To wonder how Socialism would work in the UK?

[smashinghairday]

I read posters talk about Socialism and wonder how people would like to see it operate in the UK today?

Is it desirable or achievable?

Cleaners are vital.

But they are not surgeon level vital.

Anyone realistically can clean - hence the wage.
Few people can be surgeons - hence theirs.

People who earn big money usually do so because they have skills or experience most people don't.

The UK was never socialist, lol. Part of the problem is the ridiculous misuse of the term by all kinds of self-seeking politicians (eg the Labour Party).

Someone said people are too selfish for socialism to work. Capitalism fosters individualism (duh) and narcissism. But as research has shown, people are actually much happier if they are community-minded and do selfless stuff for other people. Tis the natural state of human beings, and we would all be mentally and physically healthier for living that way.

LithaR - Too right. Surgery is a total team effort, with many people playing their part.

I like that saying "Bend my knee to no man, but shake the hand of any"

As for those saying people are naturally greedy. If that was so why did so many normal people donate aid for the asian tsunami? So much that it shamed our government into donating more?

Not to mention all the money raised every year on fun runs, children in need etc.

That speaks volumes to me, that people will show immense sacrifice when theres a crisis.

Socialism would probably work just fine in the UK. We love drab clothing, the NHS & standing in queues. We're constantly convinced that someone else has got it better than us - and what better way to reinforce that than a system designed to create equality but which has never yet succeeded? We'd adore all the grumbling opportunities created by the crap goods and services provided by newly renationalised industries.... three months wait for a telephone?... just the one electricity supplier to choose from?... paying people to make cars no-one wants to buy? And there would be thousands quite glad to see the back of concepts like 'ambition', 'personal advancement' and 'commerce'... and settle back in front of the TV instead.

"Socialism would probably work just fine in the UK. We love drab clothing, the NHS & standing in queues. "
Cogito, have you ever been to Sweden? I'd say that they're as near a genuinely socialist society as you might realistically expect to get, and I haven't noticed much drab clothing or standing in queues.

I think the problem is the conflation of the old Soviet bloc / eastern european countries with Socialism. Clearly, they were intended to be socialist but (a) they started from a very very low material base relative to the western countries we compare them to, and (b) they were historically extremely oppressive countries run by absolutist rulers. Its not really helpful to compare the results with a 'what might have happened' in a more socialist oriented Britain, for example.

I'm sure there are people on here who know more about the history than me, but its clear that institutions like the Soviets were initially intended to be all about distribution of power down to the workers at the lowest level, whereas what happened, very quickly, was extreme centralisation of power in the hands of a few - 'same palace, different guards'

(To be fair, you might also point out to me that even in the early 19th Century, Sweden had a far higher male literacy rate than the UK, going on 90% IIRC, despite being far less industrialised, and that therefore one can't reasonably expect the same outcomes here as there. . .)

"Cogito, have you ever been to Sweden?"

No... but I grew up in the 1970's when all the above applied. We've been there, done that and, despite all the best intentions, most of it didn't work. If the main argument for Socialism is that 'it's the perfect system - it's just the people implementing it that get it wrong' then I don't want it.

Its interesting that whenever Socialism is mentioned, people always say 'everyone would earn the same and no-one would have any motivation to work hard'

Yet I can't think of any nominally Socialist country - whether the State socialist eastern bloc/China, or the social democratic Scandi countries - where everyone earns the same or ever has done.

Workers certainly didn't all earn the same in the nationalised industries in Britain in the post war period (in fact, pretty much the same men remained in charge as had been running the same industries when they were private companies, and they certainly didn't take a pay cut to the level of the average worker )

I think the real killer for motivation in the nationalised industries (and the eastern bloc state industries) was lack of control - the complete opposite of what socialism was meant to offer. Although nominally the industries 'belonged to the workers', in practice they belonged to the State as represented by boards of 'captains of industry'.

As someone said above, there are an awful lot of ways of achieving worker ownership of the means of production. Although employee share ownership is generally a Conservative policy, it has the potential if it is extensive enough, and about control as well as making money, to be genuinely radical.

Similarly directly employee owned businesses (which would usually employ professional managers if they were of any considerable size), worker co-operatives (which can work really well at least up to a certain scale and in some types of industry), mutuals owned by their customers (Welsh Water is an excellent example) are all ways that the mass of people can have some control over their working life. IMVHO that is far more motivating than working for a big multi national corporation.

Sorry, Cogito, cross posted.

I also grew up in the 70s, and I don't remember it being that dreadful - certainly not compared to Britain in the 80s which for me involved knowing an awful lot of unemployed people and seeing a lot of homeless people on the streets where I lived. I'd definitely pick Sweden over that any time . . .

Let me refresh your memory.... Strikes and poor service were the norm. Britain was an industrial joke. Many factories put everyone on a 3-day week. I remember power-cuts as a regular feature - announced beforehand, even. The commercial implications of nationalisation meant no such thing as individual service or consumer choice. 'One size fits all' and 'wait your turn' were the mantras - something today's 24/7 consumer culture would struggle badly with. No funds available for investment in research and development meant technological stagnation and, every day, reports of how many millions the government had had to spend to keep failing industries functioning showed what a drain they were on the public finances.

Basic rate tax at 33%+ left nothing in your back pocket and taxing the very wealthy at excessively high rates meant a brain and talent drain rather than sticking around to be fleeced. The misery some people experienced in the eighties was as a direct consequence of the imbalance. However, many more of us in the eighties flourished in an environment where personal taxation was greatly reduced, enterprise encouraged and there were opportunities to get out from under and make a success of life.

"However, many more of us in the eighties flourished in an environment where personal taxation was greatly reduced, enterprise encouraged and there were opportunities to get out from under and make a success of life."

