Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists and Communists, some questions... watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Both things can be true, you know. Just because the Soviet Union made great technological leaps it doesn't mean capitalism hasn't also facilitated innovation. You'll notice I didn't actually make any judgement on whether capitalism produces more or less innovation than communism - all I've said is that it has historically resulted in innovation. Plus it's simply not true that technological innovation is something that simply 'happens'. Under feudalism (or rather the varied and nebulous socioeconomic structures we conveniently refer to as feudalism), there is very little incentive to innovate outside of sheer necessity or gaining a military advantage. These were centuries of virtually zero growth and stagnant living standards. When rightly compared to the system it supplanted, I don't think anybody can seriously argue that capitalism has not produced innovation.
    Thats the point though the innovation happened in spite of capitalism. The people who tend to bring the most innovation tend to be left wing like scientists and people in the tech industry rather than greedy leeches who just find ways to exploit to earn money.

    Also, I'd argue that what is most important is increasing the living standards of the poorest even at the expense of average living standards. To add to this, I think that we may have sufficient innovation in most areas and thus more innovation is unnecessary and the costs of such innovation could be far more than the innovation by destroying the environment and it could be immoral when instead the money could be given to the poorest not only in the UK but also in other countries which we are currently exploting because we don't pay workers a fair wage and because I'd say wages in this country are far too high even when comparing us to the poorer European countries never mind much poorer countries outside Europe.

    As a communist, my main aim if I was prime minister would be to increase the living standards of the poorest to an acceptable level and then I'd argue the living standards of everyone else was acceptable even if lower than before because they are higher than the living standards of the poorest which are deemed acceptable. The point is that living standards must be bounded from below and it must be impossible for you not to get those standards.

    In capitalist societies, there are still many people living in destitution and also many more people that capitalism is trying to force into destitution. Capitalism seems to want to create as much destituition and explotiation of the lower classes as possible for the purpose of making things much better for the rich.

    The analogy I like is that capitalism is like having people living in a basket that is tipped upside down above the ground and many people fall to their deaths from having no living standards and many other people are trying to hang on for dear life while those above them are fine supported by those below them. However, in communism the basket would be the right way round and noone could fall out of the basket.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I agree there are problems in capitalism societies. But I reject the notion that socialism or communism would fix that.

    Those people in Chinese sweatshops have invariably awful conditions, but their lives have been improved exponentially. They have been given jobs to allow them to move up the ladder. They are earning money to support their families. I ask you, why would these people work there if they would be better off without? The truth is, and I hate repeating myself, capitalism has improved their standard of living just like it has ours. $2 a day is better than being dead at the side of the steet. That's the beauty of capitalism. These workers are CHOOSING to work there because it betters their lives. It's consensual.

    Also, instead of diverting the coversation to international issues which is hard to discuss on a text based forum due to all their complexities, let's stick to matters in the UK.

    Sure, we have a very small 'suffering minoirty', but even then, standards of life for the poorest in the UK are comparable to royalty when put side by side against the average living standards of any communist country.

    I not only fail to see how socialism can solve the problems of capitalism, but I also fail to see how it wouldn't cause more...
    That is nonsense. The poorest in this country earn £0 and are homeless compared to the average person in a communist country earning some amount greater than 0 and not being homeless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    That is nonsense. The poorest in this country earn £0 and are homeless compared to the average person in a communist country earning some amount greater than 0 and not being homeless.
    It was hyperbolic, but the general point still stands.

    Average standard of life in capitalist countries > Average standard of life in communist countries.

    This is true for whichever economic class you choose, lower, middle, or upper.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    It seems that the majority agree here that human social development goes along the route of capitalism to socialism and finally communism. There are always dissenters and reactionaries but they tend to be in a minority and often speak from ignorance. Marx gave us the theory and Lenin the practical know how and now in the
    21st century progress within human society means we can legally challenge the rightists and change human society for the better. In the UK the Labour party is now over 500,000 in members and this weekend we have gained yet another seat in Kent which has always been a safe Tory seat with a 29%+ gain.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    It was hyperbolic, but the generally point still stands.

    Average standard of life in capitalist countries > Average standard of life in communist countries.

    This is true for whichever economic class you choose, lower, middle, or upper.
    I don't think this is true. I am not talking about just lower class here I am talking about the very poorest e.g those who are homeless/ don't have enough money to feed themselves(due to benefit sanctions, far too high rents etc.) under capitalism in the UK which has been estimated to be potentially 1 million people. In capitalist countries, the lower classes also feel incredible oppression from capitalism trying to force them into destitution by threatening benefit sanctions for example and even evil landlords threatening eviction rather than you having a right to your home under communism.

    The soviets had policies in place meaning the state had to provide homes for people so there wasn't much homelessness and they had to provide people jobs and income. I think the fact that they provided people with jobs is important as millions of people are unemployed in the UK which is a form of opportunity poverty and can make people very unhappy as they don't have a purpose to their lives.

    The Soviet Union wasn't that rich under communism compared to the capitalist countries because it was much poorer before communism and also because capitalist countries blocked trade with them to try and force them to become capitalist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I agree there are problems in capitalism societies. But I reject the notion that socialism or communism would fix that.

    Those people in Chinese sweatshops have invariably awful conditions, but their lives have been improved exponentially. They have been given jobs to allow them to move up the ladder. They are earning money to support their families. I ask you, why would these people work there if they would be better off without? The truth is, and I hate repeating myself, capitalism has improved their standard of living just like it has ours. $2 a day is better than being dead at the side of the steet. That's the beauty of capitalism. These workers are CHOOSING to work there because it betters their lives. It's consensual.

    Also, instead of diverting the coversation to international issues which is hard to discuss on a text based forum due to all their complexities, let's stick to matters in the UK.

    Sure, we have a very small 'suffering minoirty', but even then, standards of life for the poorest in the UK are comparable to royalty when put side by side against the average living standards of any communist country.

    I not only fail to see how socialism can solve the problems of capitalism, but I also fail to see how it wouldn't cause more...
    Do you actually even read the news? The chinese workers in sweatshops do it because theres no alternative. You work in a sweatshop for 20hrs a day or you die. And yet, even under that firms are moving away from China and Chinese workers are moving back to rural areas. China has racked up a corporate debt of 170+% and its propping up *****y firms with cheap credit.

    If that's the capitalist system you hail then im sorry but you're deeply misinformed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    I don't think this is true. I am not talking about just lower class here I am talking about the very poorest e.g those who are homeless/ don't have enough money to feed themselves(due to benefit sanctions, far too high rents etc.) under capitalism in the UK which has been estimated to be potentially 1 million people.
    Ah, I see what you mean, but it's not entirely true either. You don't see anyone in a capitalist country dying from starvation, do you? Over 6.5 million people died in the Russian famines in 1921 and 1930. Sure, there will be people who are homeless, that's the case with every country. But overall, the to deny that capitalist countries have less of an overall standard of life would be to lie. Moreover, homeless people can very easily get out of homelessness. It's very rare to find someone who is homeless here for their whole life. Through education, jobs, and marriage, homeless people in the UK do not stay that way for long.

    Also, the problem is nowhere near as big as you claim it to be.

    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39745253


    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    In capitalist countries, the lower classes also feel incredible oppression from capitalism trying to force them into destitution by threatening benefit sanctions for example and even evil landlords threatening eviction rather than you having a right to your home under communism.
    This is an utter fallacy. How can lower classes be 'oppressed' yet still choose to consentually work for the very people you claim 'oppress' them. They get offered a job, they take it. If they feel 'oppressed' they have only themselves to blame. How are landlords evil for telling you to get off their property? To seem to be comparing capitalism to some idealistic communism utopia that has never, doesn't, and will never exist.

    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    the soviets had policies in place meaning the state had to provide homes for people so there wasn't much homelessness and they had to provide people jobs and income. I think the fact that they provided people with jobs is important as millions of people are unemployed in the UK which is a form of opportunity poverty and can make people very unhappy as they don't have a purpose to their lives
    In the UK, unemployment is some of the lowest it has ever been. I urge to look up the concept of frictional employment. Some unemployment will always be necessary. Our whole system is geared towards low unemployment. Were people happier in the Soviet Union or communist China? Hmm..
    In conclusion, everything you claim is bad about capitalism is either a lie, a half-truth, or is even worse under socialism/communism...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Thats utter nonsense sorry. Research how much technological innovation there was in communist countries like Russia was well behind USA technologically before communism but it was pretty close by the time the Space Race Started.
    They employed top down state capitalist managerialism, just like everyone else at that time. The Soviet Union economic policies were inspired by Taylorism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quaviousthe2nd)
    Do you actually even read the news? The chinese workers in sweatshops do it because theres no alternative. You work in a sweatshop for 20hrs a day or you die. And yet, even under that firms are moving away from China and Chinese workers are moving back to rural areas. China has racked up a corporate debt of 170+% and its propping up *****y firms with cheap credit.

    If that's the capitalist system you hail then im sorry but you're deeply misinformed.
    Yes, because these workers were so much better under communist China. Of course, like any system, capitalism will have negative effects. But i'd argue that these workers are much better off in a system which gives them something rather than nothing.

    Also, why focus on the workers? Look around man. After communism ended China has become a global superstructure. The quality of life is rapidly increasing. Give it time, capitalism has been given a fair chance to show it's full worth in China. Soon these workers will be much better positions, just as the workers from 10 years ago are in much better positions now.

    You're lying to yourself if you think capitalism hasn't helped these people. I repeat you last 6 words back towards you.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Don't forget the Soviet Union was surrounded by belligerent countries include UK whom landed a force on their soil to defeat the young socialist state. Hence the
    famine and starvation. The loss and then the final defeat was not just due to failed policy of the USSR but helped by a hostile international capitalist state. Lenin
    hoped that revolution would brake out in the rest of Europe and did his best to help but in that period he was betrayed by his fellow
    social democrats in Germany who carried on with the war which annihilated millions of Europeans.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Ah, I see what you mean, but it's not entirely true either. You don't see anyone in a capitalist country dying from starvation, do you? Over 6.5 million people died in the Russian famines in 1921 and 1930. Sure, there will be people who are homeless, that's the case with every country. But overall, the to deny that capitalist countries have less of an overall standard of life would be to lie. Moreover, homeless people can very easily get out of homelessness. It's very rare to find someone who is homeless here for their whole life. Through education, jobs, and marriage, homeless people in the UK do not stay that way for long.

    Also, the problem is nowhere near as big as you claim it to be.

    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39745253




    This is an utter fallacy. How can lower classes be 'oppressed' yet still choose to consentually work for the very people you claim 'oppress' them. They get offered a job, they take it. If they feel 'oppressed' they have only themselves to blame. How are landlords evil for telling you to get off their property? To seem to be comparing capitalism to some idealistic communism utopia that has never, doesn't, and will never exist.



    In the UK, unemployment is some of the lowest it has ever been. I urge to look up the concept of frictional employment. Some unemployment will always be necessary. Our whole system is geared towards low unemployment. Were people happier in the Soviet Union or communist China? Hmm..
    In conclusion, everything you claim is bad about capitalism is either a lie, a half-truth, or is even worse under socialism/communism...
    Most of these people were capitalist criminals who had killed their livestock in an attempt to starve the nation and tried to prevent government policy of making the farms into state run farms and thus the Government ensured they got their retribution. I have watched videos from people who lived during the time and they said that if you were communist the Government made sure you were fed well.

    There are people dying from starvation/ commiting suicide so that they die before they are starved. Do your research into the Government's genocide of the disabled and poor Calum's list gives a good start.

