Why do so many people distrust socialism?

[malificent7]

Is it due to the legacy of Marx, the notion that it's a race to the bottom, the feeling that those who work harder should get paid more or a mistrust of human nature?
I do understand these concerns but what is more worrying if the vast inequality that seems to prevail nowadays. Thoughts please.

Plenty of people in this country also work hard and save and through no fault of their own end with nothing. Fairer inheritence tax allows for greater investment in public services which increase equality and mean that people succeed on merit rather than privilege.

I suppose shops should only sell 1 of each type of product too so someone can’t go to John Lewis and buy a better kettle than someone who can only afford a basic one from Asda. Because that’s the same argument as against private schools.

Im sorry you're having a hard time with comprehension

Nobody (not even the Labour party) wants private schools closed but why should the fee's be exempt of VAT when all other services are not and it is a service albeit accessed only by the wealthy

Those aren’t the actual policies that Corbyn and McDonnel would inflict on this country so it is a straw man to set me up to attack them. They are a Trojan horse to deliver much more hard hitting attacks on people who have any degree of sucess financially. Read up on land value tax for starters. You’re welcome.

Ive read plenty on LVT thank you, so the 2017 manifesto isnt the policies theyre going to intraduce but some shadowy form of communism theyre setting us up for that uve made up? Of course if you havent made it up Im sure you'll happily provide sources to strengthen youre argument

Rightwing conspiracist drivel, don Alex Jones replica tin foil hat

Oh do give it up. Plenty of people in this country work up a nest egg and pay off a mortgage without involvement in slavery. Pathetic drivel.

Do you know how generational wealth and old money works? Some people are self made but they are far fewer and with far less money than the people who have been inheriting it for generations. It's an uncomfortable truth but historically wealth was created through stripping resources from colonies and enslaving many of those people. If you want to minimise the impact that this has had on today, you are very mistaken.

I apologise for the typos thats more on me than the policies of the Labour party incase thats an angle you want to come in from lmao

Inheritance should be abolished. Wealth shouldn’t stay within families. It should be absorbed back into local authorities to ensure there’s affordable housing for everyone

Genuinely worrying that some actually believe this codswallop, but while we're on the subject why stop at inheritance? Why not disallow any kind of lifetime gift too, such as helping a child with a deposit, supporting them at Uni or whatever else?

After all we can't possibly have a situation where any individual's in a better financial position than anyone else can we? And then they say it's the Right who favour a race to the bottom ... [hmm[

Inheritance should be abolished. Wealth shouldn’t stay within families. It should be absorbed back into local authorities to ensure there’s affordable housing for everyone

Has any political party even suggested this?

Has any political party even suggested this?

Even Corbyn knows he’d hit 10% in the polls if he came out for full communism.

Has any political party even suggested this?

Yes, Labour are developing a lifetime giving plan with a limit of £100k that would make it very difficult to pass on say a family home in a large part of the country

I know £100k is an inconceivable amount to the yurt dwelling cooperative lifestyle folk of Mumsnet who live well on 17p a week but for a great number of people who have saved hard and paid off their mortgage it is falling for that to be taken off them rather than it being passed on to strangers who the loony left deem are more deserving of it.

ah we hit the 'loony left' trope, i thought you were debating in ernest but you were being disingenuous, ill disengage not a fan of wasting my time

"But I work six days a week to have an alright life. Not a “good” life - an alright one. Why should I pay any more money to the government and make my life worse?" What makes you think socialism would make you worse off?! A socialise govt would in all likelihood make your life easier (only reason I'm not saying definitely is I don't have full info on your job, wage etc)

And (also re elprup) gingerbreadsprinkle is right, without socialist campaigning and past policies we wouldn't have the rights we currently do. Which were very hard won and we were already gradually losing under the Cameron/May govt - and I dread to think how much worse it will get under this Johnson govt!

"It doesn't take long to turn back the clock, lose your right to a doctor and lose all concept of health and safety." Exactly!

"I don't want to pay what Americans pay to see a doctor." I dread not having healthcare at all! My dd and I are both disabled and would be extremely vulnerable completely screwed under a USA style healthcare system.

^Justanotherlurker* your post at 2120 yesterday is so offensive! I've worked in fields and factories among other jobs, have you? I also consider I have reasonable critical thinking skills. And according to certain pps (I'd need to learn much more to comment confidently myself) the Nordic countries do have fairly socialist societies that are running quite well, certainly I know they frequently are assessed as the countries with the happier populations.

