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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Neither are racist.
    The partys themselves are not, but there main activist base is(in terms of EDL) and UKIP are moving that way.

    Then again I did mispeak in some-ways as Fascism in many ways is inherently racist.

    It is quite amusing that you are a fascist and your location is Sunderland!
    Why so my friend?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    I wasn't aware there was anything but racist thuggery in EDL policies
    There policies are sound, but the basis for them isn't what I would agree with.
    Also I was reffering more to the support base and voters than the policy.

    So basically an isolated nationalist militaristic country... almost like North Korea without the commuunist label?
    Nothing like North Korea, Korea is a Communist Dictatorship, Fascist's immensely dislike communism and the aspects of Social Welfare and state ownership (while present) is nowhere near as large, it focus's more on the obligation to the state and has strong emphasis on privitaziation in many areas.


    Who should be our exalted leader, you?
    Why would you presume that?
    I am not an immensely charismatic individual, nor do I have any of the required skills required for successfully administrating a a Fascist state I would undoubtably be nothing more than a worker, possibly I would re-enlist in Military service if able, and at best a small business owner.

    Why you would suggest I am leader material is beyond me, heck the biggest non-military responsibility I have ever had is a few years as a Charity Event's organizer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    Why so my friend?
    I presume you didn't notice the media frenzy about Di Canio?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    I presume you didn't notice the media frenzy about Di Canio?
    Ohh!

    Yea heh, I have been watching that with a bit of scepticism.

    Happy milliband stepped down though, I mean he's a friendly guy from the few times ive met him, but not really a person I like active.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lordjord96)
    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
    Isn't that like saying doing anything is pointless because inevitably you'll lose? Why give to charity, we'll still live in a capitalist world? That's like saying why try and cure one person's aids because millions will still die because the disease is still rampant. Even if giving to charity 'only' saves a couple of lives at least its done something and proves you're trying to practice what you preach. Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire.

    And also, its not just the capitalists living the good life. The amount of musicians and actors that are self-proclaimed socialists is quite high. They could give a lot of their money away and still live very comfortably, but oddly chose not to, almost as if they're hypocrites? Like Billy 'I'm a communist me' Bragg. Lives in a 1.5 million mansion in the whitest part of Britain but still claims to be down with the working-classes and multiculturalism. No one is asking him to give away all his money and live on a Kibbutz, but he could give away half, even quarter of his money, and still afford a very nice 500k house in a suburb.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    anarchism101 : "Not really a good spectrum. Firstly, if you asked anarchists if they were internationalist and socialist they'd overwhelmingly say yes."

    Then they are not anarchists. Socialism, whether Fabian or Marxist is statist, it always ends up with a committee representing the folk and a leader of that committee.. Someone who calls themselves a socialist anarchist is just a footsoldier of the revolution that establishes tyranny.

    anarchism101: "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."

    The Nazi Party was a socialist party. I know that socialists blow a fuse at this - Stalin and Mao are OK but Hitler was not one of us - but look at the manifesto at the bottom of this post. Just look at Ba'athists and N.Koreans, they are Nazis but call themselves socialists and have been embraced by Soviets and Chinese alike. Just look at modern China, not a trace of Marx is left but they call themselves socialists - they are socialists, National Socialists like Nazis. Just look at 1939, Hitler and Stalin were allies. Hitler avowed that he was a socialist.

    anarchism101: "Thirdly, minor things like Labour and the SNP apparently being closer to dictatorship than Russia? Oh and the BBC...."

    Labour was exceedingly authoritarian in its legislative program in their last period in power. I know the Tories voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the extension of employer vicarious liability for opinions and speech in the Equality Act but that just shows the nature of conservatism, its almost as bad as socialism. We know little about Russia, it still holds elections but has an authoritarian government and is nationalist.

    The BBC is indeed polarising by being impartial, it always invites two sides to any debate even when one side are utter tyrants, giving the impression that the centre ground is on the edge of tyranny.

    Note:
    National Socialist Manifesto
    9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
    10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
    11. Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of debt slavery.
    12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
    13. We demand the nationalisation of all associated industries (trusts).
    14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
    15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
    17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

    These are very close to the Communist Manifesto.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    There just isn't any kind of group big enough to start a revolution. There isn't, whatever you may think.

    And by the way, a revolution has to be supported by a majority of the people, otherwise it will inevitably fail - especially one that tries to bring more equality to the population.
    If you look at the successful revolutions - whether the end of Communism in Easter Europe , or the 'Arab Spring', the key factor to success has been widespread public support .

    the support 'the radical Left' has in the UK consists of the following small groups

    - impressionable children ( including university students)
    - a few professional agitators - If the 'Socialist Worker Party' is for socialist workers how come there's so many of them free i nthe daytime to sell their litter tray liners ...
    - the Bitter and twisted remanents of those who were brainwashed by the unions in the 1970s and are still bitter about the euthanasia of their Public sector none job in nationalised Industry 30 years ago ( and their brainwashed offspring in some cases - but they are too lazy to get the jobs on their doorsteps)
    - the Idiot fringe of the TUC and the likes of Ken L and George G
    - various drug addled aging hippies

