Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    That's exactly what they've done. It worked too, they held on to the left by the sheer association of the Labour party with the left, yet reformed to a Thatcherist party.

    I think people are too keen on the "love your country, hate your government" thing, too ready to hate those in power without realising the good they have been or are doing. I'm not saying Labour haven't been working against us the public, but we are generally in a better state now that no other party in my opinion is able to deliver. Which is why I'm joining the Greens...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    How does it keep them poor?
    For us to have cheap consumer goods in the west, it is advantageous (and indeed necessary) to maintain a large, poor population who the multinationals can pay a pittance to produce such goods. If these people were wealthier, and better educated, they could get better jobs and lead a better lifestyle. However, then there would be no ready source of cheap labour for the west to exploit. Why do you think the manufacturing industry in the UK has taken such a blow? The wages that our workers demand (and indeed, are legally entitled to) are too high for profit-hungry multinationals. So, rather than becoming more efficient, as the economists suggest will happen, they simply out-source their labour to factories, and dare I say sweatshops, abroad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Communism is dead...good in theory bad in practice because human nature dictates that some pigs will always be more equal than others....I would like to ask the wannabee Marxists....what type of background are you from...Middle class, working class? Either way, the latter is not unfamiliar from the notion of property now as invariably many own a car, house etc. - by contrast, the Proletariat when Communism was first thought up, owned nothing - even the peasants owned land to some extent (hence why Marxists see the Proletariat as the most revolutionary class?)...now would you, knowing that through pursuing education, you will get a good job, accumulate material wealth, give up what you have worked and strived for (and there is almost such a thing as equality of opportunity now) to a socialist system where property is thought of as "theft" .... if so, why do you try to accumulate wealth in the first place....is it unavoidable? Do you believe you are victims of an elite hegemony imposing capitalist idealogy upon you? If you are aware of that, why bother feeding the economic needs of what you may term the capitalists? Go use public transport, go live in a council house, use the NHS, get a job on National Minimum wage that will serve your basic needs...food etc. , buy a car if you must but it must be a Lada or worse, don't buy kitchen appliances....indeed, Khrushchev got into an argument with Nixon about the how the washing machine is not really necessary. Or are you all comfortably well off rebellious kevin and Perrys who want to impose socialism, communism, whatever, on everybody else without ever trying to practice any of the principles yourself (unless you call protesting against the war in Iraq a means of practicing your principles)?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    Communism is dead...good in theory bad in practice
    Did you not read Musicboy's earlier post?
    because human nature dictates that some pigs will always be more equal than others
    However, Marx dictated that it was the will of the proletariat that this social hierarchy would disintergrate into communes, hence communism. I believe that it is reasonable that attitudes should change, and that people can understand that having a great deal of power over others is not a good thing. It builds resentment and therefore social unrest.
    ....I would like to ask the wannabee Marxists....what type of background are you from...Middle class, working class?
    Yes, I'm probably middle class
    Either way, the latter is not unfamiliar from the notion of property now as invariably many own a car, house etc. - by contrast, the Proletariat when Communism was first thought up, owned nothing - even the peasants owned land to some extent (hence why Marxists see the Proletariat as the most revolutionary class?)...
    True, but even nowadays, on a global scale there are many landless people who live in absolutely inhuman conditions. Could they not begin a Trotskyite revolution. These people prop up the worlds economy-they are the factories of the world, making our good for a pittance. If they threw off the shackles of capitalism, do you think our markets could survive?
    now would you, knowing that through pursuing education, you will get a good job, accumulate material wealth, give up what you have worked and strived for (and there is almost such a thing as equality of opportunity now) to a socialist system where property is thought of as "theft"
    Yes, in modern western society that notion is a little jaded; but then; I don't envisage socialist revolution in my lifetime, therefore I have to provide for myself as best I can. I have ambitions of success, and the oppprtunities to fulfil them. However, it is a great injustice that 80% of the people of this planet cannot get a decently paid job, yet alone fulfil their ambitions
    .... if so, why do you try to accumulate wealth in the first place....is it unavoidable?
    Good question. I'll get back to you on that.
    Do you believe you are victims of an elite hegemony imposing capitalist idealogy upon you?
    To an extent, yes. Do you expect me to opt out of society altogether?[quote] If you are aware of that, why bother feeding the economic needs of what you may term the capitalists? Go use public transport,[quote]I do
    go live in a council house
    What?
    , use the NHS,
    a great example of inequality in our own society
    get a job on National Minimum wage that will serve your basic needs...food etc
    basic needs? Who dictated that Communists should exist solely on their basic needs. I believe that Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Therefore, if a communist society is affluent, then surely equal provision of luxuries can be made too.
    , buy a car if you must but it must be a Lada or worse, don't buy kitchen appliances....indeed, Khrushchev got into an argument with Nixon about the how the washing machine is not really necessary.
    Beside the point. Russian was not a fully developed communist state, and was also in direct competition with a state guilty of all the ills of capitilism
    Or are you all comfortably well off rebellious kevin and Perrys who want to impose socialism, communism, whatever, on everybody else without ever trying to practice any of the principles yourself (unless you call protesting against the war in Iraq a means of practicing your principles)?
    Whatever. Namecalling has no part in debating. Those whom communism would benefit most can't even afford internet access.

    Reply if you want, but don't expect an answer soon. I'm off to bed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    Communism is dead...good in theory bad in practice
    Nothing can work in theory and fail in practice, otherwise the reality isn't an actual reflection of the theory, or theory is flawed itself.

    because human nature dictates that some pigs will always be more equal than others
    Would you like to provide any reasoning of this theory? Human nature is not that of short-term utility maximisers, that is simply the way we have been brought up to believe we should act - if we don't act in this way, we will end up at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy. Convince humans of the benefits sought from communal living and new social conditions are created - hence a new 'human nature' is created.

    ....I would like to ask the wannabee Marxists....what type of background are you from...Middle class, working class?
    I was born into a working-class family. However, we are most probably now middle-class. Why is this important?

    Either way, the latter is not unfamiliar from the notion of property now as invariably many own a car, house etc. - by contrast, the Proletariat when Communism was first thought up, owned nothing - even the peasants owned land to some extent (hence why Marxists see the Proletariat as the most revolutionary class?)
    Firstly, if you think about the people who would really benfit from a socialist society, they do not own cars and houses. Secondly, you misunderstand the notion of the communal distribution of property. This doesnt mean that everyone's personal possessions would be taken off them and 'shared out equally' (some bizarre concept I often hear talked about). Property, in the Marxist sense, is procuctive capital - the property which makes the creation of more goods possible. It is productive property which would be taken into control of the people, as it is the ownership of productive property by a minority of people which allows that minority to exploit the workers - the workers have no use for the communal ownership of peoples cars!

    now would you, knowing that through pursuing education, you will get a good job, accumulate material wealth, give up what you have worked and strived for (and there is almost such a thing as equality of opportunity now) to a socialist system where property is thought of as "theft"
    See above. The ownership of property as you think about it is not seen as 'theft'. For the majority of people, there would be very little 'giving up' to put up with. The fundamental changes would be made to the system of economic production, from which the changes to the lives of the millions of people would flow.

    if so, why do you try to accumulate wealth in the first place....is it unavoidable?
    See above. Its all about the way people are brought up - socialisation I guess. There are many people out there, through own life experiences, that have sacrificed the chance to get a high paying job to go and work in a field where they can help people. The main priority for these people isnt accumulating wealth, but helping others - communal existence.

    Do you believe you are victims of an elite hegemony imposing capitalist idealogy upon you? If you are aware of that, why bother feeding the economic needs of what you may term the capitalists? Go use public transport, go live in a council house, use the NHS, get a job on National Minimum wage that will serve your basic needs...food etc. , buy a car if you must but it must be a Lada or worse, don't buy kitchen appliances....indeed, Khrushchev got into an argument with Nixon about the how the washing machine is not really necessary.
    It is not possible for a socialist to opt out of society. That is the whole point of a capitalist society - it is controlled by capitalists. The only way to avoid this is to kill yourself - which wont do much good for the cause.

