Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    :facepalm: It had completely slipped my mind that there would be no restrictions on firearms and thus a further means of protecting property.

    However, I suppose the main issue with anarchism is how i would be implemented. How do you drawn away the influence of government from day to day lives? Would it have to be a gradual process which would see government slowly removing its powers and allowing businesses to compete to provide services or would there have to be some sort of revolution in which government is swept aside and the free market fills the spaces left behind?
    It dependends on the individual school of thought (some anarchists advocate revolution, others advocate a gradual shift through slow reforms). Lord Histeria's private protection agency and general private property views aren't reflective of the views of leftwing, classical anarchists (you can count me along with that school - the oldschool, if you like), by the way.

    Most of us, including myself, advocate legalising firearms, though.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    In short a free association of workers who democratically own a collective of industrial trade centres. The real question is whether or not you live within the neighbourhood boundaries of which a commune exists (I address this point below).
    The person being evicted would not be evicted unless he did something serious. People in communes wouldn't behave like that, though, because to have a commune, you need a revolutionary mindset among the people. If the citizens did start using unjustifiable force by "democracy", then other communes (with revolutionary mindsets) would intervene.
    quot;No more bakers". Lol. If the commune doesn't need bakers they will just stop providing for bakers. In reality, though, everyone would do a mixture of labour so that "popular" work and "unpopular" work is shared.
    Fact is, for millions of years before the uprising of capitalism (the system of private property and wage labour was enforced by the state, hence Adam Smith's objections but it is too late now to say to continue with the system without regulation), we were all living in communes similar to what I describe.
    I find myself wholly unconvinced that there will ever be a commune if it requires “a revolutionary mindset among the people”. The expectation that everyone in society will suddenly agree with your vision, and take measures to bring it about, seems rather delusional, with respect.

    The fact of the matter is that communes will live under central planning. It would require people to vote, for instance, on whether they want another baker in town. I also really don’t understand what you’re talking about with labour “being shared”.

    For those “millions of years” – before Capitalism – humans worked all-day doing back-breaking work in fields. No TV, No internet, no machines – in short, no capital and no investment. Humans had short-lives, with little access to medicine, education and all the other things that we know enjoy. I don’t think people appreciate the institution of private property. Incidentally, laissez-faire Capitalism has nothing to do with the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I find myself wholly unconvinced that there will ever be a commune if it requires “a revolutionary mindset among the people”. The expectation that everyone in society will suddenly agree with your vision, and take measures to bring it about, seems rather delusional, with respect.

    The fact of the matter is that communes will live under central planning. It would require people to vote, for instance, on whether they want another baker in town.I also really don’t understand what you’re talking about with labour “being shared”.

    For those “millions of years” – before Capitalism – humans worked all-day doing back-breaking work in fields. No TV, No internet, no machines – in short, no capital and no investment. Humans had short-lives, with little access to medicine, education and all the other things that we know enjoy. I don’t think people appreciate the institution of private property. Incidentally, laissez-faire Capitalism has nothing to do with the state.
    Not everyone - just a large section of society must have a revolutionary mindset (this will spread with time). All we need to do is help them wipe their minds clear of the other worldly idealist rubbish spouted by the media through education and help them see the benefits of anarchism by organising worker organised trade under present day society. 'Happened in Revolutionary Spain. Next time, we just need to make it an international effort (socialism in one country is tough going). People won't "vote" on everything. There'd just be a general pool of labour. Labour itself would be self-managed.

    As for pre-industrialised communism, well yeah, it was pre-industrialised and with a growing population (and therefore growing demands for productivity), capitalism was a necessary transition phase. We can use that wealth of technology provided to us by the wonders of capitalism to start up a post-industrialised communism.

    In theory, laissez-faire capitalism has nothing to do with the state, no. In reality, private protection agencies (or a nationalised state, depending on the level of minarchism vs. "anarchism") would be required to defend private property rights. You jut want to privatise the state.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Keckers)
    :facepalm: It had completely slipped my mind that there would be no restrictions on firearms and thus a further means of protecting property.