    The poor are getting their benefits sanctioned over nothing and thus the poor feel oppressed because they worry about whether they are going to be able to avoid being sanctioned.My mam would have got sanctioned when I was a child if I didn't do her jobsearch as she was incapable of doing this because she didn't know how to work a computer and nearly got sanctioned because a family member had booked them a holiday but the job centre wanted her to do a training placement instead and she had already informed them in advance. Fortunately, another family member was prepared to standard up to this evil but other vulnerable people don't have people to fight for them against capitalist evil. Research unfair benefit sanctions.

    Everyone is entitled to a home of their own and to have their home how they like it but landlords oppress the poor threatening to evict them for nothing or if they haven't kept the property extremely clean like my family nearly got evicted because carpets needed to be hoovered and things were on the floor.

    I have been fortunate enough to have grown up in a lower class background that whilst oppressed managed to avoid destituition but communists will fight for those who have been oppressed as well as those forced into destititution especially those that ended up murdered by capitalists as a result of this.

    It sounds as if you have no understanding of the suffering of the poor in this country and why people have now had enough and are backing Comrade Corbyn to hopefully bring the country much closer to Communism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Most of these people were capitalist criminals who had killed their livestock in an attempt to starve the nation and tried to prevent government policy of making the farms into state run farms and thus the Government ensured they got their retribution. I have watched videos from people who lived during the time and they said that if you were communist the Government made sure you were fed well.
    Were the 60 million in China also capitalist criminals? Or the hundreds of thousands in Cambodia? What about the people in Gulags - capitalist criminals I suppose so it's ok isn't it? Socialism allows the government to have extensive control and that has always led to tyranny and the erosion of rights.

    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    Everyone is entitled to a home of their own and to have their home how they like it but landlords oppress the poor threatening to evict them for nothing or if they haven't kept the property extremely clean like my family nearly got evicted because carpets needed to be hoovered and things were on the floor.
    So lemme get this straight. It's now oppression to tell someone to keep your house clean and threaten to evict said person if they go against a very basic rule? I'll try and say this with respect, but what are you smoking man? False victimhood to its peak. If you think it's oppression to look after your property and try and ensure it's looked after when people are actively trying to ruin it, no wonder you're communist. Practically everything is oppression is THAT is oppression.

    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    It sounds as if you have no understanding of the suffering of the poor in this country and why people have now had enough and are backing Comrade Corbyn to hopefully bring the country much closer to Communism.
    As someone who has parents that have been poor, I have every understanding. On a similar vein, I'm willing to bet, however, that you have no understanding of the importance of individual rights or what they mean, especially to the right to property. If you did, you wouldn't have made such an outlandish comment on landlords trying to do what's best for their property. I'm sorry, but that argument has entirely extinguished your credibility in my opinion.

    I'm a strong believer in helping the poor, but my resolution is not to switch to socialism which will make them poorer. My solution is to implement pragmatic and sensible policies which have effectively worked around the work...unlike socialism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pabloneruda)
    Don't forget the Soviet Union was surrounded by belligerent countries include UK whom landed a force on their soil to defeat the young socialist state. Hence the
    famine and starvation. The loss and then the final defeat was not just due to failed policy of the USSR but helped by a hostile international capitalist state. Lenin
    hoped that revolution would brake out in the rest of Europe and did his best to help but in that period he was betrayed by his fellow
    social democrats in Germany who carried on with the war which annihilated millions of Europeans.
    I don't know too much about how the Russian famines, so let's talk about something I do know a bit about. I'd love to see you justify gulags, human rights violations, and the Great Chinese Famine which took no less than 45 million lives? ALL of which, were impacts caused by socialism which props an authoritarian government up which no safeguards on its power.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Human criminality cannot be written down to socialism. Lenin's will mentioned clearly that Stalin is not a suitable chairman and leader for the party.
    The two main problems in 20th century which held back socialism was Hitler's defeat of German Social Democrats and Stalin's reversal of many of Lenin's
    achievements culminating in USSR just competing with the West instead of carrying on with the socialist state and influencing socialists abroad. Use of forced labour was part of this competition with the west. You are very ignorant of many of the causes of events in 20th Century Europe and need to do some basic studying of
    events, and not mixing things up. Just quoting terrible events in USSR is like I listing up the number of countries invaded by USA since 1950s and the present 20+
    bases in the Middle East and saying it is all due to
    Imperialism which is associated with capitalism. You cannot close your eye to one and find fault with the other. Human criminality exists in all epochs of man's
    existence but the whole point of people before profit is to reduce it.

