communism Watch

This discussion is closed.
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
True communism can never be achieved, there will always be someone at the top who will be ruling.
I don't think communism prescribes a lack of ruling elite.
0
ivan
Badges: 0
#22
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by sarah101)
Do you know what facism is? It's quite a strong label to put on something! You may disagree with Blair's policies but he isn't a facist.
yes I do ! DO YOU?
0
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
True communism can never be achieved, there will always be someone at the top who will be ruling.
Or there could be hundreds, or thousands or people on top. Marx dictated that an overtly socialist state would dissolve into local communes (hence communism). So this would extend democracy to its most basic level, with a nation state composed of many small, direct democracies which intercooperate.
0
musicbloke
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by ivan)
listen here "music boy" i have read more about communism/marxism than you had drinks so I think i know what om talking about! ok zjuwe (what ever?) do you think blair is good in power?
NO, also, what have you read? On the subject of fascism one of the communist internationals (can't for the life of me remember which one) is the open and terroristic dictatorship by the most reactionary, most chauvanistic and most imperialist sectors of finance capital ( I think that's it but that's off the top of my head). Someone please correct me if i'm wrong. I think this definition is quite good although somewhat outmoded.

MB
0
Juwel
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
(Original post by ivan)
listen here "music boy" i have read more about communism/marxism than you had drinks so I think i know what om talking about! ok zjuwe (what ever?) do you think blair is good in power?
Perhaps he's too "powerful", even Ken Livingstone reckons he's worse than Stalin. He may be a decent figurehead but in my opinion he doesn't do his subjects the best service. At least we can vote him out if we're unhappy.
0
sarah101
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by ivan)
yes I do ! DO YOU?
Actually, "facism" doesn't exist. Sorry about that. But fascism incorporates;

Suppressing the opposition, either through terror or censorship.

Extremely racist/ nationalist policies.

A dictatorship.

Is this how you see Blair's government?
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by sarah101)
Actually, "facism" doesn't exist. Sorry about that. But fascism incorporates;

Suppressing the opposition, either through terror or censorship.

Extremely racist/ nationalist policies.

A dictatorship.

Is this how you see Blair's government?
Of course facism exists. Ask Oswald Moseley. Blair obviously isn't a fascist.
0
sarah101
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by Howard)
Of course facism exists. Ask Oswald Moseley. Blair obviously isn't a fascist.
I think you've missed my point! Facism doesn't exist. At least not in this language.
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by Howard)
Of course facism exists. Ask Oswald Moseley. Blair obviously isn't a fascist.
Theres a very strong arguement to say that facism is a strictly historical phenonema - in other words "facism" in its most orthodox sense can only arise within certain conditions (which were provided during the inter-War period).

I dont necessarily agree with this, its just something we're constantly told in our politics lessons.
0
leda swanson
Badges: 0
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by ivan)
no because blair is an idiot like i said its meant to be socialist. it seems more facist than anything.
facist? lol. blair is somewhat superficial, non?
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by leda swanson)
facist? lol. blair is somewhat superficial, non?
Blair has too little spine to be facist.
0
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
Communism made more sense in the brutal industrial conditions of the 19th century than it does nowadays. It failed to take into account the possibility that the products of factory labour would actually benefit the working class in the end (as it clearly has), thus ameliorating conditions so far as to make revolution seem an extreme solution to what is (nowadays) only a relatively minor problem of patchwork poverty. I'm afraid advanced capitalism wins hands down over the appealing but rather contrived communist theory of economics.
0
kay0
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by Howard)
Of course facism exists. Ask Oswald Moseley. Blair obviously isn't a fascist.

spellcheck luv.......its fascism, not facism
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by edders)
Communism made more sense in the brutal industrial conditions of the 19th century than it does nowadays. It failed to take into account the possibility that the products of factory labour would actually benefit the working class in the end (as it clearly has), thus ameliorating conditions so far as to make revolution seem an extreme solution to what is (nowadays) only a relatively minor problem of patchwork poverty. I'm afraid advanced capitalism wins hands down over the appealing but rather contrived communist theory of economics.
Mmmhmm...now move your mind away from the rich advanced Western nations (where the majority of the world live by the way), and now your theory looks a little less credible!
0
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by kingslaw)
Mmmhmm...now move your mind away from the rich advanced Western nations (where the majority of the world live by the way), and now your theory looks a little less credible!
That's just what I was thinking. Trotskyism advocates global communism as then the resulting equality is global. It is clear that the benefits that capitalis renders to us are greatly outweighed by the way in which the capitalist system keeps many other people poor.
0
Yogafan
Badges: 0
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
Homer Simpson 'In theory Communism works, in theory'

Its a nice idea however i think 'the system' has gone too far for Commies to make a come back.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by carldaman)
That's just what I was thinking. Trotskyism advocates global communism as then the resulting equality is global. It is clear that the benefits that capitalis renders to us are greatly outweighed by the way in which the capitalist system keeps many other people poor.
How does it keep them poor?
0
musicbloke
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by Yogafan)
Homer Simpson 'In theory Communism works, in theory'

Its a nice idea however i think 'the system' has gone too far for Commies to make a come back.
Yes, the usual rubbish that superficial people spout. The fact is plain: If something does not work in practice then there must be a problem with the theory! What you are saying is a bit like 2+2=4 but if I get two oranges and then another two oranges I'll have 5. Clearly if you get two oranges and then another two and you have 5 then 2+2 does not equal 4 (sorry for the silly analogy) as it happens. I think that the theory is good but certain things must be refined.

MB
0
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by kingslaw)
Mmmhmm...now move your mind away from the rich advanced Western nations (where the majority of the world live by the way), and now your theory looks a little less credible!
But industrialisation in the developing world has improved life for most people there too. Take China for instance; there haven't been any famines lately. Indeed, there is a growing middle class.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by piginapoke)
Off-topic I know but:

Isn't this shift by Labour a clever device they employed to gain and remain in power? Apart from the diehards and oddities like single unpopular policies (e.g. war), won't people vote for the party who's policies they agree with?

Therefore it makes sense to ofer popular policies to gain and remain in power. So it seems that the centre right is most popular with the British public, and Labour stepped over to the right to capitalise on the decline of the Tories and pick up the right-wing vote in the process.

Seems like a reasonable idea to me, and although duplicitous at first glance, shouldn't that be what government is all about ideally - delivering the policies that people want? (Not saying they have particularly followed it through well).
the idea of holding power, hold the middle group, however as we are seeing those who voted for the party because of suposed principles (ie in this case war) will reject them so they will no necessarily of gained all that much support
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (661)
80.61%
Leave (159)
19.39%

Watched Threads

View All