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

Socialism has never worked in any country and at any time in history watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Doesn't this raise all kinds of practical problems?

    - What if somebody complains about the use of land on every single occasion ever that land is used? Nothing would ever be owned or produced?
    Heh. I have to admit I kind of see this as similar to the "but who will build the roads!??!" arguments anarcho-capitalists face. Honestly, as long as my neighbours aren't pumping sewage into my watertank or something, what they get up to doesn't bother me, and if say the people living near a coal power plant make it use less polluting technology I don't think that's necessarily a problem.

    - What if people decide they want in on the profits and thats what motivates them to intervene, would they be allowed to?
    There wouldn't be any profits...

    I'm sure DrunkHamster can do a much better job of discussing this with you, he's more of your match. But from seeing the interpretations of his, andys and yours, I have to say his makes the most sense. (But I guess I would say that!)
    Oh, I'm quite expecting DH to come along and demolish what I said :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Heh. I have to admit I kind of see this as similar to the "but who will build the roads!??!" arguments anarcho-capitalists face. Honestly, as long as my neighbours aren't pumping sewage into my watertank or something, what they get up to doesn't bother me, and if say the people living near a coal power plant make it use less polluting technology I don't think that's necessarily a problem.
    But you don't represent 6 billion people. Believe me, people moan. People find a reason to be annoyed about absolutely anything, if you give somebody a tenner they'll complain that you're not giving them a twenty.

    Now while you might not be a whiny little *****, and good for you, you can't then conclude that there wont be a massive trend towards people finding fault in how things are run. And if a single person finds fault with it, if I interpret you correctly, that's it - the land use must change.

    There wouldn't be any profits...
    Why? Because Gremlins our overlord said so? If people want to be able to make a surplus and sell the excess for profit, on what basis can you tell them they can't? If everyone in the community accepted it as an appropiate use of that land?

    Oh, I'm quite expecting DH to come along and demolish what I said :rolleyes:
    I'm sure he will, I have the feeling that even if I would be able to if only I knew how to articulate myself well enough. No doubt when he says it I'll be like 'ahhhhhhh, of course!'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snookercraze)
    Did it not work with the USSR? They were a force to be reckoned with during the Cold War era.

    I don't see how Russia, today, are better off than how they were in the height of the socialist era.
    They were a force to be reckoned with because of their nuclear arsenal, rather than their economic prowess. While it is true that they underwent a growth 'miracle' up until about '73, this was largely done by mobilising labour rather than through technological progress and innovation - which is always going to end up running into diminishing returns.

    Russia today is, economically, characterised by crony-capitalism - the oligarchs are in control, and the country pretty much relies on Gazprom. Capitalism is pretty jammy at the best of times, but bad regulation and high levels of rent seeking don't help anything either - but Russia certainly, now, has the ability to eclipse the heights of the USSR.

    As to the OP, your statement may be correct, but it could also be argued that socialism never really got off the ground in any country. According to Marx's stages theory of history, economical systems in a country should follow this pattern:

    Feudalism

    Capitalism

    Socialism

    Communism

    With Socialism succeeding Capitalism at it's most advanced stage. However, this stages theory has never been witnessed - China and the USSR went straight from a semi-feudal system into Socialism and all other socialist/ex-socialist economies have come about via external forces (East Europe, for example).

    With that in mind it could be argued that, regardless of how it comes about, (Marxist-Leninist) Socialism is doomed to fail. This is because such a system has inherent problems, namely:

    Soft budget Constraints
    Hidden Unemployment
    Rent Seeking
    A 'caveat emptor' rather than 'caveat vednitor' style of economy.


    TL;DR version:

    Socialism probably doesn't work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Is it just private ownership which is an infringement of people's liberty? Why can't common ownership be an infringement too? (if the workers of some factory own it, my actions towards that factory are restricted in exactly the same way they would be if that factory was privately owned or owned by a corporation). If all private ownership is an infringement of liberty, is self-ownership an infringement of liberty too? If so, have you considered that being an infringement of liberty (on your conception of liberty) is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for being immoral/undesirable?

    I guess my problem with the line of argument you are going down is that it proves too much; if the considerations you raise are damning to the institution of private property, they are damning to the institution of collective or joint property too, as far as I can tell. So we are left in a situation where no-one is morally permitted to interact in any with the outside world if their action would have any impact whatsoever on anyone else. Now in the scheme of things, this may be right (I don't think it is) but surely you'll agree that even if it is, it doesn't help us solve the actual problems that we are faced with, the problems which a theory of property is supposed to help us face.

    By bringing in what is 'socially necessary' I think you've just replaced one notion which you don't have a good grasp on with another; how is what is 'socially necessary' to be ascertained? Who decides? These are the kind of problems that a theory of property should be able to grapple with, and there are bonus points if they don't leave you in a situation where one person or group is left with unlimited power - as I'm afraid would be the case if 'social necessity' was the sole criterion of whether or not an acquisition was legitimate.

    I would also like to hear your thoughts on property in general, you know, like what forms of property are acceptable (private, collective, joint, whatever), how it can be legitimately acquired, how it can be legitimately transferred, stuff like that. I think at the end of the day your theory is going to face many of the same issues, because any theory which attempts to justify the exclusion of some people from some natural resources is bound to (and any theory which says that this is illegitimate across the board is pretty much a non-starter.)
    My answer would be that no-one would own it per se, or at least no-one would have exclusive ownership of it. It's perfectly possible to have people working in a factory that no-one owns exclusively. Obviously there would be some kind of communal aspect to it, workers would be under a certain degree of pressure to conform to socially accepted standards regarding pollution and waste disposal. But this doesn't mean that the community owns it, it just means that it exists within a community and a certain section of the community works in it.

    How self ownership could be an infringement of liberty I do not know. My objection to libertarian capitalism was the fact that there is a limit to available resources in land, and that depriving someone of land by appropriating it isn't acceptable given the fact that we live on a finite planet. We don't usually appropriate people, and me owning myself doesn't stop you owning yourself. I wish libertarians would stop conflating self ownership of one's body with private ownership of natural resources, anyone with the slightest bit of intuition can see a difference, one impedes the liberty of others through its existence, the other doesn't.


    I'd also add that I'm using Nozick's justification, that appropriation is only justifiable if it makes no-one worse off. When put into practice on a finite planet with a large population, that criteria seems to fail to justify any appropriation of large amounts of resources.

    I included socially necessary because there will inevitably be some circumstantial variation on what individuals require, which will vary by the individual and the location. It seems to me self evident that certain things are necessary for survival, like food, clean water, warm clothes and shelter, are necessary for survival, whilst other things, like owning a multistorey mansion or a factory, don't seem to qualify as being necessary in pragmatic terms. Again there will probably be a communal decision making power involved in this, but I don't see a problem with that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    But you don't represent 6 billion people. Believe me, people moan. People find a reason to be annoyed about absolutely anything, if you give somebody a tenner they'll complain that you're not giving them a twenty.

    Now while you might not be a whiny little *****, and good for you, you can't then conclude that there wont be a massive trend towards people finding fault in how things are run. And if a single person finds fault with it, if I interpret you correctly, that's it - the land use must change.
    Hm. Well, for me, a fairly obviously corrolary of 'everyone has equal access to stuff' is that 'everyone has a say in a decision proportionate to the extent they are affected by it'. So if I want to play Enter Shikari incredibly incredibly loudly at midnight then my neighbours would get a say, but someone living in New Zealand wouldn't. Similarly if the Ryvita factory down the road (no, really) is poisoning the water table then everyone living in the effected parts of South-East Dorset would get a say. Now obviously this system isn't as clear cut or as neat as libertarian private property laws (although they are messier than you make out - do I own the bit of the flightpath above my house, for instance?), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.

    Why? Because Gremlins our overlord said so? If people want to be able to make a surplus and sell the excess for profit, on what basis can you tell them they can't? If everyone in the community accepted it as an appropiate use of that land?
    Well profits are generally contingent on private property and a market economy, neither of which would exist in my wet dream society... That's why I said there'd be no profits.

    I'm sure he will, I have the feeling that even if I would be able to if only I knew how to articulate myself well enough. No doubt when he says it I'll be like 'ahhhhhhh, of course!'
    I think we should stop feeding his ego now :woo: One thing I think is quite interesting is that this kinda thread almost always devolves into an argument between the left anarchists and the right anarchists, rather than between State Socialist/Social Democrats and the more statist parts of the Right.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Hm. Well, for me, a fairly obviously corrolary of 'everyone has equal access to stuff' is that 'everyone has a say in a decision proportionate to the extent they are affected by it'. So if I want to play Enter Shikari incredibly incredibly loudly at midnight then my neighbours would get a say, but someone living in New Zealand wouldn't. Similarly if the Ryvita factory down the road (no, really) is poisoning the water table then everyone living in the effected parts of South-East Dorset would get a say. Now obviously this system isn't as clear cut or as neat as libertarian private property laws (although they are messier than you make out - do I own the bit of the flightpath above my house, for instance?), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.
    Regarding the right-libertarian definition of property rights, I am aware that it is not simple and I'm also aware of that specific problem you highlighted. I actually believe the government needs to outline and define property rights, and for me to want government involvement is kind of a big deal.

    I still don't understand, even if done locally which obviously is common sense, what constitutes a substancial qualm with a land-use, or who is entitled to make that complaint, and what weight their complaint may carry. I'm still downright unconvinced that anything could really ever get done under your system, something as simple as sheer jealousy could lead to somebody finding an excuse to stop land being used for a certain purpose.

    Well profits are generally contingent on private property and a market economy, neither of which would exist in my wet dream society... That's why I said there'd be no profits.
    So your ideas are based around the assumption that everybody shares your wet dream fantasies? There are 60 million people in the UK, I think it is fair to assume that at least a few are going to desire some surplus production and profit making: are they simply not allowed because it doesn't correlate to your vision?

    I can understand your whole point if it's purely hypothetical and everyone shares your values - but what is your opinion based on the reality that most people will probably disagree with you a lot of the time? How should society best account for the sheer variety in individuals values?

    I think we should stop feeding his ego now :woo: One thing I think is quite interesting is that this kinda thread almost always devolves into an argument between the left anarchists and the right anarchists, rather than between State Socialist/Social Democrats and the more statist parts of the Right.
    Maybe it's because we're born into a vast society and to then have anarchistic tendancies proves that you like to question things and think about thinks, and so we're drawn into poncey ideological discussions.

    Do you forsee yourself ever supporting or voting for right-libertarianism by the way, or will your support always be for socialist parties? I know you don't have a crystal ball and anything can happen, but realistically...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jakemittle)
    Cuba?
    :yep: Exactly. Cuba has one of the best health care systems in the world. Equally, it has a problem or three, but there's no capitalist society without those.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    I think we should stop feeding his ego now :woo: One thing I think is quite interesting is that this kinda thread almost always devolves into an argument between the left anarchists and the right anarchists, rather than between State Socialist/Social Democrats and the more statist parts of the Right.
    That's more to do with the makeup of this forum than anything else:p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Regarding the right-libertarian definition of property rights, I am aware that it is not simple and I'm also aware of that specific problem you highlighted. I actually believe the government needs to outline and define property rights, and for me to want government involvement is kind of a big deal.

    I still don't understand, even if done locally which obviously is common sense, what constitutes a substancial qualm with a land-use, or who is entitled to make that complaint, and what weight their complaint may carry. I'm still downright unconvinced that anything could really ever get done under your system, something as simple as sheer jealousy could lead to somebody finding an excuse to stop land being used for a certain purpose.
    I don't entirely either. I think it's one of those things people would be able to work out for themselves as they went along, tbh, and best practice would spread from community to community.



    So your ideas are based around the assumption that everybody shares your wet dream fantasies?
    Well obviously not many people at all agree with me on this. Your vision is based on a majority of the population consenting to it, too; look at the USA for an example of a fairly deeply entrenched minarchy exploding into a much bigger state as a response to popular pressure.

    I think it is fair to assume that at least a few are going to desire some surplus production and profit making: are they simply not allowed because it doesn't correlate to your vision?
    Well, this is like saying "why doesn't anarcho-capitalism accomodate people who really like state-planned economies?". You're missing the point that in this hypothetical system there'd be no private property and likely no markets and therefore no way to make profit (which is different to producing a surplus), since there'd be no private ownership, just like in an anarcho-capitalist society there'd be no state to intervene in the economy in the first place.

    I can understand your whole point if it's purely hypothetical and everyone shares your values - but what is your opinion based on the reality that most people will probably disagree with you a lot of the time? How should society best account for the sheer variety in individuals values?
    I think my 'vision' deals quite well with dissent, in that if some people genuinely did want to live in a capitalist society, which I don't think they would - people only became wage slaves (apologies for loaded language) in the first place because stuff like the Enclosure Acts made it impossible to live otherwise, and in my system where everyone had a claim to the stuff they needed to live there'd be no need to become a wage slave, since they'd have a stake to stuff they could create their own little capitalist commune and voluntarily give up their things to a capitalist who they could then work for in return for a wage, if that's what they really wanted.



    Maybe it's because we're born into a vast society and to then have anarchistic tendancies proves that you like to question things and think about thinks, and so we're drawn into poncey ideological discussions.
    This is quite possible :p: Although social democrats and state socialists are equally likely to get drawn into poncey ideological discussions...

    Do you forsee yourself ever supporting or voting for right-libertarianism by the way, or is your support always be socialist parties? I know you don't have a crystal ball and anything can happen, but realistically...
    No, I can't really see myself voting for something like LPUK. If I had to vote for a party atm it would probably be the Greens; Green politics has some very deep links to left wing anarchism, as evidenced by people like Murray Bookchin. If there was some broad-based anarchist-without-adjectives movement I'd probably join it, however, since I don't think anarcho-capitalism is actually feasible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    That's more to do with the makeup of this forum than anything else:p:
    Heh. Probably. I'd like to think it's because we're winning the battle of ideas with the statists, though :hmmm:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Socialist principles have made a system that makes sure if you fall into bad health it won't strip you of everything you own. Socialist principles have made a system that taught you what the word 'socialism' means.

    Stop. Think. Create thread.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Finally you're discussing ideology rather than our current government, you were making it sound as though I support republicans, democrats, labour and conservatives for a minute there.

    I'm personally not actually even an anarcho-capitalist myself, but some certainly do exist that really would not involve the state whatsoever. But I myself want property rights defined and protected, I want contracts enforced fairly, I want to ensure intimidation is never used, monetary policy should be centrally controlled and so on. So yes I take your point that even a libertarian wants some government involvement - but its far far far far far far (times a billion) less times more involvement than statist socialists want.

    But anti-statist socialism actually sounds quite interesting, could you explain that to me? When I use the term socialist I solely mean statist socialism, sorry if that wasn't clear.
    This is all well and good in theory, but what are you going to do when people are homeless and starving? Or when people get ill because they can't afford vaccinations or treatment-- or even, how do you deal with the Swine Flu endemic? In the face of crisis, do you stick to your principles and watch people die?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    This doesn't really make sense to me. You're saying that all acquisitions of previously unowned resources are illegitimate? How can society function if people don't have property rights over their own homes and food, for example? If I use some land to grow food for myself and my family, I am obviously restricting others from using that land; I'm infringing on their freedom, in your view. But how can this dilemma ever be resolved? The very fact that I occupy a space on the planet is an infringement on other's rights to occupy the same space. What can actually be done about that, though?
    If society can't function without the ownership of land, then surely land ownership is so important that everyone should have some? Which would mean... we need to redistribute land, as most people don't own any.

