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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    On the contrary, i am in favour of heavy localisation of power. It is the centralisation of power to the state or Government that i am against not the Government itself. Rather than utopian, it is a practical and logical way to ensure a greater representation for the people, increasing democracy, while retaining a small federal type Government to uphold the law, defend property rights and provide an armed defence of the nation.



    I agree completely, that states and institutions matter. Not the state or the institution.



    I am no anarchist, i like to think of myself more as a minarchist. I appreciate the role that Government plays. But am strictly against any kind of heavy centralisation of power to one institution. I believe in representative democracy that is actually representative, rather than a thinly veiled ochlocracy.
    The critical bit in what I was saying was 'if' you took away the constitutional bit, and what followed was a critique of some libertarians who really don't believe in government.

    If you believe in the US government as intended by the founding father's that is very limited government by modern standards but it isn't no government; and if you belief in decentralised government then God help us - the people at my town council are far worse than those in Whitehall. But for many things in the UK central government allocation of resources and local administration of services might bring about improvement's and I think along with cuts that is part of David Cameron's agenda.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    The critical bit what I was saying was 'if' you took away the constitutional bit, and what followed was a critique of some libertarians who really don't believe in government.

    If you believe in the US government as intended by the founding father's that is very limited government by modern standards but it isn't no government; and if you belief in decentralised government then God help us - the people at my town council are far worse than those in Whitehall. But for many things in the UK central government allocation of resources and local administration of services might bring about improvement's and I think along with cuts that is part of David Cameron's agenda.
    Im not convinced, and as for your local town council that system is a beuracratic monster, but i think with appropriate change and the fact that given true responsibllity for their constituents, the MP's and councelors may actually become responsible, especially as the pressure from Gov would be removed.
    I never said i wanted no Government. In fact i think the US Gov as intended by the founding fathers would be a good model, with regards to decentralisation, and indivdual state sovereignity. But then again, in todays world all political models that don't resemble the current one seem like utopia's don't you think.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Im not convinced, and as for your local town council that system is a beuracratic monster, but i think with appropriate change and the fact that given true responsibllity for their constituents, the MP's and councelors may actually become responsible, especially as the pressure from Gov would be removed.
    I never said i wanted no Government. In fact i think the US Gov as intended by the founding fathers would be a good model, with regards to decentralisation, and indivdual state sovereignity. But then again, in todays world all political models that don't resemble the current one seem like utopia's don't you think.
    No, utopian models are just the unrealistic ones.

    Yours is more realistic than a thoroughgoing libertarian's, but anyone who thinks spending will go down to antebellum levels and that central banks will be abolished is still naive (I'm not saying these assertions apply to you, as before I'm just critiquing those who take libertarian thinking too far, or as some would say to its logical conclusion).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    No, utopian models are just the unrealistic ones.

    Yours is more realistic than a thoroughgoing libertarian's, but anyone who thinks spending will go down to antebellum levels and that central banks will be abolished is still naive (I'm not saying these assertions apply to you, as before I'm just critiquing those who take libertarian thinking too far, or as some would say to its logical conclusion).

    What are your political views, if you don't mind me asking..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    What are your political views, if you don't mind me asking..
    I don't subscribe to any particular political philosophy, but I have strong political views on many subjects. I suppose I am a party of one, and I'd have to write a manifesto in order for others to categorize me. I think on many policy issues I am a results orientated, open to empirical persuasion pragmatist, while on the bigger issues of principal I completely reject moral relativism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Federal spending per house hold (not per capita), inflation indexed. So its adjusted by population and for current real value.

    Source is the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation at www.heritage.org
    Hmm, spending per household seems a novel way of looking at it as the number of households will not be constant.

    A bit confusing as the FT says "Under George W. Bush federal spending rose from $1,789bn in 2000 to an estimated $2,955bn for 2008; from 18.4 per cent of gross domestic product to 20.8 per cent."

    And if you type Bush spending and hit images you get quite a different picture. For example the 'Independent institute' says total federal spending growth under Clinton was 8.1% and 19.7% under Bush.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
    Hmm, spending per household seems a novel way of looking at it as the number of households will not be constant.

