UK Politics Thread V: Upon This Blasted Heath

[Imperial Union of America]

Not really. We don't need fascist trash spewing their intellectual poison all over politics.

I disagree. They did a lot of good spreading our ideas across the political spectrum in Britain.

[Vassenor]

Not really. We don't need fascist trash spewing their intellectual poison all over politics.

I disagree. They did a lot of good spreading our ideas across the political spectrum in Britain.

They were never anything more than a punchline. A sign of people being unable to let go of the past and trying to drag the rest of the country back several centuries.

[Imperial Union of America]

I disagree. They did a lot of good spreading our ideas across the political spectrum in Britain.

They were never anything more than a punchline. A sign of people being unable to let go of the past and trying to drag the rest of the country back several centuries.

Hitler makes for quite the punchline, too. So did Stalin. Anything that spreads the ideology of Fascism is a step in the direction towards the Fascist State.

[Vassenor]

They were never anything more than a punchline. A sign of people being unable to let go of the past and trying to drag the rest of the country back several centuries.

Hitler makes for quite the punchline, too. So did Stalin. Anything that spreads the ideology of Fascism is a step in the direction towards the Fascist State.

Fascism is a joke and always has been.

[Frank Zipper]

The BNP hasn't been a thing for years. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

That sucks. I sent some money to them back in '08 or '09 haha

Sucker.

[Imperial Union of America]

Hitler makes for quite the punchline, too. So did Stalin. Anything that spreads the ideology of Fascism is a step in the direction towards the Fascist State.

Fascism is a joke and always has been.

I guess you find Nazism hilarious?

That sucks. I sent some money to them back in '08 or '09 haha

Sucker.

Nice comeback.

[Vassenor]

So it's looking like more papers are coming out suggesting that Hard Brexit is going to cause the economy to take a major hit; this one's saying £66 billion a year.

But it's produced by Subject Matter Experts so clearly it must be wrong and all that old toot.

And of course everyone in the government is still labouring under the delusion that the EU will just give us access to the Single Market without free movement in spite of what everyone is saying.

So we're blindly stumbling towards collapse again. =/

[Vassenor]

Fascism is a joke and always has been.

I guess you find Nazism hilarious?

Sucker.

Nice comeback.

I find it hilarious that people think it's still a good idea when the Nazis proved that a fascist state doesn't actually work in practice.

[Old Tyrannia]

Not really. We don't need fascist trash spewing their intellectual poison all over politics.

*** Warned for flamebait. ***

That sucks. I sent some money to them back in '08 or '09 haha

Sucker.

Don't flame. Because your record is clean, I'm letting you off this time with an unofficial warning. Don't let me catch you again.

[Imperializt Russia]

The BNP hasn't been a thing for years. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

That sucks. I sent some money to them back in '08 or '09 haha

They were annihilated by UKIP in 2015.

They were never anything more than a punchline. A sign of people being unable to let go of the past and trying to drag the rest of the country back several centuries.

Hitler makes for quite the punchline, too. So did Stalin. Anything that spreads the ideology of Fascism is a step in the direction towards the Fascist State.

You do realise that it's probably cognitive dissonance to say "either Hitler or Stalin were both good for spreading fascism" because they spread completely ideologically opposed variants?

Do you remember? They had a big war over it? Twenty or thirty million people died?

[Imperial Union of America]

That sucks. I sent some money to them back in '08 or '09 haha

They were annihilated by UKIP in 2015.

Hitler makes for quite the punchline, too. So did Stalin. Anything that spreads the ideology of Fascism is a step in the direction towards the Fascist State.

You do realise that it's probably cognitive dissonance to say "either Hitler or Stalin were both good for spreading fascism" because they spread completely ideologically opposed variants?

Do you remember? They had a big war over it? Twenty or thirty million people died?

Stalin was more authoritarian dictator than communist.

My point is that people did not take either seriously until they could no longer afford not too.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well yes, Stalin presided over the revolution itself. In no communist or other socialist literature does it suggest that communism would be reached even in a lifetime. It's not really possible to do it that quickly.

[Alvecia]

They were annihilated by UKIP in 2015.
You do realise that it's probably cognitive dissonance to say "either Hitler or Stalin were both good for spreading fascism" because they spread completely ideologically opposed variants?

Do you remember? They had a big war over it? Twenty or thirty million people died?

Stalin was more authoritarian dictator than communist.

My point is that people did not take either seriously until they could no longer afford not too.

Given your examples is that not a stronger argument against facist political parties?

