Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Because austerity is an effective program.
    Austerity is a necessity.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Pathetic, grow up.
    Whether you disagree or not does not change the fact that it's an accurate reflection of Left-wing policy.

    Canada is a topical example:

    "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will run deficits totaling almost C$120 billion ($91.7 billion) over six years" - via Bloomberg.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Longshot700)
    Dunno why I keep getting called Leftie/ Liberal on the internet when I show my hatred for racist bullies and religious/ anti religious bullies.

    I just think judging someone for their race or religion is just disgusting and vile.
    Lazy thinkers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by A1112787)
    Austerity is a necessity.
    No, no it's not. It's a failed classical economic policy.
    Clearly you've never studied economics.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A1112787)
    Whether you disagree or not does not change the fact that it's an accurate reflection of Left-wing policy.

    Canada is a topical example:

    "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will run deficits totaling almost C$120 billion ($91.7 billion) over six years" - via Bloomberg.
    No it isn't. It's partisan tripe. There's a clear argument that investing to grow is a good thing, you may disagree.
    There are legitimate reasons for being both left and right wing and most people generally beleive their view is best for the country. You're conflating ideology with policy.

    Most left wing people believe a more communitarian society with a high level of public services is best. Right wing people generally believe a more individualistic, family based society is better.

    You can disagree with either but saying 'left wing people just want to bankrupt us' is partisan tripe, daily mail analysis.
    All you were doing was taking a cheap shot. Grow up.
    Let's be more mature about it and recognise that people can legitimately have different opinion.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multiculturalism)
    'Right-wing': A hatred of change, people who look different, and the poor

    Based on this, you seem to think all right-wing people are fascists. Republicans vote Republican because they want lower taxes, smaller government and prudent management of the economy. Oh, and strong borders.

    They always realise the financial crash was not solely the fault of the 'evil' rich bankers (like every Left-winger). Although the banks played a significant part by offering subprime mortgages, people still had to agree to the mortgage when they knew they couldn't afford it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No it isn't. It's partisan tripe. There's a clear argument that investing to grow is a good thing, you may disagree.
    There are legitimate reasons for being both left and right wing and most people generally beleive their view is best for the country. You're conflating ideology with policy.

    Most left wing people believe a more communitarian society with a high level of public services is best. Right wing people generally believe a more individualistic, family based society is better.

    You can disagree with either but saying 'left wing people just want to bankrupt us' is partisan tripe, daily mail analysis.
    All you were doing was taking a cheap shot. Grow up.
    Let's be more mature about it and recognise that people can legitimately have different opinion.
    Wanting a "communitarian society" with good public services doesn't mean governments have to spend hundreds of billions on these ideals.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No, no it's not. It's a failed classical economic policy.
    Clearly you've never studied economics.
    You sound like the Green Party. Wealthy countries like the UK can afford to run deficits but that doesn't mean they should. These things need to be brought under control for a plethora of reasons.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A1112787)
    Wanting a "communitarian society" with good public services doesn't mean governments have to spend hundreds of billions on these ideals.
    No it doesn't. There are different ways to go about it. I think i'm correct in asserting that generally left wing people want a more communitarian society whereas right wing people want a more individualistic one. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with either. People are entitled to their own opinion.

    What you were trying to do is make out left wing people just want to bankrupt the country, they don't, nor do right wing people. We all want a prosperous country, just that there is a difference in opinion on how to achieve that.

    I don't agree with right wing people, but I don't doubt that the vast majority generally feel their ideology is best for the country, same with left wing.

    Let's rise above the cheap shots of 'all left wing people are stupid' or 'all right wing people are heartless'.

    As for Canada, well yeah investing to grow is an established economic model, Keynsian economics which anyone who's been near so much as an A Level economics text book would know. You may disagree with that, there is a lot of variety of opinion on the best way for growth.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by balanced)
    left wing- A positive role for the state, intervene in markets, potentially nationalise things eg railways, high taxes (esp on wealthy)
    Right wing-Small involvement of the government, do not intervene in markets, emphasis on personal freedom, low taxes
    What you're describing is mostly more libertarian vs authoritarian, which is like a second axis to the political spectrum. It's possible to have be right wing and have high government control, complete control of markets, little personal freedom, etc (eg Nazi Germany), or to be left wing and little/no government control, free market, complete personal freedom etc (ie anarchism).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by A1112787)
    You sound like the Green Party. Wealthy countries like the UK can afford to run deficits but that doesn't mean they should. These things need to be brought under control for a plethora of reasons.
    There are clearly better alternatives to austerity.
    The cuts are have proved ineffectual, even in their supposed primary aim of reducing the deficits. It turns out that without stable economic growth -and the austerity programs are strangling any chance of this- it is almost impossible to cut a government’s deficit. What we need is precisely the opposite.