    I am done here -
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Were the 60 million in China also capitalist criminals? Or the hundreds of thousands in Cambodia? What about the people in Gulags - capitalist criminals I suppose so it's ok isn't it? Socialism allows the government to have extensive control and that has always led to tyranny and the erosion of rights.



    So lemme get this straight. It's now oppression to tell someone to keep your house clean and threaten to evict said person if they go against a very basic rule? I'll try and say this with respect, but what are you smoking man? False victimhood to its peak. If you think it's oppression to look after your property and try and ensure it's looked after when people are actively trying to ruin it, no wonder you're communist. Practically everything is oppression is THAT is oppression.



    As someone who has parents that have been poor, I have every understanding. On a similar vein, I'm willing to bet, however, that you have no understanding of the importance of individual rights or what they mean, especially to the right to property. If you did, you wouldn't have made such an outlandish comment on landlords trying to do what's best for their property. I'm sorry, but that argument has entirely extinguished your credibility in my opinion.

    I'm a strong believer in helping the poor, but my resolution is not to switch to socialism which will make them poorer. My solution is to implement pragmatic and sensible policies which have effectively worked around the work...unlike socialism.
    You are missing the point because thats precisely what I'm trying to defend everyone's right to property not just the rich under capitalism and by that I also mean that noone is allowed more than their own house so landlords would be illegal and everyone is entitled to a home to do with what they wish.

    If you own your own home you can't get evicted and thus I can see eviction as oppression against the poor who aren't rich enough to own their own home. Most families I think have some stuff on the floor sometimes and don't always have the carpets hoovered to perfection. I don't think you get the sort of threatening abuse of these landlords for example a family member has told me that they have now been trying to oppress a person with learning difficulties for not cutting the grass. My families landlord is a social landlord as well I've heard with private landlords it can get even worse.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Average standard of life in capitalist countries > Average standard of life in communist countries.
    First of all communism hasn't been achieved yet. And possibly wont until purely AI rule with automation where humanity are just the consumers without the ability to create (though again AI will use the efficient ways to achieve something and we eventually either dissappear and become slave like creatures).

    Second is that, in capitalistic societies you are much more likely to run into extremes because it is really difficult to make people live equaly good. To have something better for somebody you need to cut something from another person. Or just has the average lower but equal. It is called a balance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    First of all communism hasn't been achieved yet. And possibly wont until purely AI rule with automation where humanity are just the consumers without the ability to create (though again AI will use the efficient ways to achieve something and we eventually either dissappear and become slave like creatures).
    Yes, but you know exactly what I mean when I say, Communist countries. We call Russia and China and Cuba etc. Communist because that was their final goal.

    (Original post by Chucke1992)
    Second is that, in capitalistic societies you are much more likely to run into extremes because it is really difficult to make people live equaly good. To have something better for somebody you need to cut something from another person. Or just has the average lower but equal. It is called a balance.
    Why would you want people to live equally good? Why should someone hardworking, intelligent and compassionate live as well (or as badly) as someone who bullied people in school, has a heroin addiction and doesn't work?

    Why must you cut something from another person to have something better?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Yes, because these workers were so much better under communist China. Of course, like any system, capitalism will have negative effects. But i'd argue that these workers are much better off in a system which gives them something rather than nothing.

