Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Bourgeois, an interesting post and I have something of admirance for the early classical liberals since when they first appeared on the scene, there was no real welfare state as such, rather most state intervention seemed to benefit the traditional elites, the capitalists and the landlords. However the neoliberalism of today (where there is a definite welfare state), I don't have such high regards for; they are essentially arguing for a free market capitalist society where current gains are historically based on the theft of the means of life from the early working classes. These "historical circumstances", if you will almost distinguish the early classical liberals as being to the left of the economic liberal spectrum, if you see what I mean. I think that most neoliberals will argue that this earlier system was mercantilism and so forth which is perhaps true but it is what gave way to the present system of capitalism. Perhaps if they were so concerned about state intervention, they would not be so eager to support legal contracts enforcing the private accumulation of capital so readily. In short, arguing for voluntary trade now is like a man walking into a room and robbing the personal possessions of all the people inside the room before arguing for a fresh new system of voluntary trade, arguing that the free market will effectively re-allocate the goods to them in good time. So in short, I believe that the full fruition of free trade will only be placed into effect after the capital has been socialised and is in the hands of the population (and this ought to inevitably result in a communist economic system, at least theoretically. If not, capitalism will arise and justly so but from a fresh turn of the leaf rather than an economic system built upon theft and expropriation). It is perhaps interesting to note that before the rise of mercantilism in the US, 80% of the population were self-employed.

    So, to conclude my argument, perhaps economic liberalism had more relevance before the state began to intervene in the domestic and economic realms of life.
    I'm very glad to see this post, AN. You're a massive liberal at heart really

    But seriously, I agree with you completely. And I think there is a very useful discussion that needs to be had about how to rectify those historical situations which created the current system through, as you put it rather aptly, 'theft and expropriation; or whether that rectification is necessary. But regardless, that is a good post.

    EDIT: Oh, and happy new year guys!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Lol. You will have to excuse me for the "religion brings man to his knees" - I was just digging up a quote from the movie "King Arthur" for the heck of it. It was a specific reference to the act of prayer. I suppose it is how one interprets it and I agree that it is organised religion that is the real evil however the bible itself is full of despicable and contradicting messages: I suppose it is how one reads the underlying messages of religion personally that is important. Needless to say, I think in a post revolutionary society without organised religion, people will constantly be questioning the likes of religion and moral ethics in general; religion will naturally disintegrate overtime with the birth of anarchy. If it doesn't, it is not such a problem, mind.

    Here is the Tolstoy article. I'll get those images up too when I get a chance.

    For your benefit: Tolstoy speaks here of socialism but I prefer the more specific label of Marxism; Marx explained that revolution must occur in an industrialised (rather than agricultural) land such as Germany or Great Britain (which were the two greatest centres of capital in the world in Marx's time). Tolstoy criticises this position since it looks down on agricultural workers (the "peasants", if you will) from a great height and tells them they must first become industrial workers. Furthermore, he feels that this industrial transformation would degrade the worker in seperating him from the means of life (namely the land) - if we remember the vast majority of industrial work back then was much harder and dirtier. However, he simply describes this position as socialism (which I don't agree with but I suppose it doesn't matter).
    Sure. I mean, I agree with what you say for the most part but I feel that the Bible shouldn't be dismissed as a book of contradiction and evil. More, I see it as a body of work collated over centuries. In the same way science is, it contains elements which can be accepted and elements which cannot. In fact, in relation to science, I would say religion is far more flexible, with the only definitive answer being that God exists. Anyway, I'm digressing.

    Thanks for the article. I'll put it up on the main page (but where :eek4:?!). I agree with what you and Tolstoy are saying. Often, it seems that writers of the time tend to elevate their contemporaries and the most oppressed class at the time, whilst missing out on the bigger picture; i.e. others who are also missing out.

    Also, what do you mean by this:

    However the neoliberalism of today (where there is a definite welfare state), I don't have such high regards for; they are essentially arguing for a free market capitalist society where current gains are historically based on the theft of the means of life from the early working classes.
    How do you 'socialise' capital with a lack of state or do you mean this would be done while the state is here?

