Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Whats wrong with India that isnt with Russia?
    Well apart from the religious problems in the north, caused directly by the british empire. And the fact that india has the largest number of people below the poverty line in anyone single country, i guess not much.

    Oooh and I'm not going to go around defending communism, however,the impact on the india subcontinant by british rule is still evident in the social and economic problems of india and pakistan today.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    I see. Its helped your family, therefore we should stop constant criticism of it.

    Mate, many people disagree with socialism on a matter of principle and everything socialism stands for. We are perfectly allowed to criticise it - you have just bleated on about how your poor grandfather we helped by it (quite frankly, I don't give a damn) - if you want to stop people disagreeing with socialism then perhaps you should learn what the whole ideology entails (don't call it socialism if you want to pick and choose ideas within it) and when you have learnt about it come and justify it.

    Thank you.
    Ok then, give me the whole ideology and tell me why you disagree with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Well apart from the religious problems in the north, caused directly by the british empire. And the fact that india has the largest number of people below the poverty line in anyone single country, i guess not much.

    Oooh and I'm not going to go around defending communism, however,the impact on the india subcontinant by british rule is still evident in the social and economic problems of india and pakistan today.
    I think if you compare India with Russia and Pakistan in about 20 years time, even less probably, this will be a non-argument.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I think if you compare India with Russia and Pakistan in about 20 years time, even less probably, this will be a non-argument.
    But we aren't in 20 years time, we are now, a lot can happen in 20 years.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think that slandering democratically elected leaders does your argument any favours.
    Democracy is not a licence to kill

    National Socialist, yup.
    National socialism was not socialism

    They effectively banned capitalism when they banned finance (they didn't like it bcause it wasn't "hard work" like manufacturing); and what was all that about workers councils, wealth redistribution and nationalisation?
    If you're talking about the Nazis then this isn't really true since they only shut down businesses that weren't acheiving a high enough profit and onl stopped large Jewish businesses among the 'big business' category. There was no redistribution of wealth in Germany under the Nazis. The only parties who opposed the Enabling Act which gave Hitler the power to tule by decree were the socialists and social democrats in the SPD. The Communists weren't even allowed to tner the Reichstag. And most acts of non conformism came from the workers.

    Nice to see your complete contempt for democracy, and "the People"/"the workers" who elect them coming through.
    Total rubbish. The Nazis were the largest party in Germany at the last elections in the Weimar Republic. Was Hitler a tyrant? And most workers tended not to vote for the likes of Thatcher.

    I thought you said your dad owned a small business that hired immigrants? Oh dear, you're a petite bourgeoise (little middle class for those who don't know marxspeak) too! Then again, most socialists are complete hypocrites in so many ways. How goes the fight for the poor workers? Hah!
    I've said before I have no problem with small businesses. And petite bourgeoise doesn't mean inherently tyrannical. The question was let's split tyrants into the socialist/capitalist category. Khomeini was a tyrant and his regime still is, and it is also petite bouregoise so he falls into the capitalist category. That was the point I was trying to make.

    You do not know very much about myself or my dad so I wouldn't make sweeping statements about the word hypocris. Research how that word is used politically in Iranian terms and who it referrs to, and you may find out that fighting for poor workers is a literal reality for my dad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm certain social problems in India and Pakistan can be traced back to British rule, but then again, that rule did last 200 years; there'd be nothing unusual about claiming a modern social problem in Britain is related to something that happened in the 18th century.

    While the British may have been directly to blame for a lot of problems, and their inaction may have led to thousands more deaths in famines than 21st century morality would allow; I'm certain that if India ever becomes as wealthy as Britain, it'll be through good old British capitalism.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    National socialism was not socialism
    Well yes it was. Fundamentally socialism is a system of government where production is controlled by the state, which is what occurs in a national socialist government. Certainly it is an unrecognisable *******isation of marxist socialism, which was what most people take as 'socialism'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Fundamentally, socialism is about democratic ownership and redistribution fo wealth. Nazism represented the opposite. Nazism also believe in racial superiotity. Anathema to the socialist princple of egalitarianism.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Fundamentally, socialism is about democratic ownership and redistribution fo wealth. Nazism represented the opposite. Nazism also believe in racial superiotity. Anathema to the socialist princple of egalitarianism.
    Ah, but it did believe in redistribution of wealth, did it not?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Whats wrong with India that isnt with Russia? Some of the poorest areas in India are those where the Communist party holds elected power.
    Causal fallacy. Much more likely that the areas are communist because they are poor.

