually worked very hard, investing years of their lives, and often, jeopardised their immediate financial security for years on end, as they’ve gradually built a career, or whatever they’ve focused their efforts on.

    Entrepreneurs aren’t convenient to a system where no one is supposed to dream bigger or have a better life than anyone else. Nor is anyone else who is more ambitious than average, works harder or just happens to be luckier.

    That's the thing, Socialism and Communism don't work to improve people, it works to keep them all the same. So you are left with the lowest common denominator. It doesn't work, primarily because it's beneficiaries don't. What Socialist proponents fail to realise is you always end up spending other people's money to pay for it.

    I await your inevitable reply which will ignore everything I have just said and continue to claim that every single time in human history that Communism has tried to raise its head, it's not *real* Communism, so why don't we just give it a try again - this time it might work. :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    This is all wishful thinking.
    "Wishful thinking" is the only way to progress. That's what I got from history, anyway. Everything, from American Civil Rights, to medical progress, has always been dismissed by some as "too good to be true", or perhaps more accurately, to ever work. And yet, to a large degree, it has.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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

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