    Another question for you (or anybody in the thread). Say there was a commune which practised customs meaning that a specific group was oppressed (for example, women are treated as second class citizens). How would you prevent this from happening and, if had already occurred, what would you do to stop it (if anything)?

    Happy New Year guys.
    Offline

    16
    What is "neoliberalism"?

    I have only ever heard teenagers on TSR using that word ... that and neoatheists ...
    Offline

    16
    What is "neoliberalism"?

    I have only ever heard teenagers on TSR using that word ... that and neoatheists ...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    What is "neoliberalism"?

    I have only ever heard teenagers on TSR using that word ... that and neoatheists ...
    Er, you need to read around more then. A google search for "neoliberalism" returns 726,000 results. (In comparison, "neoconservatism" returns 129,000 results and "anarchism" 1,470,000)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

    Enjoy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    What is "neoliberalism"?

    I have only ever heard teenagers on TSR using that word ... that and neoatheists ...
    As far as I know, it's supposed to be connected with Thatcher's economic policy and views and generally encompasses a 'free market' economy. I put it in quotation marks because in this case, the government too acts a corporation which just doesn't make sense. I think you've often said before that under true free market situations, corporations couldn't and wouldn't arise.

    I suppose it's just like the money maker is the government and which ever corporation manages to win over its affections (lobbying) gets the contract and the concessions. To me, that sounds like a pile of horse **** and one of the worst ideas ever to be conceived because it only benefits the people at the top while those at the bottom are eternally left struggling to get there.
    Offline

    16
    Opinions on the Slate article - What Do Anarchists Want??

    I thought it was a pretty good 2 mins introduction to classical anarchism, or syndicalism ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    What is "neoliberalism"?

    I have only ever heard teenagers on TSR using that word ... that and neoatheists ...
    LH, over time the early classical liberals became social liberals who believed in political and personal freedom and to a certain extent free trade but also believed in a certain degree of state intervention and welfare. They can be placed on the centre or centre-left, if you believe in such a one dimensional political spectrum. The neoliberals however were like a reaction against the social liberals and were ardent supporters of free market capitalism (they opposed the "nanny state" and social security). Reagan, Thatcher and Friedman can be placed under the umbrella term of "neoliberalism".

    Note that I draw a distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism in the other post based on historical background; when the classical liberals were around capitalism was non-existant or under developed. They supported free trade without state intervention but most libertarian socialists argue that free trade would not have resulted in a system of private property and wage labour (i.e. capitalism) before it had been enforced by the state. So in some ways it can be argued that whereas classical liberals were anti-capitalist, the neoliberalis were pro-capitalist and had the early liberals been around today, many of them would likely have become socialists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Opinions on the Slate article - What Do Anarchists Want??

    I thought it was a pretty good 2 mins introduction to classical anarchism, or syndicalism ...
    Yeah, I like this too. Most news articles you find either just mention anarchist involvement in an activity (USA Today) but thankfully, the journalist/reporter/blogger/author managed to cogently go through syndicalism quite well without too much bias to either side. It's quite interesting reading the comments underneath.

    By the way, some of you may find this interesting:

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    How do you 'socialise' capital with a lack of state or do you mean this would be done while the state is here?
    Well private capital is enforced by a system of legal contracts. If you purchase land or property, you sign legal contracts and no one else has right to access the land or property without your permission. These legal contracts are enforced by the state apparatus; the threat of armed forces should you trespass. Hence, if we abolish the state and these legal contracts which enforce the private ownership over capital, it is more likely to be a spontaneous act of workers all over peacefully and naturally occupying the factories and land they work at/on without the threat of military coercion.

