Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This is a debate the New Statesman are holding to mark their 100 anniversary.
What do you think?
So unless you think the world was worse in 1999 than it was in 1900, it's clear the left won the 20th Century.
(There's some logic every bit as good as your trolling.)
But, rem, close call I think, but broadly no... the left lost by buying into/embracing the lie of the morally neutral market.
Who, of course, in many ways DID win the twentieth century.
Isn't the morally neutral market actually something associated more with the liberal economics of the right? i.e. that the lack of morality makes it the perfect arbiter of societal relations.
I'll let you know what they decide.
Looks like an interesting panel, what with Simon Heffer saying "Yes, and that's a bad thing" and Owen Jones saying "No, and that's a bad thing", as well as people arguing the successes of their own philosophy
That goes for all of you
I'll buy you an ice cream.
means I've got to hand it to the right.
Just compare this country, or the world as a whole, in 1900 with 2000. The left totally won. The right done well, but at the end of the day we've got full emancipation, welfare states all over the shop, loads more rights for workers, progressive taxation, mass free education, self-determination, gender equality, racial equality, sexual equality.
We may not live in a particularly left-wing world, but it's all relative.
or The New State, The New Citizen, The Contemporary Cognoscenti, The Genderqueer Participant or whatever
With viewers at the sidelines going *Jayzus, what a bunch of cunts*
what about social changes? can they be credited to "liberals", "progressives" or whatever the left might like to be. They probably wouldn't count Stalin and Mao amongst their poster boys.
it's obvious that for example women, non-white people, gays and Jews have a much easier time, at least in "the West", that they had back in 1900.
Extremes of so-called right and left in history have both amounted to totalitarianism.
And we cant even agree on what, say, the ideal of extreme leftism would be - libertarianism or a vast nanny-state?
i don't think i got picked. who was in charge?
0 - heyoo!
possibly could spur some interesting debate but I mean
Most of the time it would be a wash - you win some, you lose some. With possibly the very big exception of the US, where the right has more or less been on the wrong side of just about every issue that was going since 1900, have had significantly worse economic performance during Republican administrations than Democratic ones, and achieved virtually nothing of note in terms of enduringly popular legislation or foreign policy but weirdly, have been most successful in how debates are framed, even now.
because it's stupid on so many levels, i wouldn't even know where to begin.
Have i failed now? I have haven't i. Really wish i'd seen schwarzenegger's post above this, could've just this'd that.