    However, I suppose the main issue with anarchism is how i would be implemented. How do you drawn away the influence of government from day to day lives? Would it have to be a gradual process which would see government slowly removing its powers and allowing businesses to compete to provide services or would there have to be some sort of revolution in which government is swept aside and the free market fills the spaces left behind?
    I am not sure whether the smilie & first sentence was sarcasm, but I made a blog post here on why property rights are respected. When you steal from someone, the only deterrence is the level of the risk involved. It is interesting to note that countries which brought in criminalisation of firearms generally saw a rise in theft, robbery and other crimes.

    Personally, it doesn’t matter if government still operates in anarcho-capitalism – as long as they can compete with other providers. So, I would gradually open up the services which government enjoys a coercive monopoly, and allow competitors to provide a more efficient service where the goods are distributed to an optimal level. If the old business – that was once “government” can become efficient enough to compete – then that is fine.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am not sure whether the smilie & first sentence was sarcasm, but I made a blog post here on why property rights are respected. When you steal from someone, the only deterrence is the level of the risk involved. It is interesting to note that countries which brought in criminalisation of firearms generally saw a rise in theft, robbery and other crimes.
    No, it wasn't sarcasm at all, I'd just read that blog post of yours actually shortly before I replied

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Personally, it doesn’t matter if government still operates in anarcho-capitalism – as long as they can compete with other providers. So, I would gradually open up the services which government enjoys a coercive monopoly, and allow competitors to provide a more efficient service where the goods are distributed to an optimal level. If the old business – that was once “government” can become efficient enough to compete – then that is fine.
    Surely the trouble would be with government having a monopoly over previous infrastructure that competitors either couldn't compete with or afford to buy off them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    ...
    You asked about how democracy within free associations would function, so here goes... [I take no credit for the composing the following images]



    See here if you cannot read the text - you may be able to zoom in on the image.

    So, you see there is a rotation of work, both "unpopular" and "popular" (I'd say 50/50 unpopular: popular ratio). You get to pick from the pool - some of the labour will be hard and dirty (the unpopular selection), some of it will be pleasant and enjoyable (the popular selection). With everyone carrying their weight, most people will have a lot more free time than under a capitalist society where some people are academics (among other professions) who do very little physical labour and some people do physical labour (and consequently) have very little time to pursue the arts, culture, literature and so forth.

    But how would these decisions be carried out? Well there would be an elected board of delegatives whose duty is to carry out the decisions of the masses and handle purely administrative tasks. Anytime they attempt to exert power or influence, the workers have the option of carrying out a legitimate petition. If this petition gathers sufficient votes, there is a vote on the delegative's recall. Mass assemblies are gathered not by the delegates but by other elected officials.

    *Some* initiative may be taken by delegatives but major decisions would be carried out and organised by the base workers...or else (there would be a petition)!

    Here is another diagram in reference to the exact system:



    See here.

    "1. assemblies at the base discuss the main issues being decided at the delegate congresses and send not only delegates but also their own proposals.
    2. some advocate what is called the "imperative mandate". this means that the delegate must vote as instructed by the base assembly. the problem with this is that other delegates may bring perspectives and considerations not discussed or unknown to the delegate's base assembly. if the delegates are going to actually deliberate and come up with a proposal, they are going beyond the "mandate". so if they're allowed to do that, then the base needs a way to easily force the decision back to the base assemblies, such as a small number of people petitioning for it.
    3. there is also the idea that the delegates share the same social status and conditions as the constituency they are speaking for. so an assembly elects a neighbor or coworker. but this really assumes a revolution in which the class system is being dismantled, and workers have taken over management of production. that's because otherwise class advantages will corrupt the whole process.
    4. delegates are not professional politiicians. they still work at least part of the time in some regular job and are remunerated for their delegate work at the same pay as their regular job, so they do not receive any material privileges for being a delegate."