That's as long as you lived in the South East. I'm from the North East and remember a very different 1980s.

'Capitalism fosters individualism (duh) and narcissism. But as research has shown, people are actually much happier if they are community-minded and do selfless stuff for other people. Tis the natural state of human beings, and we would all be mentally and physically healthier for living that way.'

I agree with this very much. I do, in many ways, think socialism would be better. Privatisation hasn't improved services in many cases. Look at private care homes for example. Profit comes first. Many people are unhappy and community doesn't exist overall as it once did. There is still NHS, education etc which shows it can 'work' although of course there are issues.

"Privatisation hasn't improved services in many cases. Look at private care homes for example."

And State provision isn't always as rosy as its suppoerters would have you believe. What about the recent thread about people starving on NHS wards? Or schools where less than a third of pupils get 5 GCSEs. Or Police who arrest victims instead of perpetrators. Or social workers being so busy being right-on about parents that they let down the children they should be protecting.

The trouble with socialism is that it only works if everyone participates. So socialists want to force everyone to comply. Hence the Nanny State. They cannot operate in a system of liberty and freedom.
I always find it amusing that socialists think that community is more important than money and therefore money should be shared around. It is always the ones without the money that want to do the sharing. They are not motivated by money until it is someone else's.

I don't think our system is too bad. Neither grind-the-face-of-the-poor right wing nor communist left wing. It is somewhere in the middle, a compromise, which is usually the best solution. The only arguement is where 'the middle' is.

None of the bad things you describe is anything to do with socialism, Purits. It's about the Labour Party, which I would probably describe as the antithesis of socialism. Or something much, much worse. Precisely because the laughable attempts of Labour politicians to do something which might appear, vaguely, to be for poor people - oh, sorry, hardworking people - give socialism a really bad name.

Purits: I'm not sure about your argument that socialists are wanting to share other people's money. There are plenty of successful, prosperous people who believe that it would be pleasanter to live in a society with less stark income disparities and a better level of public service provision than the UK today. I would doubtless earn less in a fairer society, but I think my quality of life would very likely be higher.

Cogito - saying that Britain in the 70s is an argument against socialism is like saying that Britain in the 30s proves that capitalism doesn't work. Here's an interesting question - if you were going to live on the average UK household income, would you rather do it in the 70s, or today? I'd choose today, because of the achievements of feminism, acceptance of different family norms, etc, but from a purely economic point of view it would probably be the 70s.

Its also worth bearing in mind that if you look at trend rates of GDP growth, then the 1970s is no worse than any other post war decade, once you leave out the oil shock of 1973 (which can't reasonably be blamed on socialism). (The chart in this paper is useful.)

Takver so taking Sweden as a benchmark, and say there was a socialist government tomorrow, what would their main policies be, and what do you think would be the impacts? (so, more taxes, but how much more?).

Hmm I quite fancy living in Sweden.

My take on socialism is a perpetual struggle. We live in a country where too many people simply don't have equality of opportunity to succeed, to live a good standard of living. We live in a country where the next Einstein might not have the opportunities at school. That so many of the top jobs are taken by people from public schools is just a waste of talent. Socialism (or social democracy) is the struggle to get to the point where we have equality of opportunity. To do that, I believe requires some reduction of the inequality of outcome, by progressive taxation and an improvement in educational opportunities.

That's a very good question, TheBride. Can we put out a call for Cory to come on here and contribute?

Just for starters, I reckon your theoretical government - if they were aiming for the 'Scandinavian model' - might be looking at

• policies to dramatically reduce income inequality (maybe a higher minimum wage? stronger and more effective social disapproval of excessively high earnings? certainly Britain has a far greater level of income inequality pre tax/benefits than most other EU countries, not just the Scandis)
• stronger unions, but with a much more collaborative and less combative approach than has historically been the case in Britain. Potentially these unions might offer social insurance services to their members as well - so that the state would be offering a base line welfare provision, which the unions would top up for their members
• perhaps some kind of state run or heavily regulated investment bank system like the German Landesbanks (if they are allowed to copy from other places in the EU)
• rates of personal income tax probably not much higher than in Britain today, but I suspect that the higher rate of tax would kick in earlier (so for people earning not so much above the average). The combination of employer + employee NI would definitely go up (just over 30% taken together in Sweden compared to just over 20% here), but then there would be less need for people to save for private pensions.
• much better provision of state supported childcare, accompanied by an expectation that it will be the norm for both parents to work, other than when their children are very small

HHLimbo - I always rather fancied moving to Denmark (very nice people, lovely countryside) even ignoring their political system.

This looks like an interesting paper, unfortunately don't have time to read it fully now.

I think Purits that I agree with your point that few people are arguing for 'pure' capitalism, or 'pure' socialism - its more a matter of deciding where on a sliding scale we should be.

My feeling that Britain now has slid too far in the direction of inequality and too far away from a socially cohesive and supportive society. Whereas 50 years ago we had 'Butskellism', with all major parties offering variations on a centre left theme, we've now got something that you might call 'Blatcherism', with everything shifted over to the right of centre.

I suppose in the way that the 70s oil shock crashed into that centre left consensus, the financial crisis is shaking up the centre right position now, and we are still waiting to see what will come out the other side.

greed at the top dominates us. so not very well.

Imagine telling LongGon that she would be paid the same as a nurse she would say one does not like the sound of that at all

Undesirable. Unachievable.

darleneoconnor Sat 18-Jun-11 19:04:12
The bits of the Scottish economy that Scotland controls is social-democratic. That basically translates into- free uni, free social care for the elderly and free prescriptions. What's not to like?

Yes but its paid for by the English. The main problem with socialism is what happens when you run out of other people's money.

As I said in my previous posts, there are some who would say that Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK.