Turn on thread page Beta

Socialists are a dying breed in the UK watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I've seen increasing evidence for direct activism and socialism thanks to the recession, the Vestas workers for example taking control of the plant has drawn a whole host of attention and despite the eviction notice another factory building is now under occupation too with further activists arriving on the Isle of Wight to provide support.

    If we get a Tory government next socialism will once again hit the headlines, it always does. It dies back a bit under Labour then comes back when the Tories get in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I see no evidence whatsoever for an increase in socialists in the UK. The government has not acted in a socialist manner at all, it has merely done what was necessary to secure the economy. We can see from recent results that socialist political parties are if anything more unpopular than before, and this at the point when they had the very crisis that Marx had envisaged, they failed to take any further power whatsoever in Europe. What we are seeing if anything is an increase in Fascism, something that often goes hand in hand with Socialist regimes. I for one think that it is endemic to the Socialist ideology. I would say however that it's clear certain welfare values from Socialism are catching on in certain Western capitalist states, this is a good thing I believe, but Socialism taken as a whole is not.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Gods children can stray.
    Brilliant.
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Ah but you forget that which is bequeathed from the garden of Eden: free will. The path, therefore, is not predefined.
    Garden of Eden was my prime real estate. I have exclusive rights to that free will
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    So how are we meant to guage whether nationalisation has increased stability, when losses are apparently guaranteed either way? A lot of taxpayers money has been spent on northern rock now - to justify that there must be very conclusive evidence that its been a success.
    Not really. As Olivia mentioned greater financial stability was purchased by the government here, not the quality business interest of northern rock.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Garden of Eden was my prime real estate. I have exclusive rights to that free will
    Go for it. I'm content enough to be an atheist and not consider it ever existed so it's not like I have any need for it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    Not really. As Olivia mentioned greater financial stability was purchased by the government here, not the quality business interest of northern rock.
    But my point was, how has greater financial stability been purchased by making taxpayers fund a failing bank, surely its taken a lot of money out of the hands of the public, and flushed it down the toilet?

    I wouldn't have even bailed out northern rock, let alone nationalised it - I find it quite telling that somebody who predicted the recession and the reasons it'd happen before it happened believes that the best solution is for the government to sit back and let the market fix itself. (I refer to Peter Schiff.)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    But my point was, how has greater financial stability been purchased by making taxpayers fund a failing bank, surely its taken a lot of money out of the hands of the public, and flushed it down the toilet?

    I wouldn't have even bailed out northern rock, let alone nationalised it - I find it quite telling that somebody who predicted the recession and the reasons it'd happen before it happened believes that the best solution is for the government to sit back and let the market fix itself. (I refer to Peter Schiff.)
    If one bank went down then the rest could theoretically fall like dominoes.
    that would be uber bad.
    So the government decided to prop it up.

    I dont think its necessarily a good idea. There is an economic case for just letting them die..

    I don't set in any stead some random guys comment. Probably been someone saying the same thing every year for the past 50 years. He's wrong and he's an anonymous fool, gets it right by fluke and he's is a presentient guru? No.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    If one bank went down then the rest could theoretically fall like dominoes.
    that would be uber bad.
    So the government decided to prop it up.

    I dont think its necessarily a good idea. There is an economic case for just letting them die..
    I don't see how private banks being left to fail means that other banks will also fail - in the 19th and early 20th century banks would just refuse to convert deposits into cash if they were failing, other banks would continue as normal, there was no reason for a wide-scale run on banks when just one was failing.

    However people decided it would be best to set up the federal reserve and enable it to give money to banks that failed, so deposits could always be converted into money - its first test came in 1929, and America saw a wide scale run on banks. I know this is using America as an example rather than the UK but the priciple remains the same regardless of the country. But this evidence is enough to at least strongly question the notion that bailouts prevent a domino effect of bank failures.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrrye)
    I don't set in any stead some random guys comment. Probably been someone saying the same thing every year for the past 50 years. He's wrong and he's an anonymous fool, gets it right by fluke and he's is a presentient guru? No.
    This 'random guy' is an economist, and he explained the REASONS why a recession would occur, and when it would happen, he didn't only state that it would happen but not explain why.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    real socialism is all but destroyed - old labours demise has proven that. If i were a socialist i'd be ashamed to associate myself with new labour; they are an insult to core socialist values.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Last time I checked there was such a thing as free will and children could get good grades and go to a good university and get a good job at the end of it. The only kid to go to Oxbridge from my secondary school was a really smart and hard working (obviously) kid from a really poor background - I think he was one of the only people on the full thirty pounds a week EMA.

    There is plenty of opportunity if you're willing to work hard. But with socialism, why work hard when you will get given money via redistribution of wealth from people who rightfully earned it? Success isn't inevitable and anyone who goes to any university to study any decent course will find that their parents' salaries do boost their grades one bit. The smartest guy in my halls was also the poorest. He had the most motivation and was, when it came down to it, the only guy willing to be in his room working on Friday night when we, the middle class kids, were out partying. He'll do well in life and will go far in his career.

    I see the appeal of socialism and wealth redistribution for many people because they will get much more out of it than they put into it but these people have a very different work ethic than me.
    Of course it is easy to point at the 'poor' exceptions who do succeed academically and in employment but to rely on these completely serves only to paint over the issue. Children from poor backgrounds will generally always struggle to achieve the same level of qualifications and employment as those from more priveleged backgrounds whether they work hard or not.