    A bit confusing as the FT says "Under George W. Bush federal spending rose from $1,789bn in 2000 to an estimated $2,955bn for 2008; from 18.4 per cent of gross domestic product to 20.8 per cent."

    And if you type Bush spending and hit images you get quite a different picture. For example the 'Independent institute' says total federal spending growth under Clinton was 8.1% and 19.7% under Bush.
    I think per capita would be better (probably done this way because Americans are taxed by household), but it does make sense to speak of spending in terms of the population, because if you have a lower population and you spend the same you're spending more on your people and vice versa. One could think of it as indexed by people-inflation as well as price-inflation. You can't index it by taxation because spending and taxes don't have to correlate - hence even bigger deficits.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just saying, the NHS is an institution based on socialism, as is state education. Should we abolish both of these?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    Just saying, the NHS is an institution based on socialism, as is state education. Should we abolish both of these?

    Yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Yes.
    So you're saying my parents should have gone into debt so that I could live when I was seriously ill, as well as getting me an education? Thanks. Nice to know my life isn't as valuable as yours, because I can't afford to go private.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    So you're saying my parents should have gone into debt so that I could live when I was seriously ill, as well as getting me an education? Thanks. Nice to know my life isn't as valuable as yours, because I can't afford to go private.

    And why do you think you would have had to go into debt without the NHS?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    And why do you think you would have had to go into debt without the NHS?
    Because my parents would have had to pay a huge amount for the 6 operations, the several different drugs (which they had to change on numerous occasions due to allergic reations), the 2 months I spent in specialist hospitals, and the years of physiotherapy I had to have to learn to walk again. Instead they paid nothing and I'm still here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    Because my parents would have had to pay a huge amount for the 6 operations, the several different drugs (which they had to change on numerous occasions due to allergic reations), the 2 months I spent in specialist hospitals, and the years of physiotherapy I had to have to learn to walk again. Instead they paid nothing and I'm still here.

    Well, they didn't pay 'nothing'. They (along with everyone else) had been paying towards the NHS (and therefore everyone else in the country) through NI for most of their working lives.

    You may have had good experiences with this system, and yes, they may have saved your life (which to be honest isn't thanks to the NHS it's down to the doctors and nurses, who would still be here if the NHS was abolished). But for every person who has had a good experience with the NHS there is a person who has had a bad experience (aka me).

    Now i am not advocating an American system, or anything like it. I am still all for universal health care. What i am not in favour of is universal health care controlled exclusively by the state. After all health care is not a right it is a privilege, and i know it sounds harsh but why should i be forced to pay for you and every one else?Are you entitled to the rewards of my labour? Is it your basic right to take a portion of my earnings each month so you can enjoy free operations at my expense? Im not trying to be mean, i just want to understand how you feel about this issue

    I personally would like to see the NHS replaced with a system of health savings accounts coupled with catastrophic insurance. Your parents would pay a monthly sum into a personal health savings account up to, but not limited at a level which would cover most basic treatments eg, GP costs, A+E visits, prescription drugs etc.. etc.. As for whatever illness/accident you suffered, that would be where catastrophic insurance comes into play. This would also be a monthly payment made by your parents or yourself once you begin to work, you would be covered for all serious illness/disease/major accidents. The fact that this insurance only covers unlikely events, ensures the premiums are kept low, unlike the American system which requires you in most cases to subscribe to full health cover which benefits only the young, as obviously when you get older you will be more prone to illness and disease, which in turn would drive the costs of your cover up.

    You pay exclusively for what you get. As for the very poor and the unfortunate who maybe don't have a job or anyone to care for them. The Government would act as a safety net, not to mention the many charities that would inevitably emerge, after the Government gives the moral responsiblity for healthcare back to it's citizens.