[Imperial Union of America]

Stalin was more authoritarian dictator than communist.

My point is that people did not take either seriously until they could no longer afford not too.

Given your examples is that not a stronger argument against facist political parties?

No, because Fascism did not fail because of the merits or demerits of the ideology.

It failed because of military and economic realities.

Germany never had a chance against the USSR or USA. They lacked the material and manpower for such undertakings. Economically they could never match neither the US or Soviet Union in production, let alone in manpower.

So ultimately, Germany was doomed from the beginning with the end goals Hitler had in mind. But that had nothing to do with fascism as a political ideology. Italy, the nation Fascism was developed in, failed for similar reasons to Germany, but their problems were more structural and economically acute. Unlike Communism, that failed because it was economically inefficient.

[Alvecia]

Given your examples is that not a stronger argument against facist political parties?

No, because Fascism did not fail because of the merits or demerits of the ideology.

It failed because of military and economic realities.

Germany never had a chance against the USSR or USA. They lacked the material and manpower for such undertakings. Economically they could never match neither the US or Soviet Union in production, let alone in manpower.

So ultimately, Germany was doomed from the beginning with the end goals Hitler had in mind. But that had nothing to do with fascism as a political ideology. Italy, the nation Fascism was developed in, failed for similar reasons to Germany, but their problems were more structural and economically acute. Unlike Communism, that failed because it was economically inefficient.

Concerning Germany at least you could reasonably argue that the facist ideology brought the military realities upon itself, causing it's own downfall.

[Imperial Union of America]

No, because Fascism did not fail because of the merits or demerits of the ideology.

It failed because of military and economic realities.

Germany never had a chance against the USSR or USA. They lacked the material and manpower for such undertakings. Economically they could never match neither the US or Soviet Union in production, let alone in manpower.

So ultimately, Germany was doomed from the beginning with the end goals Hitler had in mind. But that had nothing to do with fascism as a political ideology. Italy, the nation Fascism was developed in, failed for similar reasons to Germany, but their problems were more structural and economically acute. Unlike Communism, that failed because it was economically inefficient.

Concerning Germany at least you could reasonably argue that the facist ideology brought the military realities upon itself, causing it's own downfall.

I think Nazism is ideologically distinct from Fascism. Nazism had the idea of eastward expansion, Lebensraum and other racial policies. Nazi ideas of expansion into the USSR were unrealistic and not based in the demographic and material realities of Germany either then or now. Germany was not capable of waging a long-term war against the Soviet Union in the manner proscribed by Nazi ideology. Some of Nazi Germany's policies were very short sighted and unrealistic or based off of wild inaccuracies and assumptions regarding the Soviet Union.

Italy failed for similar reasons Nazi Germany did -- unrealistic goals. Italy was the least industrialized great nation of Europe and if Germany lacked raw resources, Italy was in a far worse position in that front. It could not engage the British mediterranean fleet because if it did, it could not acquire the necessary resources to replace any losses. Italian equipment was very poor, and they lacked the ability to appropriately arm their forces for 20th century warfare of the scale necessary to make an impact. Infact, it has been argued that they did more to harm the Nazi war effort than assist it. That's not even getting started on the poor leadership and corruption endemic to the mid to lower ranking officer corps of the Italian military and the huge strategic blunders of Mussolini.

[Alvecia]

Concerning Germany at least you could reasonably argue that the facist ideology brought the military realities upon itself, causing it's own downfall.

I think Nazism is ideologically distinct from Fascism. Nazism had the idea of eastward expansion, Lebensraum and other racial policies. Nazi ideas of expansion into the USSR were unrealistic and not based in the demographic and material realities of Germany either then or now. Germany was not capable of waging a long-term war against the Soviet Union in the manner proscribed by Nazi ideology. Some of Nazi Germany's policies were very short sighted and unrealistic or based off of wild inaccuracies and assumptions regarding the Soviet Union.

Italy failed for similar reasons Nazi Germany did -- unrealistic goals. Italy was the least industrialized great nation of Europe and if Germany lacked raw resources, Italy was in a far worse position in that front. It could not engage the British mediterranean fleet because if it did, it could not acquire the necessary resources to replace any losses. Italian equipment was very poor, and they lacked the ability to appropriately arm their forces for 20th century warfare of the scale necessary to make an impact. Infact, it has been argued that they did more to harm the Nazi war effort than assist it.

I think you might have a good argument if you consider facist ideology in a purely theoretical sense. But I think that as soon it is combined with practical human application it tends to fall apart much faster and much harder than any other.

[Imperial Union of America]

I think Nazism is ideologically distinct from Fascism. Nazism had the idea of eastward expansion, Lebensraum and other racial policies. Nazi ideas of expansion into the USSR were unrealistic and not based in the demographic and material realities of Germany either then or now. Germany was not capable of waging a long-term war against the Soviet Union in the manner proscribed by Nazi ideology. Some of Nazi Germany's policies were very short sighted and unrealistic or based off of wild inaccuracies and assumptions regarding the Soviet Union.

Italy failed for similar reasons Nazi Germany did -- unrealistic goals. Italy was the least industrialized great nation of Europe and if Germany lacked raw resources, Italy was in a far worse position in that front. It could not engage the British mediterranean fleet because if it did, it could not acquire the necessary resources to replace any losses. Italian equipment was very poor, and they lacked the ability to appropriately arm their forces for 20th century warfare of the scale necessary to make an impact. Infact, it has been argued that they did more to harm the Nazi war effort than assist it.

I think you might have a good argument if you consider facist ideology in a purely theoretical sense. But I think that as soon it is combined with practical human application it tends to fall apart much faster and much harder than any other.

I think Fascism can have a good outcome if properly applied with good leadership. Being able to bypass a lot of the bullshit of democracy and remove a lot of the corruption inherent to democratic process leaves a lot of room for decisive and effective government.

[Old Tyrannia]

Gentle reminder that fascism and its viability isn't the topic of this thread. Tangents are inevitable in a thread like this, but try not to let them go on.

[Alvecia]

Gentle reminder that fascism and its viability isn't the topic of this thread. Tangents are inevitable in a thread like this, but try not to let them go on.

Noted. I don't think there's much more to be said other than

I think Fascism can have a good outcome if properly applied with good leadership. Being able to bypass a lot of the bullshit of democracy and remove a lot of the corruption inherent to democratic process leaves a lot of room for decisive and effective government.

I disagree

[Wolfmanne2]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/ ... uk-economy

I agree with the CIPD. University graduates are wasting 3 or 4 years at university when half of them end up in non-graduate jobs. Too many people are going to university nowadays.

[Olivaero]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/11/huge-increase-in-number-of-graduates-bad-for-uk-economy

I agree with the CIPD. University graduates are wasting 3 or 4 years at university when half of them end up in non-graduate jobs. Too many people are going to university nowadays.

Or alternatively the way in which are university courses are structured is wrong.

[Alvecia]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/11/huge-increase-in-number-of-graduates-bad-for-uk-economy

I agree with the CIPD. University graduates are wasting 3 or 4 years at university when half of them end up in non-graduate jobs. Too many people are going to university nowadays.

I fel that inherent in that statement is the underlying assertion that too much education is a bad thing. Which I don't think is the case.

[Imperializt Russia]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/11/huge-increase-in-number-of-graduates-bad-for-uk-economy

I agree with the CIPD. University graduates are wasting 3 or 4 years at university when half of them end up in non-graduate jobs. Too many people are going to university nowadays.

I could have gotten into the nuclear industry without a university education. Probably in a very hands-on role rather than the more officey work that I'd be realistically looking at. Even reactor operator isn't a well-paid, education-based position.

I wouldn't be battling depression now, probably, or be in debt.

I'd also be a far worse person than I am.

[Olivaero]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/11/huge-increase-in-number-of-graduates-bad-for-uk-economy

I agree with the CIPD. University graduates are wasting 3 or 4 years at university when half of them end up in non-graduate jobs. Too many people are going to university nowadays.

I fel that inherent in that statement is the underlying assertion that too much education is a bad thing. Which I don't think is the case.

There's always room for more education sure but the type of education that is offered in some universities is too narrow. Does a computing student need to spend 4 years learning to code? Does an artist need to spend 4 years studying art or perhaps would they benefit from other more technical skills as well? Would an introductory course on certain subjects be good for pretty much everybody if we want to have a more educated electorate? I'd say No, Yes and yes respectively. I think everyone could benefit from understanding the basic ideological thrusts of mainstream political positions (and some less mainstream ones) Whether you're a sports scientist or a physicist. And some classes in networking and socialising in a professional (and maybe for some an unprofessional setting) would be excellent. Alongside an appreciation of whatever arts or culture you might feel might interest you AND a technical skill. I think 4 years is enough time for all as long as we make the financial means available for all students and do away with the needlessly long summer.