    First of all, children from poor backgrounds are less likely to understand from an early age the importance of school and attaining an education. Parents who were themselves disillusioned with the academic process often (knowingly and unknowingly) diminish the importance of school, college, university etc. and while the opinions of friends, teachers etc. may be be taken into account, children will more than likely trust the stance of their parents- unaware that this may be harming their future prospects.

    Moving onto further education and obtaining a degree. The two personal examples you highlight are obviously success stories who have managed to clamber through what remains a somewhat elitist university system in spite of the advances made under New Labour. The poor student from your school who made it to Oxbridge is sadly one of only a handful that make it each year- and some of the thousands that get rejected are equally as talented, hard-working, and poor...I don't have the information to hand but the statistics on the percentages of students accepted by Oxbridge from low economic backgrounds is shameful.
    And again, the guy at your university- it's brilliant that he's made it to university and looks set for a great career, yet again there are many out there who would love to be in his place, working as hard as he, as clever as he who simply can't afford to go to university in the first place.

    And in general, it stands to reason that middle-class children are better placed to gain the experience and placements necessary to succeed where poorer people cannot in spite of how hard they work. This is especially true in the modern, competitive graduate world where internships appear to be crucial in securing a good job. Often these roles are unpaid and this immediately rules those from under-priveleged backgrounds out of the equation who do not have parents who can afford to pay for accommodation in London, say, food bills etc.

    As well as this, it is the murky world of connections as well where the middle-class triumph over the working-class. Taking an area of employment specifically, Law is extremely competitive to get into yet more and more students are studying it at university despite the fact there are not enough jobs for them all. When it comes to finding the experience in the profession while qualifying- after the degree this is- poorer candidates struggle even if they are the most intelligent and hard-working people. Why? Well, using a point Geoff Hoon made recently on Question Time, parents of well off children more than likely have friends or family that knows someone involved with the law- perhaps an aunt lives down the road from a district judge who can offer pupillage, or an acquaintance is a partner in a law firm etc.

    Now I'm not arguing for socialism with any real intent here- more, this is an argument to try and dissuade from you the fact that being clever and hard working brings guaranteed success- as you suggest in your opening paragraph. Rather; being clever and hard-working is often not good enough to level the playing fields of education/employment among classes. It's not equality of outcome I'm after- it's equality of opportunity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dannymccs)
    The only revival is that more students have bought copies of Marx' and Engels' Communist Manifesto- book sales may be up but not necessarily support for socialism...
    I can't believe that people still take that text seriously!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poossum)
    I can't believe that people still take that text seriously!
    Ah but there are two kinds of people who love the book:

    1. Marxists who would love to see the proletariat case off their chains of oppression and uprise together causing a revolution...

    and...

    2. Students who love to read it as it's only about 40 pages long, thus making it actually readable at university and preferential to opposing texts which are hundreds of pages long haha...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Socialists will never be a dying breed. If anything, there has been something of a small revival in socialism due to the economic crisis which has its roots in our consumerist, capitalist economy. As a society we are becoming gradually more liberal, and hopefully this will culminate in a fully-formed, more equal and more compassionate socialist state in the near future.
    More Liberal? Where have you been for the last 12 years of Labour government?
    Offline

    14
    It depends what one means by socialism. If one means the public ownership of means of production then one would be right. If one means someone whose goal is social justice then the question is more difficult to answer.
    Offline

    13
    I think overt socialism is quite weak right now, especially in the west where capitalist economies are also welfare and ameliorative orientated (i.e. there's willing to redistribute some wealth to prevent those who least benefit from capitalism from being politicised by their conditions). This situation appears to weaken interest in the socialist argument yet it also ties capitalism to socialist-like issues.

    In some ways an increased move to the 'right' especially big success for right-libertarianism would remove the masking effect of welfare and redistribution and the effects of capitalism 'proper' would rapidly politicise everyone, either as those who benefit or those who don't. What I say to those on the right is this: by all means take away welfare, take away redistribution, leave the masses to the basic winners and losers kind of society capitalism generates when unmediated, then see what happens.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Temporal)
    Do you agree with this statement? I'm not talking about politicians, but people within the United Kingdom as a whole.

    Or do you think the contrary is true, and more socialists are emerging and overtaking other political ideologies?

    I'm referring to both the economical and social/government policy beliefs of socialists. Oh, and remember that teenagers don't comprise the entire population of the UK.
    I definatly agree. However its not just in the UK, the whole world is running out of them.

    Maybe we need the RSPS (Royal Society for the Protection of Socialists)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I definatly agree. However its not just in the UK, the whole world is running out of them.

    Maybe we need the RSPS (Royal Society for the Protection of Socialists)
    The world's fast running out of socialists? What the hell do you put in your tea?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    The world's fast running out of socialists? What the hell do you put in your tea?
    I think I watch too much Skins!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I think I watch too much Skins!
    Well ... if you look at Latin America, then you might regret saying what you did. In Nova Scotia, for example, they recently elected the New Democratic Party to power in the Provincial Legislature - the NDP are social democrats in the same vein as the SDP or PSOE and have roots in socialist movements of the 1920s.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.