    Many People in work ( Public or Private Sector) , the 'client state' of New Labour simply would not support the radical Left and/or anarcho-syndicalists in their efforts at revolution

    the main issue would be do Dave and Nick have the stomach to
    a) Bring in Emergency powers at full strength
    b) Deploy troops to the streets of mainland to support the Police ( the Lefties will argue they did anyway - e.g. Orgreave )
    rather than just have a big push of PSUs to deal with protests / rioting ( using BTP, CNC and ModPlod PSUs in general policing - rather than location related) and use HMPS Tornado teams off HMPS property , UKBA enforcement teams and PCSOs for prisoner handling ... ( i.e. the Traffic warden with the SLR guarding the internment compouns in 'Threads' )
    c) let MI5 and 'them' perform decapitation actions on any organisation aobve the cell level ( the reason PIRA and others use the ASU / cell structure to minimise the impact of decapitation action)
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    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.
    I'm going to need to explain this the long way round in explaining this.

    There are three basic economic models in anarchism:
    1. Mutualism, or 'free market socialism': a free market economy consisting only of worker-controlled enterprises; no private property in the means of production.
    2. Participatory economics ('parecon' for short): as with mutualism, worker-controlled enterprises, but rather than a market economy they would come together and engage in decentralised, bottom-up planning.
    3. Gift economy, or 'full communism'.

    Your carpenter example would be mutualism, though most mutualists wouldn't refer to the proceeds as 'profit' because they associate profit with capitalism.

    As to whether people can 'trade freely without intervention', for mutualism the answer is simple: yes. So if you want to class mutualism as right-wing despite its opposition to private property go ahead, though most mutualists would disagree with such a classification.

    Advocates of parecon and gift economics would say it's a misleading question and argue that economies based on trade are the result of state intervention, not in opposition to it.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    If you look at the successful revolutions - whether the end of Communism in Easter Europe , or the 'Arab Spring', the key factor to success has been widespread public support.
    But if you look more closely at revolutions, that public support does not become apparent until the revolution has started, or even finished. Revolutions have often if not usually started before anyone has realised it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What about the tyranny part of the political spectrum. Who thinks the Nazis belong where they have been put? My reasons were that they had a socialist manifesto, called themselves socialists and, had they not attacked their erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union, might have been icons of modern socialism (and have won WWII).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	politicalspectrumtyranny.jpeg 
Views:	104 
Size:	90.6 KB 
ID:	208408
    Notice that Left and Right apply quite well within tyrannical socialism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    But if you look more closely at revolutions, that public support does not become apparent until the revolution has started, or even finished. Revolutions have often if not usually started before anyone has realised it.
    the UK , even after the belt tightening the coalition has been forced into by Brown's ridiculous overspending - still provides 'bread and circuses' ...

    it's their absence which allows revolutions to take hold - whether quiet or noisy revolution

    look at the Standards of living for the ordinary man or woman in the WarPac countries in the 1980s and you can see why the Warpac collapsed when the USSR could no longer promise and delivery to keep the support of it;s client states ...
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    anarchism101 : "Not really a good spectrum. Firstly, if you asked anarchists if they were internationalist and socialist they'd overwhelmingly say yes."

    Then they are not anarchists. Socialism, whether Fabian or Marxist is statist, it always ends up with a committee representing the folk and a leader of that committee.. Someone who calls themselves a socialist anarchist is just a footsoldier of the revolution that establishes tyranny.
    OK, so just go against what everyone (themselves included) actually considers anarchism to be about.

    Oh, and Marxism is anti-state. It has a ridiculous way of going about it, thinking that you can use the state to abolish itself, granted, but that doesn't make it less anti-state.

    anarchism101: "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."

    The Nazi Party was a socialist party. I know that socialists blow a fuse at this - Stalin and Mao are OK but Hitler was not one of us - but look at the manifesto at the bottom of this post. Just look at Ba'athists and N.Koreans, they are Nazis but call themselves socialists and have been embraced by Soviets and Chinese alike. Just look at modern China, not a trace of Marx is left but they call themselves socialists - they are socialists, National Socialists like Nazis. Just look at 1939, Hitler and Stalin were allies. Hitler avowed that he was a socialist.
    So because they called themselves socialists that means they were? North Korea calls itself a democracy, does that mean it is?

    And about that manifesto:
    Firstly, there's nothing actually socialist in it, just vaguely economic left, social democratic economic policies.
    Secondly, the Nazis never actually implemented the vast majority of these policies.
    Thirdly, reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy - Nazism is regarded as evil because it was racist, totalitarian and tried to take over Europe, not because it nationalised industry and opposed war profiteering (well, if it actually had done the latter).

    anarchism101: "Thirdly, minor things like Labour and the SNP apparently being closer to dictatorship than Russia? Oh and the BBC...."

    Labour was exceedingly authoritarian in its legislative program in their last period in power.
    They were also pretty economically right-wing during their last period in power. Thatcher called New Labour her greatest achievement. But you haven't represented that on the chart.

    Also, as much as I hate New Labour, I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say they were more authoritarian than Putin.

