If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And what you miss is that most problems occur when humans aren't aware of what they are doing when they do this. Good luck getting prople to go and die in some godforsaken desert for their "country" when they know it's an arbitary concept, as an example.
People don't act on a symbolic or abstract level, they only act in the real world. The reason why they are behaving in the real world might be due to how they process symbols I agree. Those symbols still ain't real.
C'mon Blagsta, explain it it me. I ain't gonna argue but I am curious as to what you think.
Natiosn exist and have existed for hundreds of years, the concept of the Nations state ha sbeen around long before your little theory. Countries and Nations define the people within in them. They defien themselves by it. Like it or not. Aware of it or not. No doubt due partially to the fact that the human race considers itself above everything else and so the creation of countires and the defining of nations gives us that extra bit of difference.
Nations are recognised and defined by law. Countries are physically divided by border's. They are real and physical and definable.
Yours, is just a theory and not accepted as the norm.
And for christs sake, can you people not have an arguement without bringing in Iraq? God its getting old.
Anyway Mr Dude, tell me about what you understand by socialism.
Whatever ideology that has been formed is moulded and acted in a different way anyway. To man's own desires. The old socialists were saying freedom and democracy but preaching mob rule and death, just look at some old labour campagin posters.
Basically, in all the world's ideologies there are none born without violence. They all either preach it, praise it or were formed by it. Some are better then others. Personally I go with Liberalism, mixed with capitialism and a trace of real, true, not changed, mixed, distorted, what we know today as nationalism.
I think however there are more people on this board who wish to preach the ideals of the far left and they shout the loudest on here as there ideas in the real world don't work ala Communism.
Cue the chorus of capitalist, nazi, american pig.
I'm not the one making misinformed statements then refusing to back them up.
Granted.
Where do those desires come from? How are they shaped by historical, social and economic factors?
Which "old socialists". Quote some.
Examples?
Agreed.
Hmmm...too vague a statement to mean anything really.
Again, agreed.
Seeing as Liberalism is pretty synonomous with capitalism, I'm not sure what you mean here.
Explain?
I'd say that the boards are pretty much classically Liberal.
Explain.
You seem a tad paranoid.
Well I'm not getting into a debate about desire, thats religion and science and philosphy right there. But I guess that you could say there is no one truly selfless, even those in power who want good times for all.
Well unlike some obessives, I don't remember quotes of the top of my head and if you wanna see proof of the old socialists ways, then you go look up some old labour campagin posters and see what I mean.
I means what it says, they all praise it or were formed by it. Fact.
Actually liberalism has been claime dby the left. The capitalist liberalism that you seem to recognise is now called ne0-liberalism by its opponents and is not favoured too much. Though I do agree that capitalisma nd liberalism go together.
Basically real nationalism is not this far right, ethnic based racism we see today. It was more a moderate ideology, not truly left or right, it was true center ground. Check out some books on the subject.
I think they are very left wing.
Communism didn't and doesn't work and is not some great equal heaven that many people in the youth group or more correctly student and activist group, seem to preach. It will always be a distortion and was just as bad as facism.
hey, you try saying anything other then left wing and see what response you get.
P.S.
Liberalism
So, how has "liberalism has been claime dby the left" precisely?
Bit out of date I think Blagsta.........
Errr...what? I'm talking about the historical development of Liberalism. What are you talking about?
Well it depends what you mean by communism isn't it? If you mean state communism such as in the USSR and China, then I'd agree. But that wasn't really communism anyway, more a form of state capitalism. If, however, you mean people being in charge of their own lives, communities and workplaces then in the places where it has been tried (Paris Commune, Barcelona 1937 etc), then it has worked...although it has been destroyed by other forces.
Yes you are defining the modern meaning of liberalism with reference to the late 19th century understnading,,,,,,,
What is to say it hasn't chnaged since then (which I beleive it has)
Liberalism has been claime dby the left today, quoting the whole freedoms and democracy it preaches, little forgetting all the violence to achieve that freedom and democracy. The liberlaism they si is neo-liberalism, while they claim to have liberalism but whether they truely have it is another matter.
Well since the old communists turned to capitalism as there system wasnt working, in a bid to speed up the so called natural progress to then go back to communism. I cant say it was a success. Basically, put marxist ideals into practice and you get state communism which didn't work. I do know that is in small communities , communist style systems do work such as in an area of Inida, callded kalla or something similar but any larger and it falls apart.
No, you didn't. You still haven't said what you think socialism means.
No, you're getting confused between Liberalism and being liberal.
Since when was neo-liberalism an ideology of the left?
No, this isn't what has happened at all.
I think you'll find that you're talking about Marxist-Leninism there or Stalinism.
That's what communism (of the libertarian, non-state variety) argues for - a collection of small communities.
I did nto say neo-liberalism was on the left.
Communism does want a collection of small communites under libertarain values.
Marxism becomes stalinsim and leninism and will never work.
yes they did turn to capitalism-fact.
I am confused about nothing. They are.
this is getting quite boring, maybe u should debate with kilintock or whate vre abotu whether we exist or not.
Errr..no I didn't. What I have done is replied to each of your points.
I think you mean that you don't have a clue - as I have shown.
Yes you did. "Liberalism has been claime dby the left today, quoting the whole freedoms and democracy it preaches, little forgetting all the violence to achieve that freedom and democracy. The liberlaism they si is neo-liberalism, while they claim to have liberalism but whether they truely have it is another matter." - although your grammar and syntax appears fucked so I think thats what you're saying - its not too clear.
Libertarian communism does, yes.
Now this is where you show yourself up to not really know what you are on about. What do you mean by Marxism? Under what conditions has it become state communism and why? Are there any examples where it hasn't? etc etc
Leaving aside the argument that the USSR was capitalist anyway, just state capitalist - you stated "Well since the old communists turned to capitalism as there system wasnt working, in a bid to speed up the so called natural progress to then go back to communism." I'm disputing the bit I've italicised. On what do you base that?
I'd beg to differ.
Who are?
Have you completely lost it?
you get nothing of what I say and ask rhetocrical questions all the time, You refuse to acknowldge facts your just like a littel kid that asks "why?" to every word or answer.
goodbye.
Yes, you appear to be determined to make it so.
Maybe you should explain yourself better?
Nothing at all rhetorical about my questions, I'd actually like you to answer to clarify to me what you think.
I haven't seen you state any facts.
If you don't question things you'll end up believing anything.
Bye then. Close the door on your way out.
Naaah, I just think he's backed himself into a corner and won't admit it.
I haven;t backed myself into any corner and have answred the questions but you seem to determined not to listen or read as it were, anything I say so secure in your own rightousness, so there is no point in continuing.
I would like to point out that this has gone way beyond the origianl point of the thread and all I said was there is no way you need to be a pro-west, pro-capitalist right winger to be a part of the student union, not at my old uni anyway.
keep flying the red flag, you won't see it again.
Quote some.
You haven't answered any of my questions. All you've done is write a load of gramatically incorrect and misspelt rhetoric.
Well why are you then?
Eh? You wrote "They are very aint-west, anit-american esepcially and crow on an on about liberal democracy and who they are so democratic when in actual fact they suport socialism, marxism andnot said squat about brutal fundamentaist regimes.", which you appear to have just contradicted. I then pulled you up on what you understand by socialism, which you have still refused to answer.
You're a fool.
I'm Pro-Neo-Con, Pro-Tory and Pro-U.S. Sounds like I would fit in rather well.
I wish I was there
Same with mine former Students' Union. The official Union website even permitted anti-Semetic material to be shown on there.