Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I have noticed that on TSR, left wing politics, and in particular, socialism, gets criticised and laughed at by right wing members, some of whom see it as the ideals of people who have not experienced the real world.

    My grandfather worked long, hard days in a Welsh coal mine. He got paid very little, and lived on a council estate. The post-war socialist movement gave him free health care - before, he didn't have any. It also gave my father the chance to go to university, and therefore the chance for a better career.

    Many people on here see socialism as a political nightmare, that gives sky-TV to criminals, and allows people on council estates to live without working for it. My grandfather worked to hard in such appauling conditions that he died of lung problems from inhaling so much polluted air underground. He deserved the benefits of socialism.

    It upsets me personally that many of you sneer at socialism as if it is political stupidity. Not many people consider the ways in which it benefits some people.

    I don't want you all to change your mind about socialism. Just think a bit before you make fun of it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There's much more to socialism than free education and healthcare. Think about the basic assumptions and policy prescriptions of socialism before you defend it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    I have noticed that on TSR, left wing politics, and in particular, socialism, gets criticised and laughed at by right wing members, some of whom see it as the ideals of people who have not experienced the real world.

    My grandfather worked long, hard days in a Welsh coal mine. He got paid very little, and lived on a council estate. The post-war socialist movement gave him free health care - before, he didn't have any. It also gave my father the chance to go to university, and therefore the chance for a better career.

    Many people on here see socialism as a political nightmare, that gives sky-TV to criminals, and allows people on council estates to live without working for it. My grandfather worked to hard in such appauling conditions that he died of lung problems from inhaling so much polluted air underground. He deserved the benefits of socialism.

    It upsets me personally that many of you sneer at socialism as if it is political stupidity. Not many people consider the ways in which it benefits some people.

    I don't want you all to change your mind about socialism. Just think a bit before you make fun of it.
    If socialists had their way the UK would still be sending thousands of people down the mines and so dying of lung cancer. Capitalism has brought the service sector and with it better conditions, and overall more contentment as many surveys show.

    If your father was really fit enough to go to university he would have got their on his own without having to steal from others through taxation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    If your father was really fit enough to go to university he would have got their on his own without having to steal from others through taxation.
    i highly doubt that that can be said about all people in any country in the world - social factors matter - fact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inequality)
    I have noticed that on TSR, left wing politics, and in particular, socialism, gets criticised and laughed at by right wing members, some of whom see it as the ideals of people who have not experienced the real world.

    My grandfather worked long, hard days in a Welsh coal mine. He got paid very little, and lived on a council estate. The post-war socialist movement gave him free health care - before, he didn't have any. It also gave my father the chance to go to university, and therefore the chance for a better career.

    Many people on here see socialism as a political nightmare, that gives sky-TV to criminals, and allows people on council estates to live without working for it. My grandfather worked to hard in such appauling conditions that he died of lung problems from inhaling so much polluted air underground. He deserved the benefits of socialism.

    It upsets me personally that many of you sneer at socialism as if it is political stupidity. Not many people consider the ways in which it benefits some people.

    I don't want you all to change your mind about socialism. Just think a bit before you make fun of it.
    There's nothing wrong with what some (even much) of socialism brought the country. Few people, Tories/Laborites/BNP members/whoever will argue that a NHS, the introduction of living wages, the improvement of work conditions, education for all, pensions etc was and/or is wrong. These are all things that have improved society.