    Another question for you (or anybody in the thread). Say there was a commune which practised customs meaning that a specific group was oppressed (for example, women are treated as second class citizens). How would you prevent this from happening and, if had already occurred, what would you do to stop it (if anything)?
    Well (this is my own take on it) to create anarchy in the first place, we need anarchists, that is, a population with a revolutionary mindset. Should communes use oppressive actions (communes are less likely to occur anyway if the local community have a reactionary mindset) then people may choose to leave, or other communes may intervene depending on how serious the situation was. Communes have to form links with one another, in the first place, however, in order to organise interrelationships, trade links, organise highway maintenance and other tasks which require a system of national and international co-operation in order to achieve. They are less likely to form links with communities that are backwards and oppressive; such communities will suffer from isolation.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    LH, over time the early classical liberals became social liberals who believed in political and personal freedom and to a certain extent free trade but also believed in a certain degree of state intervention and welfare. They can be placed on the centre or centre-left, if you believe in such a one dimensional political spectrum. The neoliberals however were like a reaction against the social liberals and were ardent supporters of free market capitalism (they opposed the "nanny state" and social security). Reagan, Thatcher, Friedman and the Austrian School of Economics can be placed under the umbrella term of "neoliberalism".

    Note that I draw a distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism in the other post based on historical background; when the classical liberals were around capitalism was non-existant or under developed. They supported free trade without state intervention but most libertarian socialists argue that free trade would not have resulted in a system of private property and wage labour (i.e. capitalism) before it had been enforced by the state. So in some ways it can be argued that whereas classical liberals were anti-capitalist, the neoliberalis were pro-capitalist and had the early liberals been around today, many of them would likely have become socialists.
    Very good explanation.

    Out of interest, since both our visions of anarchy are based on different premises, why is hierarchy itself something to be demolished? Why are you opposed to it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Reagan, Thatcher, Friedman and the Austrian School of Economics can be placed under the umbrella term of "neoliberalism".
    Lol no.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Well private capital is enforced by a system of legal contracts. If you purchase land or property, you sign legal contracts and no one else has right to access the land or property without your permission. These legal contracts are enforced by the state apparatus; the threat of armed forces should you trespass. Hence, if we abolish the state and these legal contracts which enforce the private ownership over capital, it is more likely to be a spontaneous act of workers all over peacefully and naturally occupying the factories and land they work at/on without the threat of military coercion.
    That sounds fair enough but I'm more reliant on workers mutually working together because it would be beneficial to do so as opposed to saying they will spontaneously work peacefully. I find whenever trying to explain the ideology, it's perhaps best to approach it in such a way that the argument for anarchy is explained through logic - mutual co operation - so that the other person won't go "YEH BUT WAT ABOUT IF DIZ REELY STOOPID FING HAPPENZ, DEN WAT? LOLOLOLOL C IT CARNT WURK"

    Well (this is my own take on it) to create anarchy in the first place, we need anarchists, that is, a population with a revolutionary mindset. Should communes use oppressive actions (communes are less likely to occur anyway if the local community have a reactionary mindset) then people may choose to leave, or other communes may intervene depending on how serious the situation was. Communes have to form links with one another, in the first place, however, in order to organise interrelationships, trade links, organise highway maintenance and other tasks which require a system of national and international co-operation in order to achieve. They are less likely to form links with communities that are backwards and oppressive; such communities will suffer from isolation.
    Interesting. I don't think it's entirely fair to expect, say if violence is involved, for those people to just leave. Say they weren't permitted or it became very difficult for them to do so. At the same time, leaving a commune to fester in its state doesn't help the victims either; rather, it just isolates them. The only solution I would be satisfied with is intervention but then again, individualists (I think) would argue that's impinging on the commune's right to operate as it wishes.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Very good explanation.

    Out of interest, since both our visions of anarchy are based on different premises, why is hierarchy itself something to be demolished? Why are you opposed to it?
    Actually no not a very good explanation since he assumes that classical liberals somehow mystically and collectively transformed into Lloydian Liberals. Neoliberalism is a very very new term (1980s+). The people he now calls neoliberals (Hayek) had been writing on classical liberalism since the 1920s and were taught by people who had been pupils of the pupils of the pupils of liberals like Adam Smith (Edwin Cannan's teachers go back to Adam Smith for example).