    The BBC is indeed polarising by being impartial, it always invites two sides to any debate even when one side are utter tyrants, giving the impression that the centre ground is on the edge of tyranny.
    i) That wouldn't make it left-wing, that would make it sensationalist.
    ii) The BBC generally just invites the mainstream sides to the debate. For example, Question Time every week has 3 of the 5 places taken by the main three parties, and most of the other guests are hardly extreme.

    These are very close to the Communist Manifesto.
    The points at the end of the Communist Manifesto are short-term, reformist goals and explicitly said to be so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Islam isn't a race. Crying 'racist' lost its effect long ago. I suggest you find something more worthy of an insult.
    Come on we all know that a good portion of the EDL are neo-nazi/white power skinheads. I'm not trying to insult anyone I think the original idea of EDL wasn't so bad standing against fundamental Islam is a worthy cause but rioting and thuggish behaviour is the usual outcome fo their demonstrations.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The typical fault of anything involving the left is to assume that Marxism is a road map rather than set of theoretical ideals .

    The statist vs not statist is where the divide between 'conventional' Marxist - Leninist ( and subsequent variations) communism and the Trotskyites and anarcho-syndicalists comes
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    There policies are sound, but the basis for them isn't what I would agree with.
    Also I was reffering more to the support base and voters than the policy.


    Nothing like North Korea, Korea is a Communist Dictatorship, Fascist's immensely dislike communism and the aspects of Social Welfare and state ownership (while present) is nowhere near as large, it focus's more on the obligation to the state and has strong emphasis on privitaziation in many areas.



    Why would you presume that?
    I am not an immensely charismatic individual, nor do I have any of the required skills required for successfully administrating a a Fascist state I would undoubtably be nothing more than a worker, possibly I would re-enlist in Military service if able, and at best a small business owner.

    Why you would suggest I am leader material is beyond me, heck the biggest non-military responsibility I have ever had is a few years as a Charity Event's organizer.
    The only example of facism I know in any detail in Nazi Germany where welfare was present for those of a racially favourable background e.g. the breeding with SS soldiers or aryians and raising of the offspring by the state.

    So even if this totalitarian system were a viable option for the country(I'm sure many would disagree) there is no one worthy of leading such a system at present.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    Come on we all know that a good portion of the EDL are neo-nazi/white power skinheads. I'm not trying to insult anyone I think the original idea of EDL wasn't so bad standing against fundamental Islam is a worthy cause but rioting and thuggish behaviour is the usual outcome fo their demonstrations.
    You said "EDL policies" were racist in your original statement. Now you profess to agree with their premise? That kind of proves my point. Their 'policies' are not racist. As for the violence, that lies at the feet of the UAF more than it does the EDL.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    Come on we all know that a good portion of the EDL are neo-nazi/white power skinheads. I'm not trying to insult anyone I think the original idea of EDL wasn't so bad standing against fundamental Islam is a worthy cause but rioting and thuggish behaviour is the usual outcome fo their demonstrations.
    That's quite incorrect actually. What the majority of the EDL supporters are, is ignorant. I've spoken to quite a few of them over the years, as I had an interest in the organisation for a time, and what was overwhelmingly obvious was, that though they were ignorant, un-PC, low brow etc, the majority were not the Neo-Nazis and Fascists that a lot of people want them to be. A lot of them were very confused over immigration, and yes, they made remarks that would sound racist and even comical, but that was not because of an underlying 'White Power' belief, but rather a mixture of discontent and ignorance. Yes, there may have been racist slants to them, but I'd say again, it's not the racism of the National Front or Neo-Nazis. And I'd say that is a difference that needs to be realised.

    Secondly, the violence at EDL Demos, up until about 18 months-2 years ago when I stopped having an interest, was most often precipitated by UAF and groups such as the MDL. Though the media always blamed it on the EDL, having seen a lot of footage and police reports, it was more often than not more the fault of those opposing the EDL than the EDL.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amholcroft)
    The only example of facism I know in any detail in Nazi Germany where welfare was present for those of a racially favourable background e.g. the breeding with SS soldiers or aryians and raising of the offspring by the state.
    The presence of welfare though (no matter how loud the Republicans shout) does not instantly equate to Communism/Socialism (though I accept that Social Fascism/Nationlism does exist) I mean we in the UK have the NHS , pensions, a welfare system(broke as it may be) I would hardly call us a Socialist/Communist country though, would you?

    Let's not forget though that Nazi Germany, was the "National Socialist" party, and Hitler had strong Socialist ideals despite the direction he took them in.

    So even if this totalitarian system were a viable option for the country(I'm sure many would disagree) there is no one worthy of leading such a system at present.
    Saying that I am not leader material, does not equate to there being no one worthy to lead now does it?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
    The presence of welfare though (no matter how loud the Republicans shout) <snip>

    just sums up the level of idiocy in US politics where anything other than the Republican line is Communism - while MacCarthy was discredited the spirit of it all lives on ...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    just sums up the level of idiocy in US politics where anything other than the Republican line is Communism - while MacCarthy was discredited the spirit of it all lives on ...
    Agreed, I despair for them.

    But they're not my problem.....actually that's naive considering the effect they have on global politics and economics..but you get where im coming from.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.