Turn on thread page Beta

Why can't feminists win arguments? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Well that is kinda the theory at a very base level.... So you don't think the far left and far right both display authoritarian tendencies?
    They can do for sure and authoritarianism is a core and inseperable part of fascism (unlike for example communism). But there is no reason why the far left has to be authoratarian, there is a rich history of ideology and practise that is libertarian on the left. You also find liberatarian thought on the right as well (even if I think it makes no sense).Then there is all the "middle ground" stuff. Parlimentary Democratic Socialists like are not libertarians but they don't support Soviet Union style dicatorships.

    Then there are all the middle ground political placements that all rely on some level of state coercion. Is the UK an authoratarian country becuase it has a police force that ensure taxes are gathered and laws of property are upheld? Ultimatly that is based on the threat (and practise) of voilence. Beleiving in the rule of law is hardly an extreme view in liberal democracies.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I won’t talk about feminists their just the same as any fascist group nowadays but lefties in England

    There are many who win arguments but when it comes to a far right majority whether they win the argument or not they won’t win the vote take Dennis skinner he’s a amazing man who command respect of the entire group but the problem is most politics is like bullies in a playground they shout you down with the same unintelligent remarks of abuse and bad one liner jokes

    Honestly in the long run verry few far right groups win arguments as they rarely have a fair argument in the first place but often due to the electorate being mostly rich far right individuals it’s a fight no person of differed opinion can win

    And far right groups rarely debate as they use the turn around or act like a broken records repeating the same line and ignoring the question often answering only the planned questions by their own part and friends if you would

    On the other hand lefties not new labour I add as their blues under a red sheet often answer any question and thus are a a good representative as they are honest and truthful speaking with both facts and emotions and truly speaking for what their party represents

    By now you must have realised I’m a socialist not the fake socialist of new labour or nazi Germany

    And as a labour man I honestly find this debate biased as it overlooks a number of individuals who win arguments and overall I think you mean wins votes not arguments as Jeremy corbyn so far hasn’t lost one argument but lost seats
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Also a majority of far right groups such as torries use left wing ideas to trick common individuals into thinking that their voting for someone who stands for them and these individuals are generally not aware of the party’s true agendas thus these lies are more than enough to win them over them they use biased press campaigns adds and so on much like propaganda to further trick the less interested individuals to side with them it’s all a form of programming that begin in primary school and with their parents so at the point of election these individuals

    Don’t know a single thing about what their party political stance is and they attack the opposition as well

    Jeremy corbyn was attacked by press with ignorant topics such as his rye looks bad or he’s a terrorist sympathiser
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lastly they make promises they cannot and will not keep making their arguments not arguments at all in honesty they just lie
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    They can do for sure and authoritarianism is a core and inseperable part of fascism (unlike for example communism). But there is no reason why the far left has to be authoratarian, there is a rich history of ideology and practise that is libertarian on the left. You also find liberatarian thought on the right as well (even if I think it makes no sense).Then there is all the "middle ground" stuff. Parlimentary Democratic Socialists like are not libertarians but they don't support Soviet Union style dicatorships.

    Then there are all the middle ground political placements that all rely on some level of state coercion. Is the UK an authoratarian country becuase it has a police force that ensure taxes are gathered and laws of property are upheld? Ultimatly that is based on the threat (and practise) of voilence. Beleiving in the rule of law is hardly an extreme view in liberal democracies.
    I would disagree purely on the basis that communism strives to be for the benefit of the group and anything that threatens the communist state must be dealt with. By comparison liberal democracies in theory shouldn't oppose the creation of a new type of state (communist or fascist) if democratic forces prevail.

    While you do have bottom up socialist models that are the purest forms of Marxism, they are ultimately doomed to be realigned with a top down socialist model which ultimately every communist state descends into. Any stress or threat to the socialist state ultimately forces an authoritarian nature to be adopted, and once adopted it's very hard to remove those shackles from a communist state.

    By comparison you see even, so-called, liberal democracies becoming increasingly authoritarian over wartime period, but if they manage to stick to their Liberal roots they tend to survive the process without embracing full blown authoritarianism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    I would disagree purely on the basis that communism strives to be for the benefit of the group and anything that threatens the communist state must be dealt with.
    Communism has no state.

    NEXT!

    What you are refering to is a method of getting to communism, mainly varients based on what the Bolsheviks started in 1917.

    There is nothing at the core of communist poltical theory that says you have to do that and there are competing view points with the most libertarian being anarcho-communism which totally rejects using the state to build communism.

    This is not at all comparable to fascist political thoery. Having an authotarian nationalistic state is an intrinsic part of fascism. Communism's end goal is a form of anarchism. Facism certainly is not. That's wat I'm getting at. Fascism, on the whole, never went tragically wrong and went more or less to plan. You didn't get the fascist version of russian communnists who despaired at the developlemt and the direction the russian revolution was going and went. Where for example is the fascist Trotsky? Where is the fascist Martov? Where is the fascist Nestor Makhno? Where was the fascist Kollontai? The Fascist Luxenbourgh? Who all resisted and/or saw problems in how the Russian Revolution was developing.