    The NHS is just a massive financial black hole. As much as 90 per cent of the wellbeing of a population has nothing to do with doctors or hospitals. Health depends mostly on how advanced a society is. The standard of wellbeing can be predicted largely on the basis of adult female literacy and the cleanliness of the water. Diet and smoking habits make a significant difference, too. But spending a large proportion of GDP on a healthcare system doesn't have much impact. Spending it through a state-owned health system is just stupid. There is no example of an effective state healthcare system in the world any more than there is an example of a prosperous communist country. State industries are always riddled with faults: understaffing, overmanning, inefficient use of resources, indulging the wishes of Whitehall rather than than those of the consumer, and so on. You would not want a state monopoly to run local shops and supermarkets. Why on earth do we want one to run a healthcare system?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well, they didn't pay 'nothing'. They (along with everyone else) had been paying towards the NHS (and therefore everyone else in the country) through NI for most of their working lives.
    Which brings me back to my original point, that is socialism.

    Now i am not advocating an American system, or anything like it. I am still all for universal health care. What i am not in favour of is universal health care controlled exclusively by the state. After all health care is not a right it is a privilege, and i know it sounds harsh but why should i be forced to pay for you and every one else?Are you entitled to the rewards of my labour? Is it your basic right to take a portion of my earnings each month so you can enjoy free operations at my expense? Im not trying to be mean, i just want to understand how you feel about this issue
    Because it benefits you as well. Statistics prove that people living below the poverty line are more likely to commit crime, for example, and by providing better state education, childcare and raising wages (54% of people below the poverty line in this country do work.) we are helping to lift more children out of poverty. We are also helping to break the cycle of poor parents raising poor children, who will grow up to be poor parents.
    If you want to go to university and take out a student loan, that is being paid for by our taxes, and it is socialism.

    As for the very poor and the unfortunate who maybe don't have a job or anyone to care for them. The Government would act as a safety net, not to mention the many charities that would inevitably emerge, after the Government gives the moral responsiblity for healthcare back to it's citizens.
    Again, this is still a form of socialism, and as the original argument was abolish leftism completely, I was just pointing out to the OP that it is almost impossible to live in a society where taxes aren't being redistributed to the less fortunate and publicly owned services.

    The NHS is just a massive financial black hole. As much as 90 per cent of the wellbeing of a population has nothing to do with doctors or hospitals. Health depends mostly on how advanced a society is. The standard of wellbeing can be predicted largely on the basis of adult female literacy and the cleanliness of the water. Diet and smoking habits make a significant difference, too. But spending a large proportion of GDP on a healthcare system doesn't have much impact. Spending it through a state-owned health system is just stupid. There is no example of an effective state healthcare system in the world any more than there is an example of a prosperous communist country. State industries are always riddled with faults: understaffing, overmanning, inefficient use of resources, indulging the wishes of Whitehall rather than than those of the consumer, and so on. You would not want a state monopoly to run local shops and supermarkets. Why on earth do we want one to run a healthcare system?
    You said that you didn't advocate the American health service, yet reading this, I can't help but think of to the American health service, which is a shambles, and I would say much worse than our system. In many developing countries, private health care is the only health care available, yet people are far too poor to afford that, and people die of preventable illnesses everyday. In Niger in 2003, 89.2 percent of individual expenditures on health care were "out-of-pocket" (paid by the patient), yet their life expectancy at birth is 41 years.
    Throughout the 1990s, the Ethiopian government, as part of its reconstruction program, devoted ever-increasing amounts of funding to the social and health sectors, which brought corresponding improvements in school enrollments, adult literacy, and infant mortality rates.

    The NHS is by no means perfect, but I have faith that it can be improved by cleanliness, more doctors and nurses and more hospitals. (I also think that in England regional governments should run the hospitals and emergency services.) Alternatively, the UK does have a private system, which is paid for by private insurance.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The NHS is just a massive financial black hole. As much as 90 per cent of the wellbeing of a population has nothing to do with doctors or hospitals. Health depends mostly on how advanced a society is. The standard of wellbeing can be predicted largely on the basis of adult female literacy and the cleanliness of the water. Diet and smoking habits make a significant difference, too. But spending a large proportion of GDP on a healthcare system doesn't have much impact. Spending it through a state-owned health system is just stupid. There is no example of an effective state healthcare system in the world any more than there is an example of a prosperous communist country. State industries are always riddled with faults: understaffing, overmanning, inefficient use of resources, indulging the wishes of Whitehall rather than than those of the consumer, and so on. You would not want a state monopoly to run local shops and supermarkets. Why on earth do we want one to run a healthcare system?
    Too much rhetoric and not enough evidence!