    The vast vast majority of the economists alive then (save for the two Cambridges - UK and US) were c. liberals. Including people like Ludwig Erhard and W. Ropke and W. Hutt and H. Hazlitt (economics editor of the NY Times), etc etc. That is EARLY 20th century as I said.

    So no there was no massive transition from classical liberalism to social liberalism and then out of the blue these evil neoliberals appeared.
    Moreover he clearly doesn't know anything about neoliberals as they do not wish to abolish welfare or social security (even Hayek was in favour of a minimum guaranteed standard of living let alone today's much more interventionist neoliberals).

    And I really don't know why the classical liberals would be socialists today.

    Take Dewey's criticism of classical liberalism and what he called "old individualism" (he has an essay called Individualism Old and New). It's what the vast majority of socialists today think of classical liberal philosophy (forget economics which have absolutely nothing in common with the socialist mercantile junk). Namely, that "old" individualism was anti-social, that the classical liberals saw man as being isolated, that their philosophy leads to materialism and greed and corporatism all that unbelievable crap Dewey wrote. Hayek's essay on the other hand (Individualism True and False) IS a defence of classical liberal philosophy and one which shows the continuity of classical liberal thought (Dewey had entirely rejected liberty of the individualist kind the classical liberals held and instead defended outright communitarian conceptions of liberty).

    I see absolutely no reason to believe that the classical liberals would in any way affirm contemporary socialist thinking. They have nothing, nothing in common.

    And I would also agree with Hy~'s comment above (though he didn't say much ). Austrian Economics has never been the favourite school of the neoliberals. Chicago economics and Monetarism are what neoliberals believe in. They have entirely different views with respect to money and competition (and methodology though that is probably a theoretical difference with no public policy implications, it's nevertheless a huuge difference).

    P.S. This is an answer to Nutter not you Hysteria (unless you agree with him)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Lol no.
    My bad - ignore that part (the bit you put in bold).

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Out of interest, since both our visions of anarchy are based on different premises, why is hierarchy itself something to be demolished? Why are you opposed to it?
    Its easier to say that we are opposed to hierarchy because that is the easiest explanation of our ideas. For instance, we see wage labour as a hierarchy in which the employer has power over the employees; the wage labour, we argue would have been non-existent had the state never intervened with communities, hence we oppose it. We are opposed to hierarchy since we are libertarians and libertarians are opposed to authoritarianism, force and coercion (with the exception of force/coercion in self defense, to prevent the physical harm to others or to overthrow irrational [hierarchical authority]) which is the natural outcome of inequality of political or economic power (i.e. hierarchy). When a man inflicts pain on or exerts domination over another man, he is able to do so because he has more power over that man. To prevent this situation, we say take power away from the first man, and he will not be able to inflict pain or exert domination. When we say "hierarchy", we really mean a hierarchy of power. For us, then, any form of hierarchy is something that is contradictory to the nature of Libertarianism. For the right-wing, an entirely different meaning of the word "Libertarian" is used; one that encompasses negative liberty, individualism and free market capitalism. Voluntary hierarchies are fine...but we would argue that any form of hierarchy will gradually transform into a coercive, non-voluntary one which does exert force and coercion upon even those who would not wish to be involved in such a hierarchy (that is, if the basic premise of a society is a myriad of voluntary hierarchies).

    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    That sounds fair enough but I'm more reliant on workers mutually working together because it would be beneficial to do so as opposed to saying they will spontaneously work peacefully. I find whenever trying to explain the ideology, it's perhaps best to approach it in such a way that the argument for anarchy is explained through logic - mutual co operation - so that the other person won't go "YEH BUT WAT ABOUT IF DIZ REELY STOOPID FING HAPPENZ, DEN WAT? LOLOLOLOL C IT CARNT WURK"
    You mean that you would prefer to see the workers working outside of the realms of capitalism in small agricultural communities and start from (or close to) scratch? I am not morally opposed to this or anything, I would just argue that the technology and industry is already present under modern day capitalist society so why start from scratch? I would argue that we need to accumulate capital, get involved in politics and trade to gain more power as a movement and infiltrate bureacratic trade unions to make its members more militant.

