Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Parliament XXIV political tests Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I support the social ownership and control of the means of production by the people through elected workers councils.

    I do not advocate the continued existence of the state. I advocate the abolition of the bourgeois state and setting up of a proletarian semi-state, which would wither away.

    You still haven't explained how the acceptance of the state means you cannot have complete social ownership and control.
    Elected worker councils? Sounds like authority to me. Again, who enforces the equal distribution of the means of production? There must be authority to control this, otherwise your local max stirner worshipping anarcho egoist will take everything.
    If there is authority who control how the means of production are distributed, then the workers don't control it, regardless of the fact that these so called councils are made of proletarians.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I support the social ownership and control of the means of production by the people through elected workers councils.

    I do not advocate the continued existence of the state. I advocate the abolition of the bourgeois state and setting up of a proletarian semi-state, which would wither away.

    You still haven't explained how the acceptance of the state means you cannot have complete social ownership and control.
    Next you'll come out with that you support the dissolution of law because it's a "means through which the bourgeoisie extend control over the masses."
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
    Next you'll come out with that you support the dissolution of law because it's a "means through which the bourgeoisie extend control over the masses."
    No, that's bourgeois hegemony you're getting at.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    True, and there's also the fact that Cuba has some of the best social indicators on its continent - its child mortality rate is lower than that of the USA.
    The US is like the worst developed country when it comes to things like that though.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Just redid my test because my other one was quite old. Seems I've gone a bit more radical lol

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I'll take that as you accept defeat that on that point when exposed to the facts.



    So socialism=incompetency , completely agreed there.



    So your admitting I was right and now saying "oh it wasn't executed correctly", that's a pathetic excuse and your using vague statements to justify your undefinable position.
    Even your weak argument can be used against you, seems that your agreeing with Ronald Regan here, the execution was poor therefore you are saying government is the problem.



    Yes I accept these but I am using it as an example.
    It followed reforms set by Milton Friedman which saw its economy perform amazingly well.

    Milton Friedman’s visit in March 1975 forever changed the course of Chile’s history. After spending 6 days in Chile giving lectures at various think tanks, Friedman finally met up with General Pinochet.
    From the start, Friedman noticed that Pinochet was not savvy in economic matters. After meeting with Pinochet, Friedman wrote him a letter recommending a series of policy prescriptions that Chile should follow for it to get its economy back on track.
    Friedman did not beat around the bush in his letter to Pinochet. For Chile to get out of its crisis, Friedman believed that it must pursue free market policies —privatization of state-owned enterprises, removal of barriers to foreign investment, and opening up to free trade.
    ochet yielded for the most part and let the Chicago School disciples do their work. In April 1975, El Plan de Recuperación Económica (The Economic Recovery Plan) was put in place. Soon Chile curbed its inflation, opened up its markets, privatized state-owned industries, and let the private sector correct itself. By the 1980s, Chile was experiencing the largest economic boom in its history.

    From 1810 to 1983, Chile experienced a measly 0.9% per capita GDP growth rate. Thanks to the free-market reforms, Chile experienced a sustained growth rate of 4.3% from 1983 and onwards. Even under the administration of numerous Center-Left governments during the 90s up until 2010, the foundation of Chile’s free market system was left relatively untouched.



    Actually in 2014 it was still rated the 7th most free economy in the world according to the economic index of freedom
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
    Also if you look at most of the countries in the top 10 , they are all economically booming/doing well.
    The likes of Singapore,Hong Kong, Switzerland.
    I'm not sure what you think my point is. Of course the government is the problem, but the point is the government can be a problem whether it's capitalist or socialist. Price control, yeah, I see that as an issue but I'm just saying nationalization was only a problem when there was mismanagement.

    I'm not even advocating for socialism. I'm from one of those freest economies you mentioned and I certainly don't think there needs to be more welfare or higher taxes. I'm merely saying Venezuela isn't an example of socialism failing a country: falling oil prices, corruption, general incompetence are.

    The reality is most countries have a mixed mode, and hardly any capitalist country doesn't have any traces of socialism.

    Hong Kong is the freest economy in the world. But the government controls many aspects of life: railway, electricity are franchised with the govt as the biggest shareholder; buses, tunnels are franchised and regulated; airport is privatized with the govt as the biggest shareholder; taxis are regulated and licenses controlled by govt; education is mostly publicly funded; water is nationalized. There's mandatory pension contribution, practically free healthcare, nationalized radio channel plus restricted radio and TV channels. Currency is artificially pegged, govt is known to invest into the stock market when things are going wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Just redid my test because my other one was quite old. Seems I've gone a bit more radical lol


    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by heri2rs)
    Elected worker councils? Sounds like authority to me. Again, who enforces the equal distribution of the means of production? There must be authority to control this, otherwise your local max stirner worshipping anarcho egoist will take everything.
    Authority is a necessity. Take a factory, a railway, a ship on the high seas, said Engels: is it not clear that not one of these complex technical establishments, based on the use of machinery and the systematic co-operation of many people, could function without a certain amount of subordination and, consequently, without a certain amount of authority or power?

    "The exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead)."

    If there is authority who control how the means of production are distributed, then the workers don't control it, regardless of the fact that these so called councils are made of proletarians.
    We must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.
    "Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products."