    - Syndicat (a poster on revleft).

    However

    "...in this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.

    It seems to me that if we can read newspapers, watch TV news, and participate on the net *today*, on matters of the status quo that are kept *outside* of our reach, we can certainly do the same in a post-capitalist political environment in which a liberated labor *is* empowered."


    - ckaihatsu (another poster at revleft).

    But, of course the free associations of workers will decide amongst themselves what the most beneficial arrangements will be for their community.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Keckers)
    No, it wasn't sarcasm at all, I'd just read that blog post of yours actually shortly before I replied

    Surely the trouble would be with government having a monopoly over previous infrastructure that competitors either couldn't compete with or afford to buy off them?
    The government monopoly would turn into a commercial company that is affected by profit-and-loss. Ie. there would be private investors buying shares in the stock exchange. Competition would take place in the form of corporate control. If competitors couldn't compete, by increasing the supply, then that would be impressive!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Fact is, communism is not even on the left on the graph (its in the centre!!). What's more is that the American Democrats are to the left of communists!!!

    Anyway, practice and theory are different, and in theory, fascism advocates a centralised economy; communism doesn't. The graph should reflect theory, not practice (which is a subjective value that I oppose, anyway).
    Well, there's no point to having a 'theoretical' discussion about politics is there? Almost every theory sounds brilliant on paper, but reality is not often so rosy. Communism may, on the tin not want to control, but most of its goals cannot be achieved without control.

    Fascism is just an insane ideology tbf :P

    And revolution necessarily equates to violence?

    Workers' lock-ins, refusion to co-operate with the capitalist system, dissassembling the state is violence?

    Anyway, are we discussing the means or the ends? The ends should be what is reflected by the graph.
    Erm, you are very creative with your euphemisms here, but the idea that workers can do 'lock-ins' in other people's property without some resistance from the owners is pretty ridiculous. The 'workers', if they want to achieve their goals, will have no other choice but to use force.

    My general view with political theories is that they never actually reach the 'end', whatever means you suggest. So the means are never worth an 'end' that you can't possibly expect to reach.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    Well, there's no point to having a 'theoretical' discussion about politics is there? Almost every theory sounds brilliant on paper, but reality is not often so rosy. Communism may, on the tin not want to control, but most of its goals cannot be achieved without control.
    Well, you know, I can say the same sort of thing about anarcho-capitalism with their advocation of "private protection agencies" and the potential power they will give to monopolies on wealth. Yeah, I can describe it as authoritarian. Also, as far as communism goes, it depends on the ideology. Sure, Leninism is fairly authoritarian with his advocation of a vanguard party but actually, Marxism is fairly libertarian; he would have the state democratically run (after it is seized by the workers) - a state he describes as "dictatorship of the proletariat" and he would have core military units broken up and the arms decentralised into the masses. This would be followed by a gradual degeneration of the state into communist anarchy. The fact that nothing like this has ever been tried just goes to show that the authors of the graph have no right to describe communism as an authoritarian ideology. I would not return the favour for rightist libertarianism.

    Fascism is just an insane ideology tbf :P
    Agreed. But, in theory at least, it is not what most people think it is.

    Erm, you are very creative with your euphemisms here
    You misinterpret me; I mean no offense. (I don't know whether you are being sarcastic about my "creativity", btw).

    but the idea that workers can do 'lock-ins' in other people's property without some resistance from the owners is pretty ridiculous. The 'workers', if they want to achieve their goals, will have no other choice but to use force.
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/de...chic-d10.shtml

    My general view with political theories is that they never actually reach the 'end', whatever means you suggest. So the means are never worth an 'end' that you can't possibly expect to reach.
    Agreed, but the transition phrase can become closer to the ideal result over time (even if it is never reached). Under anarchy, people would always be finding new ways to abolish hierarchy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    x
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    x
    (Original post by LordHysteria)
    x
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    x
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    x
    Content from OP potentially set for removal:

    • Zeitgeist Addendum, following the review given here by JakePearson (or include the critique of it so as to get a fair look at both sides)
    • Bell curves and Political Compass due to general thoughts on oversimplification.