    The evidence doesn't back up what you are saying - your comments are very much exaggurated. The results the NHS achieves compared to the amount spent on it are broadly comparable with any other country you could care to name. We certainly get much greater value for money than the States. We spend 8.4% of our GDP on healthcare - this is actually 0.5% lower than the OECD average and 1% lower than the EU average. The United States spends a whopping 15.3% of GDP on healthcare - almost double our spending - and this is projected to rise to 19.5% by 2017. The quality depends on what ranking you look at - we have been ranked top in the world, and we have been ranked 20th. But our position is always broadly comparable to other countries. There is certainly nothing to substantiate your claims of our system being absolutely rubbish and inefficient.

    Healthcare is not like a supermarket. There only tends to be one hospital in each area, a lot of things are now done through specialist clinics and consultants which can enjoy something approaching a monopoly, and a private system often tends to be run through insurance which gives the individual little incentive to control costs. Conversely, you wouldn't want the private sector to run the army, the police or social security. Healthcare is in between the two extremes of being obviously better as either private or public.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)
    Because it benefits you as well. Statistics prove that people living below the poverty line are more likely to commit crime, for example, and by providing better state education, childcare and raising wages (54% of people below the poverty line in this country do work.) we are helping to lift more children out of poverty. We are also helping to break the cycle of poor parents raising poor children, who will grow up to be poor parents.
    Our tax-funded system damages the rest of society. Money taken from us to pay for government healthcare is 60 billion a year. That huge cost is part of the reason why the very poor have to be taxed. Someone on the minimum wage makes 7,872 a year. It is not much, but the government nevertheless starts taxing him as soon as he makes 4,535. Without the NHS, it would not have to.

    No, taxation of the very poor is absurd and obscene in itself. It also discourages the poor from working at all, persuading many to stay on benefits instead. This damages their self-- respect, creates a sense of alienation, and in some cases contributes to them turning to crime. The resulting unemployment increases our taxes yet more. It damages our economic growth. This in turn means that we become a less advanced, less prosperous society than we could have been.

    If you want to go to university and take out a student loan, that is being paid for by our taxes, and it is socialism.
    Which is exactly why i think Universities should be able to charge what they want.


    Again, this is still a form of socialism, and as the original argument was abolish leftism completely, I was just pointing out to the OP that it is almost impossible to live in a society where taxes aren't being redistributed to the less fortunate and publicly owned services.

    Yes, but how is this in any way an argument for the NHS. We obvously want to help the extremely unfortunate in our society, by giving them a leg up. What we do not want to do is to support them all the way through their lives. Not only does this welfare statism bring a heavy burden on our economy it also removes the moral obligation of the more fortunate of us in society to give to charity and to help out those who are in poverty. In 1895 a newspaper survey revealed that middle-class people contributed 10 per cent of their income to charity. Now it is down to less than 1 per cent. We don't give any more. We leave it to the state. But if the opportunity arose again, we would give again.




    You said that you didn't advocate the American health service, yet reading this, I can't help but think of to the American health service, which is a shambles, and I would say much worse than our system.
    Which is exactly why i said i did not support the Americaan system. Their Government spends more per capita on healthcare than ours does.


    [quoteIn many developing countries, private health care is the only health care available, yet people are far too poor to afford that, and people die of preventable illnesses everyday. In Niger in 2003, 89.2 percent of individual expenditures on health care were "out-of-pocket" (paid by the patient), yet their life expectancy at birth is 41 years.
    Throughout the 1990s[/quote]

    Like i said before, as much as 90 per cent of the wellbeing of a population has nothing to do with doctors or hospitals. Health depends mostly on how advanced a society is. The standard of wellbeing can be predicted largely on the basis of adult female literacy and the cleanliness of the water. Diet and smoking habits make a significant difference, too. But spending a large proportion of GDP on a healthcare system doesn't have much impact.