    Or are you all comfortably well off rebellious kevin and Perrys who want to impose socialism, communism, whatever, on everybody else without ever trying to practice any of the principles yourself (unless you call protesting against the war in Iraq a means of practicing your principles)?
    So having a poor quality of life is practicing socialist principles?!? Isnt that what socialism tries to rectify?!? Have you actually read any of the stuff your criticising!

    And if you have to resort to points like that to back your arguement, you clearly don't have the intellectual cloat support a critique of communism
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have recently returned from a trip to cuba so have seen communism first-hand. From what I could see, although the country was very poor in general they were happy people. Castro is not an unpopular ruler and you certainly dont see his picture plastered on every wall and nowhere did I read "praise castro" or words to that effect. Communism may not be the best thing for the country but it certainly wasn't as bad as I expected.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    Communism is dead...good in theory bad in practice because human nature dictates that some pigs will always be more equal than others....I would like to ask the wannabee Marxists....what type of background are you from...Middle class, working class? Either way, the latter is not unfamiliar from the notion of property now as invariably many own a car, house etc. - by contrast, the Proletariat when Communism was first thought up, owned nothing - even the peasants owned land to some extent (hence why Marxists see the Proletariat as the most revolutionary class?)...now would you, knowing that through pursuing education, you will get a good job, accumulate material wealth, give up what you have worked and strived for (and there is almost such a thing as equality of opportunity now) to a socialist system where property is thought of as "theft" .... if so, why do you try to accumulate wealth in the first place....is it unavoidable? Do you believe you are victims of an elite hegemony imposing capitalist idealogy upon you? If you are aware of that, why bother feeding the economic needs of what you may term the capitalists? Go use public transport, go live in a council house, use the NHS, get a job on National Minimum wage that will serve your basic needs...food etc. , buy a car if you must but it must be a Lada or worse, don't buy kitchen appliances....indeed, Khrushchev got into an argument with Nixon about the how the washing machine is not really necessary. Or are you all comfortably well off rebellious kevin and Perrys who want to impose socialism, communism, whatever, on everybody else without ever trying to practice any of the principles yourself (unless you call protesting against the war in Iraq a means of practicing your principles)?
    Why do you insist on making yourself look stupid. I could hardly read this jumble of ideas and apart from anything they have been mainly addressed earlier in the thread. Also it would encourage people to read if you didn't use ellipses so regularly. Maybe it would help if you paragraphed a bit as well.

    MB
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    A communist is someone who has read Marx and Lenin.
    An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Labourites are communist, by definition. They want full control of everyones lives. Communism embraces the police state and other totalitarian destructions of freedom, and so do the labourites.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by labouriteslayer)
    Labourites are communist, by definition. They want full control of everyones lives. Communism embraces the police state and other totalitarian destructions of freedom, and so do the labourites.
    Clause 4???????

    MB
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by labouriteslayer)
    Labourites are communist, by definition.
    Definition, please
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimoni)
    Definition, please
    that would be "all those ppl who dis me"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blamps)
    to a socialist system where property is thought of as "theft"
    mate, the notion that 'property is theft' derived from Proudhon, an anarchist, not communism. marx distinguished between personal and private property. Consequently if you go to a socialistt society individual possessions do exist while ownership over the means of production is public.