    Quote me back with whatever you feel on both of those and any other items you think should be set for removal and if we reach an overall majority, it'll get removed. We should probably keep this kind of thing rolling so as to dispose of any unhelpful material.

    Excuse me if I missed anybody out in the quote.

    P.S. You mean I should remove Proudhon from the anarcho-capitalist section and only keep him in the revolutionary tactics for social anarchism section? Directed at AnarchistNutter and anyone else who has an opinion on this.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Well, you know, I can say the same sort of thing about anarcho-capitalism with their advocation of "private protection agencies" and the potential power they will give to monopolies on wealth. Yeah, I can describe it as authoritarian.
    How do you define authoritarian?

    I'm assuming you mean one person ordering another. For me, the real question is did they choose that setup, or were they forced into it?

    In the communes, I didn't choose anything. The beauty of democracy is that you don't make you choices, but feel like you do. Choices are made by everyone & no-one. Unless, as I suspect, a commune-overlord-committee is established.

    In anarcho-capitalism, there is an authoritarian? But why would someone voluntarily choose that setup. One word = reality. The worker and owner both need to work to live. If they want food, they must go out and find a job. The owner invests his own saved resources and places them under risk. He is affected by whatever happens. The worker isn't. He'll get his wages at the end of the week regardless of what happens. Because he has placed nothing on risk, he agrees to sell his labour as the owner sees fit. Of course, if he really doesn't like it, he is welcome to compete by setting up his own business. As I have told you before somewhere, that is exactly what my grandfather did.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Zeitgeist Addendum, following the review given here by JakePearson (or include the critique of it so as to get a fair look at both sides)
    Zeitgeist people sound crazy!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Zeitgeist people sound crazy!
    I guess this is a vote against keeping it then. It seems, when I watched the review, that Zeitgeist had got a few things wrong but I wonder how much bias is in the review.

    P.S. What are you views on the graphs (if any)?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I guess this is a vote against keeping it then. It seems, when I watched the review, that Zeitgeist had got a few things wrong but I wonder how much bias is in the review.

    P.S. What are you views on the graphs (if any)?
    Merh. I am not fussed tbh. I'm just here to discuss and debate stuff.

    The graph was okay. It is the first time I have ever seen a political bell curve, but I don't think it is that important to go in the OP.

    I'm watching a sad movie at the moment
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Content from OP potentially set for removal:

    • Zeitgeist Addendum, following the review given here by JakePearson (or include the critique of it so as to get a fair look at both sides)
    • Bell curves and Political Compass due to general thoughts on oversimplification.

    Quote me back with whatever you feel on both of those and any other items you think should be set for removal and if we reach an overall majority, it'll get removed. We should probably keep this kind of thing rolling so as to dispose of any unhelpful material.

    Excuse me if I missed anybody out in the quote.

    P.S. You mean I should remove Proudhon from the anarcho-capitalist section and only keep him in the revolutionary tactics for social anarchism section? Directed at AnarchistNutter and anyone else who has an opinion on this.
    The bell curve doesn't really make that much sense, so that should probably go; haven't looked at the other thing - I generally avoid anything involving the word 'Zeitgeist' on Youtube.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Well, you know, I can say the same sort of thing about anarcho-capitalism with their advocation of "private protection agencies" and the potential power they will give to monopolies on wealth. Yeah, I can describe it as authoritarian. Also, as far as communism goes, it depends on the ideology. Sure, Leninism is fairly authoritarian with his advocation of a vanguard party but actually, Marxism is fairly libertarian; he would have the state democratically run (after it is seized by the workers) - a state he describes as "dictatorship of the proletariat" and he would have core military units broken up and the arms decentralised into the masses. This would be followed by a gradual degeneration of the state into communist anarchy. The fact that nothing like this has ever been tried just goes to show that the authors of the graph have no right to describe communism as an authoritarian ideology. I would not return the favour for rightist libertarianism.
    I don't differentiate between the different Communist 'isms' because the aim is the same. Lenin was a Marxist, but he was a Marxist who realised that Marxism was impossible without a little... 'persuasion'; Hence the adoption of a more authoritarian stance. 'Dictatorship of the proletariat' is just another euphemism for violent proletarian revolution leading to some kind of egalitarian heaven; which never materialises because of, well, reality. The thing I never understand about staunch Marxists is, they say that 'Communism' is inevitable and this 'Capitalist' phase of humanity is a necessary but temporary phase, yet at the same time they want to smash it; leaves me incredulous.

