Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    Because I am personally not a very good political strategist and i am limited on to what i can say on paper because of my extremely terrible spelling doesn't make my arguments any less valid. But my first step would be to tackle the dogma surrounding the left and to have a socialist candidate in all consticasys (sorry) from there it's just campaigning and trying more mps and smps of that view point into parliament.
    So you'd basically not have democracy? You can't force socialism on people. By introducing a socialist candidate in every constituency, whether they like it or not, you're forcing people into it. That's not democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    So you'd basically not have democracy? You can't force socialism on people. By introducing a socialist candidate in every constituency, whether they like it or not, you're forcing people into it. That's not democracy.
    Wait what! When did i say that wasn't just talking about a democratic process of slowly building up support for that goal?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn!)
    The West? Hahaha. Laugh when I hear people use this phase, as if you speak for Americans/Canadians, etc. They have nothing to do with this.

    In fact, my arguments probably would not conflict with your own. I'm not a left wing liberal at all. I don't really care how much or how little immigration you think there should be. In fact, the immigration debate does not interest me at all. I just like trolling people strung up about immigration, they can be spotted a mile away and it's a lot of fun.

    By all means, continue with your anti-immigration views. My own views are far different and far more extreme than any you could hold. So nothing you say would shock/offend me anyway.

    I enjoy reading posts like yours. Fuel for the fire.
    Generally speaking Western Europe and the USA/Canada have had reasonbly congruent aims in the last century, and more often than not when people will talk about colonialism they'll bring in a neo-colonilaist argument, if you wish to be more specific then be so.

    Why do you think my views are anti-immigration? They're not at all, they're anti-uncontrolled-immigration. It's like calling someone who is against having a ton of stray dogs running around a person who is anti-dog. It makes no sense unless you're trying to villify someone.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    Wait what! When did i say that wasn't just talking about a democratic process of slowly building up support for that goal?
    Because you said that there should have to be a socialist candidate in every singel constituency. If a constituency is not interested in socialism, you can't make them be.

    Also, we have the freedom to choose whatever politics we want. How exactly would one go about increasing support for socialism.

    Socialism doesn't have any answers to solving world poverty either. No one does, because it can't be done.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Because you said that there should have to be a socialist candidate in every singel constituency. If a constituency is not interested in socialism, you can't make them be.

    Also, we have the freedom to choose whatever politics we want. How exactly would one go about increasing support for socialism.

    Socialism doesn't have any answers to solving world poverty either. No one does, because it can't be done.
    Yes but they don't have to win, it would be nice if they did however
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AvocatDuDiable)
    I don't understand why people take pride in themselves because of their race.

    Sure, every nationality has made great achievements in some way or another and these achievements deserve to be celebrated. But being proud because you're British surely doesn't make sense.

    How is your race something to be proud of? It's something you were born into by chance. Being British doesn't reflect your personal achievements or make you deserving of respect.

    Here, here I agree.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    Yes but they don't have to win, it would be nice if they did however
    They have the right to. But they don't. That shows that Britain obviously isn't interested in socialism right now.

    Not that socialism is actually proposing any great solutions to poverty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Your interpretation of nationalism is rather different from mine.

    For me nationalism is being proud of your culture, and embracing its values acknowledging those values to be better than other peoples. To give an example just as we see giving women rights and embracing such mentality to be good. In addition to this nationalism is being proud of what your ancestors have done, and not acting snobby or discriminatory because of it but trying to live up to what they have done. I think one of the key reasons why I am proud to be a nationalist is because I have the capacity to give my life to something greater than myself.

    I have more to say but I only have short amount of time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To the guys debating immigration I believe immigration should be heavily controlled and a country should allow only those with value to add to the wealth of all to immigrate. I am talking about artisans and scientists and businessman. This is coming from a Turk that is going to high tail it out of here in 4 years time (pray to god).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    They have the right to. But they don't. That shows that Britain obviously isn't interested in socialism right now.

    Not that socialism is actually proposing any great solutions to poverty.
    First of all we have gone so off topic it's crazy (fun though).
    Secondly i think it does, think how much money we are wasting on paying the extra value put onto resources for profit. If we had a one way currency, there would be no profit => thus goods are cheaper => thus people don't need to be payed so much => thus goods are cheaper and more people can afford.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "I'm proud to be black"

    "Right on !"
    "Good on ya!"
    "Proud of you"

    ---

    "I'm proud to be white"

    "****ing white supremacist"
    "Racist KKK!"
    "
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's ok to be proud of where you come from (as long as I'm not constantly reminded), however I think it's ridiculous when people take it so far as to think they're superior because of their race.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Gray Wolf)
    To the guys debating immigration I believe immigration should be heavily controlled and a country should allow only those with value to add to the wealth of all to immigrate. I am talking about artisans and scientists and businessman. This is coming from a Turk that is going to high tail it out of here in 4 years time (pray to god).
    Agreed, that's pretty much my view.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    First of all we have gone so off topic it's crazy (fun though).
    Secondly i think it does, think how much money we are wasting on paying the extra value put onto resources for profit. If we had a one way currency, there would be no profit => thus goods are cheaper => thus people don't need to be payed so much => thus goods are cheaper and more people can afford.
    I know, but I guess it's all linked. Immigration is a bit of a rabbit hole!