    I'm with the guy you quoted. Nozick's principle of acquisition, which is really Locke's principle, is about the worst piece of philosophy I've ever studied. The argument that disproves is actually contained with his own premises...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    :yep: Exactly. Cuba has one of the best health care systems in the world. Equally, it has a problem or three, but there's no capitalist society without those.
    It also has Bueno Vista Social Cuba :flute: :awesome:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    True, I get frustrated when people think that private greed led to giving loans to low income families, as if greed makes you want to bust your business.
    Psychologically, you're wrong here. Individuals tend to be irrational risky, especially when it's not their money they're dealing with. When an individual earns depending on how well he performs, it's easier to give out risky loans, move up the ladder with you own ass covered and leave the risk as someone else's problem. If the bank goes bust as a result, so what, you can get a job somewhere else. Or even better, sell the loan to another company and be rid of the risk completely Unfortunately this is the psychological profile of a typical yuppie in the city.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Anarchists don't generally believe in ownership per se (and certainly not "identical to capitalism only with more people signing the land deed", which sounds like what you think we're proposing). It's more that no one (or everyone) owns anything (or everything), and certain groups can put a claim to use, not own, something. Since the people who operate a factory are probably going to be the ones who are most dependent on it and know how to run it best, they're the ones who're most likely to operate it, but it's only with the consent of other people affected by the decision, and they can intervene (say, if the factory produces alot of pollution or has some other adverse side effect).
    Of course we can separate out the different incidents of ownership if we have to; there are rights of possession, use, management, alienability, to the income, capital, etc etc. But it sounds to me as though most if not all of the features of standard liberal ownership are inevitably going to be present in whatever relation the workers of some factory enter into with respect to that factory.

    How far do you want to go with ensuring that 'other people affected by the decision' have a say? I mean, I'm affected by the ownership of some factory by its workers in the sense that I can't now appropriate that factory, I can't walk in there and throw spanners everywhere, the goods produced there affect the market price I pay for them, and so on. Does this mean I get a say in how it is run? What sort of say? If everyone gets a say, how are any decisions ever to be made? Do they require unanimous consent amongst every single one of the people who get a say (if so, don't you think this means that the whole population will starve in reality)? Or is it fine and dandy if some disagree and get overridden? If so, what justifies the overriding of some people's wishes over the wishes of any others?

    The fact that all of these questions can be asked, and (IMO) have no clear nor salient answers shows, to me at least, that this is really no theory of property at all. It's often instructive to think of the institution of private property in economic terms, as a way (which has evolved over long periods of time) of resolving these questions with minimal transaction costs. That is, when someone owns something, it is clear and perspicuous who gets to make decisions with respect to that thing: the owner. With your theory of property, it seems that this doesn't even get off the ground - all of the hard questions in this regard still need to be solved, unlike liberal/libertarian theories of property which certainly have a good stab at solving them.

    No. You don't lose anything by me owning myself and vice versa.
    Sure I do; I lose the ability to (rightfully) enslave you, kill you, harvest your organs for sale, etc etc. My point was that self ownership is exactly analogous to ownership of things in the external world from the point of view of infringements of liberty. If my being restricted from taking an apple from a tree is an infringement of my liberty, it's very hard to see how my being restricted from, say, cutting someone's hair off (against their will) is not an infringement of my liberty.