    I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although I am partial to the ideas[they haven't been tried so it's pretty difficult to argue against them]), but I think that your assertion that it is 'authoritarian' is somewhat strange. Yes, there will be hierarchies, but hierarchy will always exist in biological societies, of which human society is one.

    Agreed, but the transition phrase can become closer to the ideal result over time (even if it is never reached). Under anarchy, people would always be finding new ways to abolish hierarchy.
    There is a bit of inconsistency (or so I think anyway) in this view that opposes 'hierarchy'. As I said earlier, hierarchy is an inherent part of most biological systems - things are not 'born equal'. There are many variations in the concentration of certain gene-types leading to a variation in characteristics; an easy example is the dichotomy between men and women: men have high levels of
    strength and aggression, and sometimes intelligence (this is just a statistical fact, the reasons for it are not important for this discussion) and women have other equally useful characteristics, such as their brains being more in touch with their emotions more than men's, making them better nurturers and the obvious womb etc etc.

    So clearly, on a biological level, there is no 'equality', there is 'hierarchy'; do you oppose this too? If yes, how does your ideology propose to destroy it? And if no, why is your opposition to 'hierarchy' limited only to economics, and not everything else?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I'm not an anarcho-capitalist (although I am partial to the ideas[they haven't been tried so it's pretty difficult to argue against them]), but I think that your assertion that it is 'authoritarian' is somewhat strange. Yes, there will be hierarchies, but hierarchy will always exist in biological societies, of which human society is one.
    I have argued that primates seem to arrange themselves into hierarchical structures driven by sexual biological adaptations. It's a theory I have come-up with. I think I need to research and see if someone else has written about this.

    I have a theory regarding the observation that animals sometimes tend to arrange themselves with a leader. The first thing to note is that a lot of animals do not have a leader. They tend to be self-interested and caught in their own little worlds. It slightly baffles me when you see a zebra standing several meters away from another zebra getting mauled by lions. It doesn’t seem to have concerned them at all. It’s only ‘bad’ when they might themselves get attacked. But we have entire herds that travel large distances across the savannah in search for food or whatever, or swim up lengthy rivers to lay their eggs, or fly across continents. None of which seem to have a leader centrally planning it all.

    And on the other hand, we have a different set of animals that exhibit leadership- including, most obviously, the primates. The Gorilla family immediately comes to mind. But my theory is that this is a biological evolutionary adaptation to spreading the “stronger genes”. I don’t think it is because without a leader, the group would just collapse. The leader tends to exhibit the traits that make him evolutionary more desirable over other potentials. That is why the position is often contested, and involves fights. The alpha leader gets to have first picks with all the ladies! Sure, he gets other perks, but it is all about sex. So, in my view is that leadership is more of an evolutionary sexual adaptation, rather than a means of producing better results for the group (i.e. central planning). I don’t know if someone else has come up with such a theory, but that’s just my own thoughts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I have argued that primates seem to arrange themselves into hierarchical structures driven by sexual biological adaptations. It's a theory I have come-up with. I think I need to research and see if someone else has written about this.