    If there was a practical, employable and reasonable solution to world poverty, we'd go for it. But there clearly isn't. And to be honest, we're ruining the planet so much anyway that before too long we won't be able to help anyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    I know, but I guess it's all linked. Immigration is a bit of a rabbit hole!

    If there was a practical, employable and reasonable solution to world poverty, we'd go for it. But there clearly isn't. And to be honest, we're ruining the planet so much anyway that before too long we won't be able to help anyone.
    It could that people have tried (Lenin) but mucked it up. Looking back at our history what was the first industrial capitalist country?The British Empire. and what did they do. They went around taking over places. New racial ways of restructuring the ecomany of contrys have teveing issues. It doesn't help the left that their test runs didn't pop up in contries that had no culture of democracy.
    What i'm trying to say it's still in beta, don't score it until you get the full review copy!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    It could that people have tried (Lenin) but mucked it up. Looking back at our history what was the first industrial capitalist country?The British Empire. and what did they do. They went around taking over places. New racial ways of restructuring the ecomany of contrys have teveing issues. It doesn't the left that their test runs didn't pop up in contries that had no culture of democracy.
    What i'm trying to say it's still in beta, don't score it until you get the full review copy!
    It's still in beta because, right now, it's not a feasible policy.

    Ah well, I'm gonna go revise. Have a good night.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    It's still in beta because, right now, it's not a feasible policy.

    Ah well, I'm gonna go revise. Have a good night.
    Cool thanks it was a fun distraction from my chemistry
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    They have the right to. But they don't. That shows that Britain obviously isn't interested in socialism right now.

    Not that socialism is actually proposing any great solutions to poverty.
    In a world where most of the media is owned by oligarchs who very carefully plan and choose what is published and where we don't even have an electoral system that accurately reflects the true proportion of support for each party, you can hardly use general election results and candidates as a perfectly accurate representation of what 'Britain' is interested in. Even if you can, it's not what they're interested in without their opinions having already been shaped by frighteningly powerful media forces.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SorryInAdvance)
    It could that people have tried (Lenin) but mucked it up. Looking back at our history what was the first industrial capitalist country?The British Empire. and what did they do. They went around taking over places. New racial ways of restructuring the ecomany of contrys have teveing issues. It doesn't help the left that their test runs didn't pop up in contries that had no culture of democracy.
    What i'm trying to say it's still in beta, don't score it until you get the full review copy!
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    It's still in beta because, right now, it's not a feasible policy.
    A socialist state has never existed. No proto-socialist state has never been able to successfully implement its eventual goals ( (most marxist theoreticians have focused on the notion of socialism being implemented in stages, not the idea of OMG WE'VE REPLACED THE GOVERNMENT WE'RE SOCIALISTS NOW). I would argue, admittedly mostly inspired by very similar arguments made by George Orwell, that this is due to their existence within a capitalist world - leading to these states' inevitable corruption and a slide into a form of totalitarian oligarchal capitalism. A truly successful revolution would have to be worldwide, and would require a revolution of thought as much as it would the more pragmatic issue of the actual holding of power.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by halbeth)
    A socialist state has never existed. No proto-socialist state has never been able to successfully implement its eventual goals ( (most marxist theoreticians have focused on the notion of socialism being implemented in stages, not the idea of OMG WE'VE REPLACED THE GOVERNMENT WE'RE SOCIALISTS NOW). I would argue, admittedly mostly inspired by very similar arguments made by George Orwell, that this is due to their existence within a capitalist world - leading to these states' inevitable corruption and a slide into a form of totalitarian oligarchal capitalism. A truly successful revolution would have to be worldwide, and would require a revolution of thought as much as it would the more pragmatic issue of the actual holding of power.
    And therein lies the problem of realism. People have been looking otu for themselves since the dawn of mankind - it's natural. Marxism would require everyone to give that up - and that goes fully against nature.

    Anyway, I'm bored of this discussion now, it's been going on for days. Nice talking to you.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.