    Also, why focus on the workers? Look around man. After communism ended China has become a global superstructure. The quality of life is rapidly increasing. Give it time, capitalism has been given a fair chance to show it's full worth in China. Soon these workers will be much better positions, just as the workers from 10 years ago are in much better positions now.

    You're lying to yourself if you think capitalism hasn't helped these people. I repeat you last 6 words back towards you.
    Im talking economics. If you're not aware of economics thats fine but dont pretend to understand it. Quality of life improving is inevitable with time and a system that isnt feudalism and doesnt leech off the poor.

    Im not anti capitalist nor am I pro communist. Im disputing a number of points you said such as the idea that somehow these chinese workers have a choice.

    The fact that theyve "progressed" isnt something we can celebrate. Thats a sign you've become complacent. Capitalism is very very far from perfect. In fact, today's capitalism is something Karl Marx would have said he'd seen coming. Marx's only flaw was he was unable to see the huge leaps in innovation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quaviousthe2nd)
    Im talking economics. If you're not aware of economics thats fine but dont pretend to understand it. Quality of life improving is inevitable with time and a system that isnt feudalism and doesnt leech off the poor.

    Im not anti capitalist nor am I pro communist. Im disputing a number of points you said such as the idea that somehow these chinese workers have a choice.

    The fact that theyve "progressed" isnt something we can celebrate. Thats a sign you've become complacent. Capitalism is very very far from perfect. In fact, today's capitalism is something Karl Marx would have said he'd seen coming. Marx's only flaw was he was unable to see the huge leaps in innovation.
    • You've got to be kidding me if you think that is Marx's only flaw.

    • Moreover, when I said quality of life has increased, i meant exponentially. Sure, quality of life increases in almost every system, but when capitalist and socialist countries are compared, the quality of life dissproportionate grows much faster in the former.

    • If the Chinese workers' weren't benefiting from this consensus transaction, why would they do it? How would you solve such a problem?

    • I'm not celebrated progression, I'm celebrated extreme, unprecedented progression. It took us 4x the amount of time to switch from copper swords to steel swords, than it did to switch from steel swords to nuclear bombs - the answer; free markets - a concept non-existant in socialism.

    You've failed to tell me what's wrong about a consensual transaction from which both parties are benefitting. You've outright been wrong about the quality of life point - exponential growth as seen in the 21st century was unprecedented and seen most extravagantly in capitalist countries. You've failed to provide alternatives to the workers situation. You've failed to tell me why I shouldn't be happy about their progression.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    2 things:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    1, on china - yes the quality of life is not great for many, but largely its far far better then it was 40 years ago. A western person would walk around in the town I live in, and see a lot of people and the jobs they do and say 'this is awful, this is exploitation!' --

    the people here say:
    'thank god I am not starving and freezing in the fields like my parents were. I have a heated flat with running water, free education, routes to prosperity for my children, and enough food to not starve'

    I have seen both sides. I have family here who still live in rural china, its poor. very poor, and there is no optimism that things will get better, its just a grind to survive. In the cities people may work awful jobs, but they have hope. They have seen their lives improve, and they now see their kids lives improve further.

    Whats happened in China has been one of the largest and most rapid increases in a populations average quality of life in human history. Its a spectacular achievement.


    ----

    As for the debate overall, its stupid and pointless.

    Why? Because both sides have a fundamental difference. One view is based on logic, ideals and reasoning.. the other is based on evidence.

    The hard left will never except the evidence, because it goes against their ideals, and will proclaim that the implementation was wrong, and it could still work if done properly.

    The right will never except that actually there is a lot we can learn from socialism/communism, even if the evidence for its absolute implementation is catastrophic.

    It seems to me, looking around the world at different countries, that the balance between capatilst structures and socilaist structures within a society provides the optimum outcome.. with both extremes leading to disaster/rebellion (communism has already been through this, capitalism is still getting their in my view).

    We always need to balance reality a - that inequality will always exist, and people will always suffer in comparison to others

    with reality b - to much inequality leads to societal revolution/collapse.
 
 
 

972

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
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.