    Please do not distort communist ideology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    For us to have cheap consumer goods in the west, it is advantageous (and indeed necessary) to maintain a large, poor population who the multinationals can pay a pittance to produce such goods.
    Personally I think you're confusing the morality of low wages and the morality of working conditions which are below generally agreed standards. For a start the low wages of these workers you're referring are not low at all, they're considerably above what they might earn outside of the slums. The fact that the countries still face intolerable levels of poverty I blame on unfair trading terms, especially with regard to agriculture, I do not blame multinationals who will pay what people are willing to work for. It should not be possible as you suggest for the west to keep the third world poor whilst simultaneously taking advantage of the low wages, basic labour market economics suggests that these low factor costs will attract more firms and up the wage. There is evidence to suggest this isn't happening but we should analyse why it isn't happening, not just assume that turning our back on basic economics will help.
    If these people were wealthier, and better educated, they could get better jobs and lead a better lifestyle. However, then there would be no ready ource of cheap labour for the west to exploit.
    How do you propose that they get wealthier and better educated? Look at the tiger economies now. In some regions, the average wage is higher than that of somewhere like Cardiff.
    Why do you think the manufacturing industry in the UK has taken such a blow? The wages that our workers demand (and indeed, are legally entitled to) are too high for profit-hungry multinationals. So, rather than becoming more efficient, as the economists suggest will happen, they simply out-source their labour to factories, and dare I say sweatshops, abroad.
    Economics doesn't suggest that British primary/secondary should become more efficient, it acknowledges that they are limited in their efficiency by the quality and quantity of their factors, ie. British coal is crap and hard to mine. It then goes on to say that ultimately, the british economy should concentrate on the things they are good at, whilst another country takes over the manufacturing sector.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by labouriteslayer)
    Labourites are communist, by definition. They want full control of everyones lives. Communism embraces the police state and other totalitarian destructions of freedom, and so do the labourites.
    could you give examples of where Marx advocated the police totalitarian , preferably examples that override his assertion that through socialism the state would wither away.

    And plase do not just say russia. Russia emerged not only out of the *******isation of communist ideas but out of a civil war in which 13 bourgieos states invaded.

    It would be similar for me to use the example Chile to suggest that capitalism necessarily leads to military dictatorship
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Communism would be good if it worked... it essentially takes money out of social life by giving everyone roughly the same, so you get small deviations between rich and poor. But is it a fair distribution of resources? Someone might work very hard in a factory - much harder than another person, but if they get the same wage they will be able to buy the same amount of food and petrol.

    I don't think it caters for the fact that some people are naturally more competetive than others (and therefore deserve more).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    I don't think it caters for the fact that some people are naturally more competetive than others (and therefore deserve more).
    I think your argument is backward facing. It is capitalism etc that makes people more competitive, not the competetiveness that makes capitalism reasonable.

    MB
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivan)
    what do you think of communism?

    I think live and let live. There is a freedom of speech and they too have that right. That is their conviction and so be it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Personally I think you're confusing the morality of low wages and the morality of working conditions which are below generally agreed standards. For a start the low wages of these workers you're referring are not low at all, they're considerably above what they might earn outside of the slums. The fact that the countries still face intolerable levels of poverty I blame on unfair trading terms, especially with regard to agriculture, I do not blame multinationals who will pay what people are willing to work for. It should not be possible as you suggest for the west to keep the third world poor whilst simultaneously taking advantage of the low wages, basic labour market economics suggests that these low factor costs will attract more firms and up the wage. There is evidence to suggest this isn't happening but we should analyse why it isn't happening, not just assume that turning our back on basic economics will help.
    I dont know where you get the idea that the wages that labour in the Third World has to accept is tolerable - as it isnt. OK, it may be higher than if they worked in the rural agriculture (a sector in decline in the Third World as Western governments insist on giving their cows more subsidies than people) but the wages they get paid are still totally unaccpetable. Two thirds of the world (according to the UN) dont live on or below the poverty line for no reason you know.

    I also fail to see how you believe multi-national corporations who pay the people who work for them destitution wages are blameless. They are earning $billions whilst people are barely able to live on what they are paid by them. They could easily increase (or could be forced to increase) wages for these workers if they wanted too, or the Western governments were willing to regulate such companies. The economic belief that more firms will join the market and demand the labour, thus pushing up the price, will never happen because the finance required to start-up a business which could even come close to competing with the likes or Nike, Reebok, Disney are understandably extortionate - it will never happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by labouriteslayer)
    Labourites are communist, by definition. They want full control of everyones lives. Communism embraces the police state and other totalitarian destructions of freedom, and so do the labourites.
    Hmmm...have you actually ever read Marx (I'm sorry, do you actually know who Marx is?!?)? "When communism is achieved, the state will whither away and die...". I never heard him mention anything about police states and totalitarianism!
 
 
 
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 3, 2004
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.