    Well yes it was. Fundamentally socialism is a system of government where production is controlled by the state, which is what occurs in a national socialist government. Certainly it is an unrecognisable *******isation of marxist socialism, which was what most people take as 'socialism'.
    There was far too much appeal to wealthy industrialists in National Socialist countries for it to resemble socialism.
    Hitler even massacred most of the left-leaning members of the party in order to appease industrialists and the army.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, but it did believe in redistribution of wealth, did it not?
    Where is this shown?

    There was far too much appeal to wealthy industrialists in National Socialist countries for it to resemble socialism.
    Exactly, they were his biggest supporters.

    Hitler even massacred most of the left-leaning members of the party in order to appease industrialists and the army.
    True true. Hitler never wanted the second socialist revolution after the first 'legal revolution.' Hence the Night of the Long Knives.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Hey, the whole appeal of the Nazi party to the middle classes were that it was opposed to Communism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    And most workers tended not to vote for the likes of Thatcher.
    you reckon the conservatives were put in power for 18 years by getting votes mostly from those who didnt work?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Where is this shown?
    Well the extensive welfare state set up by the nazis is a good example. Removal of capital from jews, etc also serve as reasonable examples.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I would have thought most working class people would have voted Labour. And I'm sure you fullying understand the use of the term 'worker.'

    Thatcher may well have gone if it weren't for Falklands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Democracy is not a licence to kill
    Who did Thatcher kill then?
    If you're talking about the Nazis then this isn't really true since they only shut down businesses that weren't acheiving a high enough profit and onl stopped large Jewish businesses among the 'big business' category.
    I never mentioned "shutting down" any businesses. They nationalised big businesses for the mutual good of the workers.
    The only parties who opposed the Enabling Act which gave Hitler the power to tule by decree were the socialists and social democrats in the SPD. The Communists weren't even allowed to tner the Reichstag.
    Lets see.. would this be the first time leftists fought and banned other leftists?
    Total rubbish. The Nazis were the largest party in Germany at the last elections in the Weimar Republic. Was Hitler a tyrant? And most workers tended not to vote for the likes of Thatcher.
    Right, so you ARE comparing the massive majorities Thatcher managed to pull on multiple occasions to Germans electing a dictator one rainy day under threat of death from the roaming gangs of SA, great stuff :rolleyes: . Oh, and assuming you're staying consistent and using the Marxist definition of "worker" and not shorthand for "manual worker", then most workers did vote Thatcher.

    I've said before I have no problem with small businesses. And petite bourgeoise doesn't mean inherently tyrannical.
    Ahh, clause #1! I'm a socialist, but I only care when it's not me who's richer than everyone else.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Well the extensive welfare state set up by the nazis is a good example. Removale of capital from jews, etc also serve as reasonable examples.
    Redistribution of wealth doesn't mean socialism unless the redistribution aims for further equality.
    And please address the three points that I made.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well the extensive welfare state set up by the nazis is a good example. Removale of capital from jews, etc also serve as reasonable examples.
    What welfare state? Pensions fair enough. Unemployed were looked down on, the 'strength through joy' scheme was con and women were paid to give birth.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Right, so you ARE comparing the massive majorities Thatcher managed to pull on multiple occasions to Germans electing a dictator one rainy day under threat of death from the roaming gangs of SA, great stuff
    The Nazi Party was made the biggest party in Germany fairly. Hitler passed the enabling act through intimidation, but he was already chancellor at the time.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    What welfare state? Pensions fair enough. Unemployed were looked down on, the 'strength through joy' scheme was con and women were paid to give birth.
    Don't forget trade unions being outlawed.
 
 
 
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

2,965

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.