    When people point out faults with strategical tactics in anarchism, I think its best not to try and explain the system as perfect (since no system is perfect) but to try and explain what problems are likely to occur and how the community can work together along the way to try and solve them. In some ways, pointing out the errors is the best of way of trying to defend it rather than trying to explain a hopelessly utopian society that cannot realistically exist.

    Interesting. I don't think it's entirely fair to expect, say if violence is involved, for those people to just leave. Say they weren't permitted or it became very difficult for them to do so. At the same time, leaving a commune to fester in its state doesn't help the victims either; rather, it just isolates them. The only solution I would be satisfied with is intervention but then again, individualists (I think) would argue that's impinging on the commune's right to operate as it wishes.
    I think individualists would be opposed to communes altogether.

    As a non-individualist, I would argue that if violence is used that other communes should intervene, particularly if a commune does not allow its members to leave freely. In essence, a commune should not be a fixed geographical location as much as a free association of workers that can co-exist and co-operate with other associations in the same neighbourhood; workers should be able to flow smoothly from one association to another, if you see what I mean and the members of the community should be able to come together and use associations as a tool to deal with social issues like crime and violence as well as economic issues like trade, transportation and industrial action. All members of a community should be able to come together on a regular basis at a regular spot like a town hall to hold assemblies and make plans/carry out decisions/debate decisions. I don't think it should just be one commune in one area that everyone must obey.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    ...
    You are right about the Austrian School of Economics not being neoliberal, and I made a MAJOR error there but as far as the rest of the post goes, I was trying to give my own perspective as to how I feel that the classical liberals (or those influenced by classical liberalism) would have changed their ideology over time with the gradual introduction of social welfare, hence "good" state intervention (as opposed to mercantilism), hence why I think some of the early classical liberals would have become, perhaps not socialists but maybe social liberals of a kind. Nonetheless, this would explain why nowadays we have "left-wing" liberals as well. Others, claimed the classical liberal title, like Hayek, and stayed "true" to the traditional policy of reduced state intervention. It was a simplistic overview, I know but then it was my intention to provide a more clear/less complicated explanation.

    p.s. I don't agree with Dewey's onlook about classical liberalism (or at least not the early classical liberalism during the days of mercantilism).

    p.p.s I have found this website on the various schools of political economy thought, do you think it any good or have any alternative suggestions? http://homepage.newschool.edu/het// - cheers.

    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I'm very glad to see this post, AN. You're a massive liberal at heart really
    LOL - I don't know about that!

    But seriously, I agree with you completely. And I think there is a very useful discussion that needs to be had about how to rectify those historical situations which created the current system through, as you put it rather aptly, 'theft and expropriation; or whether that rectification is necessary. But regardless, that is a good post.
    Yes. If there is one thing that can be agreed upon by the liberals of the rightist tradition and the classical anarchists, it is that the initial state intervention, whether the system was mercantilism or underdeveloped capitalism, was the basis of all modern day evils. I suppose we disagree about how to rectify the past evils, what "theft" actually is and how society would have developed (whether it would have naturally transitioned into a system of free trade, wage labour and private capital or a system of socialised capital and free trade).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You mean that you would prefer to see the workers working outside of the realms of capitalism in small agricultural communities and start from (or close to) scratch? I am not morally opposed to this or anything, I would just argue that the technology and industry is already present under modern day capitalist society so why start from scratch? I would argue that we need to accumulate capital, get involved in politics and trade to gain more power as a movement and infiltrate bureacratic trade unions to make its members more militant.