    The NHS is by no means perfect, but I have faith that it can be improved by cleanliness, more doctors and nurses and more hospitals. (I also think that in England regional governments should run the hospitals and emergency services.) Alternatively, the UK does have a private system, which is paid for by private insurance.
    But this private insurance has to be paid on top of the forced payment towards the NHS. Plus it isn't about improving the NHS, the most pressing matter concering state healthcare is the massive expenditure, which is only going to go up and up and up, the people who are going to be hit hardest are those the NHS apparently helps out. The very poor and the less fortunate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The evidence doesn't back up what you are saying - your comments are very much exaggurated. The results the NHS achieves compared to the amount spent on it are broadly comparable with any other country you could care to name. We certainly get much greater value for money than the States. We spend 8.4% of our GDP on healthcare - this is actually 0.5% lower than the OECD average and 1% lower than the EU average. The United States spends a whopping 15.3% of GDP on healthcare - almost double our spending - and this is projected to rise to 19.5% by 2017. The quality depends on what ranking you look at - we have been ranked top in the world, and we have been ranked 20th. But our position is always broadly comparable to other countries. There is certainly nothing to substantiate your claims of our system being absolutely rubbish and inefficient.
    I did not say at any time that the USA had a better system, like you said above it has a worse system than ours. In my previous post i outline what kind of system i would like to see implemented.

    Healthcare is not like a supermarket. There only tends to be one hospital in each area, a lot of things are now done through specialist clinics and consultants which can enjoy something approaching a monopoly, and a private system often tends to be run through insurance which gives the individual little incentive to control costs.
    But i do not advocate a system run purely on Insurance. I am more for a system of universal health savings accounts along with catastrophic insurance. This kind of system will enable the individual to control costs and "shop around" if you like.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I did not say at any time that the USA had a better system, like you said above it has a worse system than ours. In my previous post i outline what kind of system i would like to see implemented.

    But i do not advocate a system run purely on Insurance. I am more for a system of universal health savings accounts along with catastrophic insurance. This kind of system will enable the individual to control costs and "shop around" if you like.
    That is all fair enough - though certainly a lot of our healthcare spending is on what you describe as 'catastrophic' events!

    But it still doesn't justify what you have said about the NHS. No statistic or study I know says anything which might justify your comments about the NHS - certainly my personal experience has been that NHS care has been absolutely top class for all members of my family; and indeed far exceeded the standard of care I got at a BUPA hospital.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    That huge cost is part of the reason why the very poor have to be taxed. Someone on the minimum wage makes 7,872 a year. It is not much, but the government nevertheless starts taxing him as soon as he makes 4,535. Without the NHS, it would not have to.
    ...
    No, taxation of the very poor is absurd and obscene in itself. It also discourages the poor from working at all, persuading many to stay on benefits instead. This damages their self-- respect, creates a sense of alienation, and in some cases contributes to them turning to crime. The resulting unemployment increases our taxes yet more.
    This is extremely misleading. The burden of paying healthcare on the poor far exceeds the burden of taxation. By far the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the States is healthcare costs - and this would certainly remain the case under the system you are proposing. There is no greater disincentive to work than if everything you earn goes to your creditors.