    Government by direct democracy effected by elected workers' councils, comprised of workers and with temporary delegates that are instantly revocable. This is social ownership and control.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)

    Workers of the world unite
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Usual comments about the inaccuracy of such tests apply:

    Labour @ 68%
    LibDem @ 64%
    Green @ 63%

    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Usual comments about the inaccuracy of such tests apply:

    Labour @ 68%
    LibDem @ 64%
    Green @ 63%

    Bloody hell, you aren't an actual libertarian then Paddy, makes sense now

    I don't know how you were UKIP leader with that PC though, has your position shifted radically over the years?
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    Usual comments about the inaccuracy of such tests apply:

    Labour @ 68%
    LibDem @ 64%
    Green @ 63%

    We are basically the same
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Bloody hell, you aren't an actual libertarian then Paddy, makes sense now

    I don't know how you were UKIP leader with that PC though, has your position shifted radically over the years?
    Well, this isn't an accurate representation of my position. You will find that you can interpret many of the questions in whatever way you need to to shift your results. I answer, for the most part, the literal question asked. Should companies have to protect the environment? I answer yes because I think areas of natural beauty, nature reserves etc. should be protected. My broad Libertarian support was predicated on several key policies, and I was clear about this whenever asked. I am socially as liberal as they come, and beyond that the key thing the Libertarians have right is the citizens income which I think makes enormous sense. In many ways I'm not an identikit Libertarian, no. I never claimed that I was though :dontknow:

    My opinions are such that I don't really fit neatly into any party. My social inclinations would have me as a LibDem, my staunch belief in equality of opportunity and broad social justice (however dirty that term has unfortunately become) would have me in Labour.

    I'm a pragmatist beyond anything, so am driven to support whichever party supports the best policies. As such, you are correct that in many ways I am certainly not a libertarian as most people mean it, but the same can be said of my relationship with almost all broad designations.

    I took over UKIP because I felt like it, and essentially did as I pleased. I did have considerable misgivings about Europe - so in that sense it was legitimate - but I disagreed with the real life party on almost every count beyond that. There are only one or two people still around from those days, but they will remember that UKIP was a broadly pragmatic party beyond its obvious eurosceptisicm.

    (Original post by Obiejess)
    We are basically the same
    :borat:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    My opinions are such that I don't really fit neatly into any party. My social inclinations would have me as a LibDem, my staunch belief in equality of opportunity and broad social justice (however dirty that term has unfortunately become) would have me in Labour.
    Most libertarians don't believe in social justice. Its quite authoritarian for the government to dictate who is supposedly being oppressed, what is socially unjust etc etc. Social justice inevitably leads to socialism.

    It also explains why you are on the left,
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ferm4t)
    Most libertarians don't believe in social justice. Its quite authoritarian for the government to dictate who is supposedly being oppressed, what is socially unjust etc etc. Social justice inevitably leads to socialism.

    It also explains why you are on the left,
    I agree, though for me social justice probably - frankly, hopefully - means something slightly different to what it does to most people now. It is why these kinds of things are broadly useless when we try to describe our opinions and why I strongly prefer to talk in terms of policies and meaningful opinions rather than dogma and back-patting ideology. To indulge a little in the latter though; I believe that equality of opportunity is a good thing and that this is expedited by the reduction of various inequalities (Judt's 'Ill Fares The Land' is a great read here), but I also believe strongly that the government has little right to interfere in the social life of the citizen. My social history reading (Thompson et al) has coloured my opinions obviously, but I think the greatest ill is poverty. It is why I strongly support the citizens income; if everybody automatically has the means to sustain themselves comfortably then it is easier to countenance some number of other inequalities which would otherwise be unacceptable. I only skimmed this thread but I think it was Nigel who said something to the effect of these designations being inherently reductive and, often, confusing. I tend to agree with that.

    I'm always far more interested in the things a person supports than the things they say they are. You can join whatever tribe you like, but if you are a liberal voting against incest - in the context of considerable restrictions - I am likely to view you very differently to a self-proclaimed religious fundamentalist who introduces a bill to burn all the gays and publicly slaughter all the sex toys :dontknow;
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    We must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism .
    .
    Your just an extremist dreaming , lol.
    This will never happen .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I thought you were a social democrat.

    Come to think of it, do you even want to nationalise anything? As i recall most of your 'socialism' comes from supporting higher taxes, wage caps and other mildly offensive things.
    I did put 'socialism' in inverted commas. I mean, even Blair described himself as a socialist. I find myself described as a socialist by some on the right and a socdem by some on the left.

    I think people have begun to underestimate how left-wing I am. When I joined there was no doubt that I was on the hard-left of my party and now maybe not so much. That said, I'd support gradual transition to nationalised railways and am open to nationalisation of energy. I also support - as did your own party - the idea of a state-owned investment bank for SMEs. I'm actually not a huge fan of wage caps - or at least absolute ones. I think the model whereby the top must not earn above a certain multiple of the bottom or mean could work very well. I am a fan of the idea of the private sector doing the wealth redistribution as well as or even instead of the government.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Just redid my test because my other one was quite old. Seems I've gone a bit more radical lol

    One of us! One of us!

    Jk
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Your just an extremist dreaming , lol.
    This will never happen .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Says the free market fundamentalist.

    free market fundamentalism oh free market what should we do to help the poor nothing has spoken .jpg
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    I am likely to view you very differently to a self-proclaimed religious fundamentalist who introduces a bill to burn all the gays and publicly slaughter all the sex toys :dontknow;
    So it seems QQ did leak our policies after all..
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: March 3, 2017
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.