Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The 'old left' of the 1960s/70s (Tony Benn et al) were very anti-Europe because they saw it as an elitist institution dominated by the forces of big business. The Europe question cannot be seen in terms of left and right.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    The 'old left' of the 1960s/70s (Tony Benn et al) were very anti-Europe because they saw it as an elitist institution dominated by the forces of big business. The Europe question cannot be seen in terms of left and right.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    id probably agree with benn actually
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    The 'old left' of the 1960s/70s (Tony Benn et al) were very anti-Europe because they saw it as an elitist institution dominated by the forces of big business. The Europe question cannot be seen in terms of left and right.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    well it can, but anyway. the whole point was that he was against centralisation of political power, which is basically a predominantly left wing ideology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edders)
    not flawed .
    i suggest to you that, while although companies may be able to get away with such behaviour in 3rd world countries, 'playing off' local governments etc. doesnt happen in the 1st world because capitalism is so well developed there. this is because companies usually arent monopolies and cannot make demands; this is even more the case when globalisation means there are even more companies to choose from for eg. building contracts. i suggest that while, like britain 150 years ago, companies are too powerful in developing countries, this power will be quickly eroded as countries have a more developed industry/commerce.
    It is certainly true that the 1st world is less negatively affected by economic globalisation than the 3rd world.

    However, I disagree that 3rd world countries will be able to transcend the influence of multinationals. Firstly, globalisation has resulted in many infant industries in third world countries being destroyed. Secondly, the 3rd world countries are effectively being made the workhouses of the 1st world - their economies configured to feed the needs of the west. This isn't a process that is going to result in a similar level of development across countries, rather, just as with all free market policies, it will result in an increase of inequality. Just as those who slaved away in Victorian workhouses had no chance of "catching up" the rich, those in the poor world have no chance of "catching up" the rich world. Hence, the poor world will always be under the thumb of the multinationals.

    And, anyway, globalisation DOES affect developed countries. Government policy IS dictated by the need to make the country attractive to foreign investors. Recent examples would be the way in which Blair is pushing GM crops (because American companies want to sell us the technology) and the creeping privatisation of Western schools/healthcare (plenty of multinationals would LOVE to get their snouts in that trough.)


    1) your problem seems to be that you think it would be fair if we all had the same amount of cash. however, 95% of goods sold in 1st world countries are realistically available for purchase for the common man. i mean, what is there for sale thats more expensive than a couple hundred quid? the whole point of industrialisation is that it provides goods to the masses... therefore its the masses that can decide what is and isnt bought.
    What I think is fair is irrelevant here. My point was that the use of the word democracy implies "one man one vote" hence it is wrong to use it in this sense, as consumer choice is never going to be democratic.

    2) you think people who watch advertising are denied their free will? bah, that sounds very much like the left wing 'common people cant think for themselves' attitude that im not much impressed by. if someone buys something, then he thinks he needs it; thats pretty much all that matters. who are we to say that people who buy certain things are wrong?
    Hmm, presumably you don't think that political propaganda (ie the Nazis etc) ever had any effect, either?

    If not, why should political propaganda have an effect and corporate propaganda not? They are, after all, really quite similar.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    well it can, but anyway. the whole point was that he was against centralisation of political power, which is basically a predominantly left wing ideology.
    Yes, but libertarian socialism is not an incoherent position.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    yay to the new constitution, it is pushing Europe together and providing the nessacary deepening alongside the current widing of the EU.

    The European Parliment is being given a broader scheme of things on which co-decision is needed, and this for me ios what I want to see to maintain a higher level of democracy in the EU.
    Also, the incorparion of an official citizenship of the EU can only be good for further free movement / working and diplomatic rights

    Also the consitiution for me is crucical because it finnally gives the EU that legal entity so it can stand as someone on the world stage rather than just a loose afflication of countries.

    Together, Europe is stronger.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A referendum would be nice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    a referendum on something which most people won't understand nor care about anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    a referendum on something which most people won't understand nor care about anyway?
    I think we call it democracy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    democracy isn't always needed, warranted or useful
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    democracy isn't always needed, warranted or useful
    A dangerous notion, surely?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    anything is dangerous in the wrong hands
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    anything is dangerous in the wrong hands
    A referendum puts it in everyone's hands.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    a referendum puts the EU constiution in a few peoples hands (those who bother to vote) . Alot based on a mis infomation of facts, so lack perfect infomation to make a proper choice (in my view)

    Also, the EU consitituion doesn't really effect us *that* much as to warrant a referendum - in my opinion

    (ooo out of interest, are you at Winchest college?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Yes, but libertarian socialism is not an incoherent position.
    no, but it has very little in common with libertarianism
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Together, Europe is stronger.
    Together, Europe can define our taxes, our trading, our judicial system, our public spending, our defence, our currency...there was me thinking we were a democracy. I don't want to be ruled by Brussels, thank you. Tthe sooner we leave Europe completely the better, in my opinion.

    (Original post by COREY)
    anything is dangerous in the wrong hands
    Yeh, Tony Blair's. he is the biggest danger to this country's freedom in a long time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, but it has very little in common with libertarianism
    Well, as I said, it is a matter of definitions. The term "libertarianism" always used to mean free from all contraints, including capitalism. Recently, though, it has come to mean right-libertarian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some good points raised here, so my one seems tame in comparison- however, my reason for supporting the EU Draft Constitution is that it will secure our human rights in one place, at least. The European Protocol on Human Rights introduced in 1998 hasn't done much to guarantee rights, except allow us to take cases to the European Courts. Also,as Britain has an uncodified(unwritten and all over the place)constitution, we'd at least get part of a constitution
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.