    Well, IMO it points us towards a system of social ownership of land and the means of production under the collective management of communes and workers councils and some kind of democratic planning system.
    Hayek has a point, which recurs occasionally throughout his work, that the word 'social' is a weasel word - because, just as a weasel empties eggs without leaving a visible sign, the word 'social' stealthily sucks the meaning out of any word it is prefixed to. For instance 'social justice' is not really justice, 'social progress' is not really progress, what is 'socially necessary' is not really necessary, and so on. My point is that 'social ownership' is very much an ambiguous term with not a lot of determinate content. I kind of want to pin you down on the specifics of what, exactly, 'social ownership' is. Seeing as society is simply an aggregation of individuals, all pursuing their own purposes, it's hard to see how 'society' can own anything - for X to own Y requires that X is either an agent or (possibly) an organisation with a clearly defined decision making structure. 'Society' is neither of these things, so it really does need spelling out what you mean. Of course, usually when people talk about 'social ownership' they just mean 'state ownership,' but seeing as this isn't your goal I'd like to hear your interpretation of the term. The same, I think, goes for 'collective management' and 'democratic planning system.'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I'd also add that I'm using Nozick's justification, that appropriation is only justifiable if it makes no-one worse off. When put into practice on a finite planet with a large population, that criteria seems to fail to justify any appropriation of large amounts of resources.
    Really? Let me quote a bit from David Schmidtz (I think everyone should be forced to read his book before criticizing Nozick):

    "But it is not true. One central fact about any developed economy:
    Latecomers are better off than the first generation of appropriators. We have unprecedented wealth today precisely because our ancestors got here first and began the laborious process of turning society into a vast network of cooperative ventures for mutual advantage. First possessors pay the price of converting resources to productive use. Latecomers reap the benefits. We need to realize that in the race to appropriate, the chance to be a first appropriator is not the prize. The prize is prosperity, and latecomers win big, courtesy of the toil of those who got there first. So, when someone asks, “Why should first appropriators get to keep the whole value of what they appropriate?” the answer is, they don’t. In this world, they keep only a fraction, in the process multiplying rather than subtracting from the stock of what is left for others. It is false that rules of prior possession consign latecomers to a less than equal share. In a society like ours, latecomers are so far faring well, indeed stunningly well compared to those who arrived first. Latecomers do not fare equally well, but grounds for an egalitarian complaint cannot rest on the idea that those with less than their neighbours were made worse off by first appropriators. Latecomers in general (perhaps especially those who would in any case have been in the least advantaged class) are better off, not worse off."

    I included socially necessary because there will inevitably be some circumstantial variation on what individuals require, which will vary by the individual and the location. It seems to me self evident that certain things are necessary for survival, like food, clean water, warm clothes and shelter, are necessary for survival, whilst other things, like owning a multistorey mansion or a factory, don't seem to qualify as being necessary in pragmatic terms. Again there will probably be a communal decision making power involved in this, but I don't see a problem with that.
    Again, I'm deeply suspicious whenever something is left to 'communal decision making power,' particularly when it is in the context of the use of the means of coercion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikdc5)
    If society can't function without the ownership of land, then surely land ownership is so important that everyone should have some? Which would mean... we need to redistribute land, as most people don't own any.

    I'm with the guy you quoted. Nozick's principle of acquisition, which is really Locke's principle, is about the worst piece of philosophy I've ever studied. The argument that disproves is actually contained with his own premises...
    A general principle which has always stood me in good stead is that whenever you think that some famous philosopher is stupidly wrong, make sure that it's not yourself who is stupidly wrong. I'd like to see your argument on Nozick's theory, but forgive me if I doubt that it's going to be especially persuasive.

    As for the part about ownership, your reasoning is... interesting. How did you derive this: "surely land ownership is so important that everyone should have some" from this "If society can't function without the ownership of land"? It doesn't follow by any means, and, in fact, is contradictory given reasonably weak empirical premises (if you had read Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument carefully, you'd see it too). Everyone having land is incompatible with a society where land is privately owned - if people start off owning land, some of them will sell theirs, trade it for other goods, etc. The result will be a society where not everyone owns land. If you then continually redistribute land in order to equalize it, then no-one really owns their land in the first place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I love the way that, in a desperate attempt to appear knowledgeable about the thread topic, people use all this complicated vocabulary that they have picked up from their Politics lessons. The funny thing is that despite all this "poncy" language, there is very little meaning behind many of the posts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i'd be interested to know how you define capitalism 'working'. If the aims of capitalism are to make a small elite very well off at the expense of the majority, then yes, it's worked. Unfortunatelty the 'trickle down theory of wealth' the tories like to spout is ******** and everyone knows it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.