    But, it's the extremes of socialism that people don't care for. The idea that one a lazy man should be rewarded in the same way as a working man. The idea that government knows best. The idea that the state should take the place of individual responsibility, and that we are all better off it we just hand over everything to government. These are the sort of ideas that people have problems with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thekillersrock)
    i highly doubt that that can be said about all people in any country in the world - social factors matter - fact.
    Social factors of course have an influence. Some social situations are very sad but why do they justify theft?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Social factors of course have an influence. Some social situations are very sad but why do they justify theft?
    dont even think about it - im not getting into a debate with you again about that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thekillersrock)
    dont even think about it - im not getting into a debate with you again about that
    Oh sorry i didnt know i had debated with you. Now i remember you, your the wealth hater. Ok i can understand your lack of convictions for the views you hold.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Oh sorry i didnt know i had debated with you. Now i remember you, your the wealth hater. Ok i can understand your lack of convictions for the views you hold.
    oooh gosh im all riled up now :rolleyes: i dislike debating with you because it's like debating with a fervent relgious person - you state your opinions as if they are fact and absoluetly refuse to accept than anybody else might be right. My unwillingness to enter into a debate with you on the issue of tax is based both on the fact that it would be moving the thread away from what the original poster intended to something on which there is already a thread - and we'd just be repeating everything that was said in the "taxation=theft" thread. It has nothing to do with lack of conviciton for the views that I hold, in fact, that accusation borders on the oxymoronic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thekillersrock)
    oooh gosh im all riled up now :rolleyes: i dislike debating with you because it's like debating with a fervent relgious person - you state your opinions as if they are fact and absoluetly refuse to accept than anybody else might be right. My unwillingness to enter into a debate with you on the issue of tax is based both on the fact that it would be moving the thread away from what the original poster intended to something on which there is already a thread - and we'd just be repeating everything that was said in the "taxation=theft" thread. It has nothing to do with lack of conviciton for the views that I hold, in fact, that accusation borders on the oxymoronic.
    Well go back to the tax is theft thread and pick up from there. I think your last comment was something like 'we disagree fundamentally, i put more emphasis on eqaulity blah blah'. Thus a rather sensible place to pick up would be to say why you love equality. Just an idea.

    All i do is stick to my beliefs and counter others. Its called having principles. I look at others arguments, weigh them up and pass judgement. Its just the case that your arguments are weak.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Well go back to the tax is theft thread and pick up from there. I think your last comment was something like 'we disagree fundamentally, i put more emphasis on eqaulity blah blah'. Thus a rather sensible place to pick up would be to say why you love equality. Just an idea.

    All i do is stick to my beliefs and counter others. Its called having principles. I look at others arguments, weigh them up and pass judgement. Its just the case that your arguments are weak.
    What more could you have done to prove my point? You call it having principles - I call it being narrow-minded and egotistical. Another area where we appear to fundamentally disagree. Speaking of which - you apparently failed to read or understand that last post as the whole point of it was a sanitised way of me telling you that I was ending the debate because reading your specious, contrived and downright dogmatic posts makes my skin crawl.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    . Its just the case that your arguments are weak.
    That's your subjective opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    That's your subjective opinion.
    You wont make any headway taking that line - trust me. Objectivism cant seem to distinguish between that principle and relativism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thekillersrock)
    What more could you have done to prove my point? You call it having principles - I call it being narrow-minded and egotistical. Another area where we appear to fundamentally disagree. Speaking of which - you apparently failed to read or understand that last post as the whole point of it was a sanitised way of me telling you that I was ending the debate because reading your specious, contrived and downright dogmatic posts makes my skin crawl.
    Of course thats why you don't wish to debate :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You wont make any headway taking that line - trust me. Objectivism cant seem to distinguish between that principle and relativism
    He wont make any headway because i reject his premises. I start from a different perspective. Its not that i dont understand relativism, rather its because i understand it that i reject it.


    Relavitism is a theory about the nature of morality. At first blush it seems quite plausible. However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by subjecting it to rational analysis; and when we analyse relavitism we find it not so plausible as it first appears.

    First, an example of conflicting moralities. Darius, a king of ancient Persia, gathered people from two different cultures: the Greeks and the Callatians. The Greeks tended to burn their dead, and the Callatians tended to eat their dead. When Darius asked the Greeks if they would eat their dead, they were horrified. The Callatians were similarly horrified at the prospect of burning their dead.

    The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of relavitism there is a certain form of arguement. The strategy used by relativists is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept this line of reasoning:
    1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
    2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion.

    Clearly this arguement is a variation of one fundamental idea. it is a special case of an arguement which says:
    1) different cultures have different moral codes
    2)Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions can vary from culture to culture.

    To many people, it is very persuasive, but from a logical view, is it a sound arguement?

    the trouble is that the conclusion still might be false. The premise concerns what people believe; their believes might not be right. It could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and the other was simply mistaken.