    There are not many Stalinists anymore, the far left has on the whole accpeted that it needs an approach different to lenninism (well the left wing circles I exist in anyway)

    Utlimatly, as I think you have alluded to anyway. Marxism is basically a liberatarian ideology based on self ownership and the freedom to not be explioted.

    What you can argue is that it is utoipian and any attempt to get to communism will lead to authorarianism, which I don't agree with. I don't for example see how spannish anarchism could have ever fallen into Stalinism.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Communism has no state.

    NEXT!

    What you are refering to is a method of getting to communism, mainly varients based on what the Bolsheviks started in 1917.

    There is nothing at the core of communist poltical theory that says you have to do that and there are competing view points with the most libertarian being anarcho-communism which totally rejects using the state to build communism.

    This is not at all comparable to fascist political thoery. Having an authotarian nationalistic state is an intrinsic part of fascism. Communism's end goal is a form of anarchism. Facism certainly is not. That's wat I'm getting at. Fascism, on the whole, never went tragically wrong and went more or less to plan. You didn't get the fascist version of russian communnists who depaired at the developlemt and the direction the russian revolution was going and went. Where for example is the fascist Trotsky? Where is the fascist Martov? Where is the fascist Nestor Makhno? Where was the fascist Kollontai? The Fascist Luxenbourgh? Who all resisted and/or saw problems in how the Russian Revolution was developing.


    There are not many Stalinists anymore, the far left has on the whole accpeted that it needs an approach different to lenninism (well the left wing circles I exist in anyway)

    Utlimatly, as I think you have alluded to anyway. Marxism is basically a liberatarian ideology based on self ownership and the freedom to not be explioted.

    What you can argue is that it is utoipian and any attempt to get to communism will lead to authorarianism.
    While communism does have the end goal of a stateless society, it's quite literally impossible for it to get to that end goal. State Socialism will always get in the way and is.

    The main difference is Authoritarianism is seen as a pillar of fascism. Within communism and state socialism it's seen as a necessary evil. Both groups require it, they even state they require it, but with communism it's seen as the byproduct of the state and not the cause. I would argue however, which I think is the main crux of your disagreement, is that communism descending into Authoritarianism is a inevitability.

    Event then the Workers Councils in effect also get rid of the idea of a the abolition of state. You can't still retain groups who retain some form of power (despite the directness of the democracy) and claim to be stateless, you in effect fall into the trap of the tyranny of the masses. You'd require true anarchy, each man has no bonds or chains.

    I would argue that syndicalism would be less likely to fall to authoritarianism, however we're yet to see such a state. That being said, it was the bridge between fascism and socialism in Italy so I'm not totally convinced.

    Another thing to consider, especially in Italy's case, was how close the Fascist and Socialist movements were at their creation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    feminists have low brain cell count
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)


    Another thing to consider, especially in Italy's case, was how close the Fascist and Socialist movements were at their creation.
    Well the standard left explanation to that is that Fascism is a captalist reaction to socialism that preserves the hierachy and privelegde of the capatalist rulling classes whilst plecating the greviances the working class have. It's form of collectavist nationalism that holds heirarchy in place. Fascism has to place itself inside and speak for the working class in some way. It is in direct competition with socialism and you do certainly have overlap between the two sides when it is fighting for the support of working class.

    I'm also not goping to deny that Social Democratic parties and movements were never full of scabs that either just bent over to the right or were basically rigth wing themselves. Not to mention that the left has always understimated nationalism. If you were a full on socialist in the 20th century you had to deal with the fact working class populations were hellbent and supported slaughtering each other in imperialist wars.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)

    The main difference is Authoritarianism is seen as a pillar of fascism. Within communism and state socialism it's seen as a necessary evil. Both groups require it, they even state they require it, but with communism it's seen as the byproduct of the state and not the cause. I would argue however, which I think is the main crux of your disagreement, is that communism descending into Authoritarianism is a inevitability.
    Well for a lot of none marxist socialists state socialism was seen as the end goal

    To me state socialism is only ever a neccercery evil for sure. But that doesn't make it equivalent to what the Bolsheviks did. The NHS is state socialism, and we do not have gulags nor do have mass starvation. A Democratic Socialist wants to use the state to enforce human rights as well as worker rights. When the centre ground advocates the state it seems unfair to call communists, who respect liberal concepts such as human rights, authoratarians. Had the Bolsheviks not achieved total power I don't see how it was invitable that Russia would have gone the way it did. The Mensheviks for example were much more liberal and were less prone to dismissing liberal concepts such as indivdual rights, the rule of law and parlimentary democracy as bourgeois and thus could be dismissed by communists.

    By your description of what counts as authoratarian, where any use of state coercion is akin to what Lennin did, is wildy off the mark when the world and the rest of political phase space is hardly full of anarchists. Liberalism relies on the state to enforce rights of the individual and his property. Likewise a communist can respect the rule of law, even if they want to use that rule of law in a way that is hostile to property rights. A capitalist loosing control of his factory is not the same as a citizen being placed in a work camp.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,198

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.