    The insights of Keynesian economics have been proved right, time after time again. Those countries worst affected, such as Greece, now have no choice but to default on their debts- they are simply unpayable and the austerity program is dragging these countries down into misery and despair. Countries like the UK, with rock-bottom interest rates have far more flexibility available to them. This is an ideal climate for the government borrow money and invest. Britain urgently needs improvements to its infrastructure.

    A massive government-driven Keynesian fiscal stimulus, particularly increasing spending in much-needed infrastructure, such as railways and airports, and in constructing affordable housing would boost the economy and even decrease the deficit to some extent.

    Look at this. The majority of Labour governments have ended up reducing the national debt, and the two that didn't coincided with the biggest global financial crisis of the 20th Century and the biggest global financial crisis so far in the 21st Century.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    What you're describing is mostly more libertarian vs authoritarian, which is like a second axis to the political spectrum. It's possible to have be right wing and have high government control, complete control of markets, little personal freedom, etc (eg Nazi Germany), or to be left wing and little/no government control, free market, complete personal freedom etc (ie anarchism).
    No that is not correct. I described the realistic practical differences, which do corrolate with theory. Also, I suggest you research a bit more about the National Socialist German Workers' Party which, oddly enough, was socialist, but very authoritarian. What you are describing is authoritarian vs libertarian, what I was describing was left vs right.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Oliver_94)
    Only the left can see the beauty in things where it is not so obvious
    Or existent.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    What you're describing is mostly more libertarian vs authoritarian, which is like a second axis to the political spectrum. It's possible to have be right wing and have high government control, complete control of markets, little personal freedom, etc (eg Nazi Germany), or to be left wing and little/no government control, free market, complete personal freedom etc (ie anarchism).
    You seem smart.
    Fancy joining the Socialist Party of TSR?
    See my signature below

    JOIN US IN THE MODEL HOUSE OF COMMONS HERE:"Everyone has their part to play. No part is too great or too small; no one is too old or too young to do something."- Bobby SandsTiocfaidh ár lá - Our day will come
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    You seem smart.
    Fancy joining the Socialist Party of TSR?
    See my signature below
    You forgot to check the 'show signature' box before posting.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You forgot to check the 'show signature' box before posting.
    Really?
    Goddamit!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by balanced)
    No that is not correct. I described the realistic practical differences, which do corrolate with theory. Also, I suggest you research a bit more about the National Socialist German Workers' Party which, oddly enough, was socialist, but very authoritarian. What you are describing is authoritarian vs libertarian, what I was describing was left vs right.

    What i was saying was that it's not correct to say "left wing = high gov control and low personal freedom, right wing = low gov control and high personal freedom" because that's not there case, as anarchism is left yet has no gov control and complete personal freedom, whilst the nazis were right but had the opposite.

    And yes, the Nazis called themselves socialists, but they were very much extreme right, and were socialist in the sense that modern China is, ie not.

    This illustrates what I'm describing:
    http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thu...px-Compass.png
    It's possible to be far left and libertarian (anarchist), far left and authoritarian (communist), far right and libertarian (libertarian), or far right and authoritarian (faschists, nazis, etc).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    Communism = Left wing authoritarian
    Communism as a philosophy of a what society should look like is libertarian. The authoritarianism comes when communists seize control of a state and try and force march society to a communist end goal or try and defend revolutionary potential in society from external or internal counter revolutionary forces.

    There are also libertarian communist ideologies that take a libertarian approach on how to get to the end goal of communism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

    CNT industrial anarcho-syndicalist unions and peasant communes in the Spanish Civil War and Ukrainian Free Territory in Russia during the Russian Revolution are examples of libertarian communist movements.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I think the far left have far more in common with the far right than the centre left (the same for the centre right too) in that they both subscribe to fantastical, naive and often disingenuous views

    (By far right I mean right wing nationalists AND libertarian types)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by KomradeKorbyn)
    What i was saying was that it's not correct to say "left wing = high gov control and low personal freedom, right wing = low gov control and high personal freedom" because that's not there case, as anarchism is left yet has no gov control and complete personal freedom, whilst the nazis were right but had the opposite.

    And yes, the Nazis called themselves socialists, but they were very much extreme right, and were socialist in the sense that modern China is, ie not.

    This illustrates what I'm describing:
    http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thu...px-Compass.png
    It's possible to be far left and libertarian (anarchist), far left and authoritarian (communist), far right and libertarian (libertarian), or far right and authoritarian (faschists, nazis, etc).
    Hitler was merely an unorthodox socialist. He believed that the problems of his predecessors were simply tactical, not philosophical.
    I'll give you some quotes:
    [My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”."We recognise that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind's own destruction and to the death of nations. "Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger . .

    "This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

    “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” 1927
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.