    The Nazis believed that they were doing the work of God when they were cleansing the Jews, Gays, and Gypsies. Turn their own arguement around on them and ask them if we should respect their right to murder jews, simply on premise that they believed they were doing the right thing.

    Consider this as well: in some societies, people believe the Earth is flat. Other societies hold the earth is roughly spherical. Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no objective truth? Of course not. nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. The Earth is spherical, regardless on whether or not some people believed it to be flat. Some people were right, some people were wrong. It takes alot of maturity to admit to mistakes, a maturity most people do not possess.

    The consequences of taking relativism seriously.
    1) We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own. - Take my Nazi example. No one would be allowed to call the holocaust wrong. We would not even be able to say a Jew tolerant society is better than the anti-Semitic one.
    2)We could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society. - Because the only way I can judge morality is through my own society, if I were a pre-civil war southerner, because my society says slavery is right, then I must accept it, because I can't judge morality by any other barometer other than my own society. Relativism is dangerous because in addition to being unable to criticize other societies, we would become unable to criticize our own. After all, if right and wrong are relative to culture, how would we decide if a cultural decision is the right or wrong thing to do?
    3) The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. - If everything is relative, how do we know making a decision is right or wrong? Freeing the slaves could not have occurred, because that society says slavery is ok. Most people would consider the emancipation of slaves to be moral progress, because someone outside that culture decided that slavery was wrong. 18th and 19th century was, in effect, different societies from the one we have now. To say we have made progress (in terms of racial equality and women's rights, etc, etc) implies that one culture (our modern one) is better than the other one, which is impermissible under relativism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    socialism kept him in the mine, kept him poor, and eventually culled him.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    If your father was really fit enough to go to university he would have got their on his own without having to steal from others through taxation.
    I cannot believe you said that. You are a disgrace. How can you say disgusting things like that? Are you really that stupid? You honestly believe that anyone born into a dirt poor family can earn the money to pay for university. Especially that long ago?

    The Nazis believed that they were doing the work of God when they were cleansing the Jews, Gays, and Gypsies.
    When did they say that?

    socialism kept him in the mine, kept him poor, and eventually culled him.
    Look at union activity in fighting asbestos caused diseases and seeking compensation. Socialists want better conditions and better wages. Better pensions, a better, freer health service. You all seem very victorian. You're the kind of people who would have opposed the Reform Acts and Asquithian social welfare measures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I cannot believe you said that. You are a disgrace. How can you say disgusting things like that? Are you really that stupid? You honestly believe that anyone born into a dirt poor family can earn the money to pay for university. Especially that long ago?

    I was referring to the generous scholarships that existed due to voluntary bodies in the UK. For example, today in the US many are given scholarships by their universities, many of which are private thus they are not tax dollars. I was also looking at the broader context. The fact that the welfare system exists means there are less charitable bodies than there would be if welfarism was abolished. Even if they couldn't get the money to go to university that does not justify them stealing from me though taxation. Why do you think coercion is the answer? Why do you hate freedom?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Look at union activity in fighting asbestos caused diseases and seeking compensation. Socialists want better conditions and better wages. Better pensions, a better, freer health service. You all seem very victorian. You're the kind of people who would have opposed the Reform Acts and Asquithian social welfare measures.
    socialists want to screw the successful to hand it out to the failures. everyone must be the same. if you are better off than your neighbour you'll get punished for it.

    better pensions, better health, better blah blah. paid for by others. rarely the poor old socialists. and if someone dares question it, well lets have a strike.

    the NHS is a great one. luckily my family go private. none of that NHS blundering for us im afraid. shame my parents still have to pay their taxes for the NHS they dont use regardless.

    losers, who need annihilated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I regard the Welfare State as a Labour party acheivement; not a Socialist achievement. The US has a Welfare State, yet has never had a powerful socialist movement. The evil imperialist Bismarck created Social Insurance. Liberals and Utilitiarians thought about it before Marx was born.

    Most of the "true" Socialists I know regard the Welfare State with disdain: to them, it's a Capitalist trick. The Capitalists look after the workers a little bit better, which fools the workers into accepting the wage-slavery system.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 7, 2005
The home of Results and Clearing

1,060

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.