    You overestimate the amount the poor have to pay. Someone earning £7,872 pays no tax on anything he earns up to £6,035 - your £4,535 figure is out of date. The remaining £1,837 is taxed at 10%. He is also eligible for income support. I hate the fact that some people feel trapped on benefits as much as you do, but the way forward is to reform the way benefits work and, more importantly, invest in reversing the ways in which people get locked into poverty socially and culturally. Tax just isn't that big a factor here.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    In 1895 a newspaper survey revealed that middle-class people contributed 10 per cent of their income to charity. Now it is down to less than 1 per cent. We don't give any more. We leave it to the state. But if the opportunity arose again, we would give again
    A lot of this is due to social changes. Furthermore, in 1895 we had absolutely no welfare system at all - people were quite literally left to rot on the streets until at least 1945. You only have to look at how soldiers who got injured in WW1 were left to rot for a great example. This has a lot to do with it. Furthermore, the reduction in "giving culture" does not directly map onto rises in the top rates of income tax.
    Moreover, Thatcher already did this - slashed the top rates of income tax using the justification that people would contribute towards their communities instead. It didn't work at all - even hardcore Thatcherites now admit that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I did not say at any time that the USA had a better system, like you said above it has a worse system than ours. In my previous post i outline what kind of system i would like to see implemented.



    But i do not advocate a system run purely on Insurance. I am more for a system of universal health savings accounts along with catastrophic insurance. This kind of system will enable the individual to control costs and "shop around" if you like.
    More or less what Jacketpotato said, but I'll add a little more.

    Yes, one problem is that the government are blindly throwing money at the NHS instead of actually making steps to improve it. They can afford to make cuts, and then spend the money saved on other things such as education and childcare, which gives children the oppurtunities their parents never had.

    It is also worth mentioning that in Norway, taxes are high, and yet it successfully accomplished the abolition of poverty in 2003.It has the second highest GDP per-capita and the third highest GDP (PPP) per capita in the world. It maintained first place in the world in the UNDP Human Development index for six consecutive years (2001-2006) and despite being beaten by Iceland in 2007, it still remains in second place. Following the ongoing financial crisis, its currency has been deemed one of the most solid currencies in the world. It maintains a Scandinavian welfare model with universal healthcare, free higher education and comprehensive social security system, and, in 2007 was rated most peaceful country in the world by Global Peace Index.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4758sBZLC5k

    The Nazis were leftists. All socialism/leftism must be opposed!
    Not another Tory. Hitler was DEEPLY opposed to Bolshevism.

    Hitler's resistance to Bolshevism
    Condensed from the Fuhrer's closing speech, Nuremberg Congress of Honour, [30 July 1935]

    "We do not deny the grave concern which we feel at the thought of other nations becoming a victim of Bolshevism towards which we are deadly antagonistic.

    This deadly enmity of ours is not based on an obstinate refusal to recognise any ideas that may be contrary to ours. But this enmity is based on a natural feeling of revulsion towards a diabolical doctrine that threatens the world at large and us.

    The first phase in the fight of National Socialism against Communism did not take place in Russia. Soviet Communism already tried to poison Germany between the years 1918 and 1920, and its methods of penetration into this country was much the same as its present-day military efforts in moving the Bolshevik military machine closer and closer to our frontiers.

    We have stamped out Bolshevism which Moscow's bloodfiends such as Lewin, Axelroth, Neumann, Bela-Kuhn, etc. tried to introduce into Germany. And it is because we see day by day these efforts of Soviet rulers to meddle in our domestic affairs have not yet ceased, that we are forced to regard Bolshevism beyond our frontiers as our deadly enemy.

    We have fought Bolshevism in Germany as a Weltanschaung that is, as a form of philosophy that endeavoured to poison and destroy our people. And Bolshevism will continue to be fought if it attempts to introduce its sordid Spanish methods into Germany.

    It is not the aim of Bolshevism to free nations from their ailments. Its object is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements. . .

    . . .we do not want a situation here in Germany, as in Russia, in which 98% of official key positions are held by alien Jews. Under no circumstances do we want our national intelligence debased.

    . . . Communism however cannot deny that in Russia today 98% of all official positions are held by Jews who not only can never be classed as members of the proletariat, but who have never earned an honest penny in their lives.

    . . . we have fought Bolshevism because its leaders had planned for us a slaughter house on Russian and Spanish lines. Such is the difference between the Bolshevik and the National Socialist revolutions. The one transforms prosperous and peaceful countries into a waste of ruin and devastation, whilst the other, re-builds a broken-down and poverty stricken Reich into an economically sound and prosperous state. "
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.