    I have a theory regarding the observation that animals sometimes tend to arrange themselves with a leader. The first thing to note is that a lot of animals do not have a leader. They tend to be self-interested and caught in their own little worlds. It slightly baffles me when you see a zebra standing several meters away from another zebra getting mauled by lions. It doesn’t seem to have concerned them at all. It’s only ‘bad’ when they might themselves get attacked. But we have entire herds that travel large distances across the savannah in search for food or whatever, or swim up lengthy rivers to lay their eggs, or fly across continents. None of which seem to have a leader centrally planning it all.

    And on the other hand, we have a different set of animals that exhibit leadership- including, most obviously, the primates. The Gorilla family immediately comes to mind. But my theory is that this is a biological evolutionary adaptation to spreading the “stronger genes”. I don’t think it is because without a leader, the group would just collapse. The leader tends to exhibit the traits that make him evolutionary more desirable over other potentials. That is why the position is often contested, and involves fights. The alpha leader gets to have first picks with all the ladies! Sure, he gets other perks, but it is all about sex. So, in my view is that leadership is more of an evolutionary sexual adaptation, rather than a means of producing better results for the group (i.e. central planning). I don’t know if someone else has come up with such a theory, but that’s just my own thoughts.
    The conclusion you reach there is very interesting, although you will probably get a lot of people who find the link somewhat tenuous. But you are correct, it is entirely about sex and a 'desire' to propagate the strongest possible offspring.

    Kind of like in African Lion societies: the male 'leader', while being strong and all of that, does very little outside of posturing and fighting other males (very few things are going to attack a Lion pride outside of other Lions).

    It's pretty interesting, but determining economic implications from that observation is very difficult.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Content from OP potentially set for removal:

    • Zeitgeist Addendum, following the review given here by JakePearson (or include the critique of it so as to get a fair look at both sides)
    • Bell curves and Political Compass due to general thoughts on oversimplification.

    Quote me back with whatever you feel on both of those and any other items you think should be set for removal and if we reach an overall majority, it'll get removed. We should probably keep this kind of thing rolling so as to dispose of any unhelpful material.

    Excuse me if I missed anybody out in the quote.

    P.S. You mean I should remove Proudhon from the anarcho-capitalist section and only keep him in the revolutionary tactics for social anarchism section? Directed at AnarchistNutter and anyone else who has an opinion on this.
    This democracy malarky seems very communal... Okay, scrap the bell curve so long as you scrap the Zeitgeist crap too. I may be away until the 3rd or 4th of Jan, so count me out on any votes in the meantime. Have a good Christmas!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjEIP6otc4Y
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAQPZfycgk

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Merh. I am not fussed tbh. I'm just here to discuss and debate stuff.

    The graph was okay. It is the first time I have ever seen a political bell curve, but I don't think it is that important to go in the OP.

    I'm watching a sad movie at the moment
    I see what you mean. I guess the graph thing is going to go anyway, judging from the other posts.

    Also, what is the sad movie?

    I hope you have a merry Christmas

    (Original post by D.R.E)
    The bell curve doesn't really make that much sense, so that should probably go; haven't looked at the other thing - I generally avoid anything involving the word 'Zeitgeist' on Youtube.
    Alright then. I see what you mean about the bell curve thing. I guess it's quite difficult to just categorise politics into two axes, as someone (Jake?) said and it might begin to confuse peope. This is the first Zeitgeist thing I've come across; are they an organisation?

    Merry Christmas

    (Original post by JakePearson)
    This democracy malarky seems very communal... Okay, scrap the bell curve so long as you scrap the Zeitgeist crap too. I may be away until the 3rd or 4th of Jan, so count me out on any votes in the meantime. Have a good Christmas!
    It does eh? Heh. I just thought if everyone was going to be using this, it'd be better if people could just remove/add whatever they want. Plus it stops the OP getting cluttered. I think I'll be away for the same period too to be honest.

    Have a good Christmas too.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: August 5, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

1,983

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.