    When people point out faults with strategical tactics in anarchism, I think its best not to try and explain the system as perfect (since no system is perfect) but to try and explain what problems are likely to occur and how the community can work together along the way to try and solve them. In some ways, pointing out the errors is the best of way of trying to defend it rather than trying to explain a hopelessly utopian society that cannot realistically exist.
    No, I simply mean that in any situation, it would make sense for people to work together because logically, both parties lose out if you don't. If there's a lack of hierarchy, it means that people should work together even mutually so to achieve whatever aims they wish to achieve. Like you, I think a degree of infiltration is needed into the very system that needs to be removed otherwise it seems a pretty hopeless task to get any kind of anarchic system up and running. Technology is there to be used, we should use it. The internet is a great tool for spreading ideas and is virtually anarchic (but not completely) in that sense.

    I agree that you shouldn't try and shy away from faults and appreciate that anarchy, like every system has a vast range of flaws but I feel to combat that is as you say, to show how the community would work together. Personally, I prefer to use logic for this step because I think it makes it clearer to understand but I take your point that it's not realistic to paint anarchy in a utopian light. Humans are based on irrationality and not logical algorithms so it is perhaps better to use your method of suggestion.

    I think individualists would be opposed to communes altogether.

    As a non-individualist, I would argue that if violence is used that other communes should intervene, particularly if a commune does not allow its members to leave freely. In essence, a commune should not be a fixed geographical location as much as a free association of workers that can co-exist and co-operate with other associations in the same neighbourhood; workers should be able to flow smoothly from one association to another, if you see what I mean and the members of the community should be able to come together and use associations as a tool to deal with social issues like crime and violence as well as economic issues like trade, transportation and industrial action. All members of a community should be able to come together on a regular basis at a regular spot like a town hall to hold assemblies and make plans/carry out decisions/debate decisions. I don't think it should just be one commune in one area that everyone must obey.
    Yeah, I suppose they would to be fair.

    Whilst I appreciate communes and free associations do not need to be fixed geographical points, they can still oppress the people who are in them i.e. tyranny of the masses. I agree that they should be used as a tool against crime and violence but what if they are used to enforce it? It then becomes a power struggle between who is the 'correct' association and who is also the stronger association. I may be looking at this incorrectly but it seems that way to me and in which case, it may be difficult to maintain peace and balance in such a situation. I don't think I've completely finished my thoughts but I'd be interested to hear yours.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You are right about the Austrian School of Economics not being neoliberal, and I made a MAJOR error there but as far as the rest of the post goes...
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    No, I simply mean that in any situation, it would make ...
    Are you guys familiar with the works of Austrian economists on things like fractional-reserve banking and the business cycle. There's a great book by Rothbard that sets out how they both work and how they are against the ideals of freedom and the market. I don't know if there's a copy online but the cover looks like this so keep an eye out (maybe look on Amazon if you're going to get it?)...

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Are you guys familiar with the works of Austrian economists on things like fractional-reserve banking and the business cycle. There's a great book by Rothbard that sets out how they both work and how they are against the ideals of freedom and the market. I don't know if there's a copy online but the cover looks like this so keep an eye out (maybe look on Amazon if you're going to get it?)...
    Ah, yes. Thanks for the book suggestion I will definitely read it when I get the chance (though its bloody long). Is this, by any chance part of your attempts to educate those economically illiterate socialists? I believe that the Austrian school tend to make a fairly huge distinction between the gold reserves and the fractional banking system, no?

    The free version is here by the way. Many of the Mises/Rothbardian and other Libertarian books are available for free at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute by doing a simple search.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Ah, yes. Thanks for the book suggestion I will definitely read it when I get the chance (though its bloody long). Is this, by any chance part of your attempts to educate those economically illiterate socialists? I believe that the Austrian school tend to make a fairly huge distinction between the gold reserves and the fractional banking system, no?

    The free version is here by the way. Many of the Mises/Rothbardian and other Libertarian books are available for free at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute by doing a simple search.
    Yes I know you get lots online at mises.org/books but I didn't see the Fed one.

    There is a huge distinction made between the gold reserves and fractional-reserve, considering one is based on an elaborate form of fraud. If you want to become economically literate ( ) then check out "Man, Economy and State" by Rothbard too. That linked version comes with "Power and Market." Beware though - it's long! :yy:
 
 
 
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
Poll
Favourite type of bread
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.