Sakura7 thank you.

"The sad thing is, many people who oppose socialist policies would actually benefit from them." Yes frequently see posts on here (already on this thread!) and elsewhere and hear comments just like this. Working class people on low wages, struggling with high living costs, ill health and other issues that don't understand how socialism would make their lives so much better.

arnoldthecat - another who has fallen for headlines and myths. No system will ever be completely perfect, but benefit fraud is minuscule and certainly not enough of a problem to justify the atrocious treatment of genuine claimants which IS happening and IS causing serious ill health and DEATH, not only as suicides but from people not having enough food, being unable to get prescriptions etc.

"I am in the business of working hard and paying as little tax as possible" lovely attitude 🤔 are you a net contributor? Very very few people are. Or are you happily letting people even worse off than you pay for YOUR healthcare, roads, waste collection, security etc?

"Then I read that Jeremy Corbyn wants to charge me more taxes." Where? Have you actually read the labour manifesto? Even just the part covering taxation?

"Because I don’t earn a lot of money as it is" how much is not a lot? Roughly just?

"On paper (to Jeremy Corbyn no doubt) I’m not doing badly. I “own” my own home, I have a job, I’m in good health, for now at least. But the reality is, I work six days a week to keep afloat, have a massive mortgage, big bills, debts and little left over to just enjoy life." This actually does not suggest to me you are particularly well off and so would not be expected to pay more tax than now, I don't expect you to go into loads of detail here, but go and look at the labour manifesto and see if your fears have foundation. If anything it's entirely possible you'd be better off.

And it's most definitely not just people with children who are supported by public services, plus those children are needed to be educated and then later work and pay taxes themselves and perhaps even taking care of older people directly.

"Because far far more of your income will disappear when you have to pay for health insurance and still pay the same tax rate." This is also true, plus if things like the police aren't properly funded things like car insurance would rise and being a victim of crime is bloody expensive too!

Myotherprofile - thank you

"Not necessarily. I have a few health conditions so would have that problem but a lot of people won’t." Pretty much everyone's health deteriorates as they age. Very very few people who die in their elder years do so having had no health issues, that is just what happens to the human body as we get older. To those saying they are healthy AND not intending to have children - could you afford USA healthcare system levels of costs for contraception or possibly abortion? I very much doubt it. And actually very few people really have NO health issues at all anyway.

"But I don’t trust Jeremy Corbyn to spend the extra tax I may have to pay him in a way that will benefit me. I just don’t!" Why not? You seriously trust Johnson to spend effectively?! I really bloody don't!

"And still no one has addressed my point about Diane Abbott..." There are and always will be hypocrites and outliers in every political party. To not support a party because of that when everything else they do and say is more "pro" is nonsensical. Look at the current cabinet - stuffed full of self serving, corrupt, incompetent hypocrites.

Do you think proportional representation would give stronger, more balanced government??

It's a discussion for another thread. Yes and no is the answer. :)

"You cannot legislate poor people out of poverty by legislating rich people into poverty.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." I disagree with both those points as a socialist society well run could certainly lead to better economic outcomes for everyone. A well educated, healthy nation is more productive too.

"I can't read beyond this in the post. This is fearmongering to the extreme. Socialism is absolutely not about this." Totally agree with this too!

"Any government can't give anything to anyone unless they've taken it from someone else." Weirdly this is correct - but not quite in the way you're meaning. Currently we have a govt that is taking from the poor to give to the rich - who don't bloody need it and aren't using it to improve anyone's lives in any meaningful or acceptable way.

"When half of society realises they don't have to work hard because the govt will take care of them, and the other half realises there's no point in working hard because the govt will take what they worked for to give to others, society is doomed." No. People (generally) will always want to be active and productive, to be stimulated and motivated and helpful to others.

"SOCIALIST GOVERNEMTNS WILL ALWAYS FAIL BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THEY RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY." This comes from something thatcher said and has since been widely and roundly discredited and disproven. A well supported society is MORE productive not less.

elprup Corbyn really isn't far left, and I hate to say it but Johnson isn't overwhelmingly far right either (but further right than Corbyn is left)

"We have a housing crisis where many people on above average wages can't buy a house anywhere remotely convenient to their place of work." Worse we have very high levels of homelessness (been homeless twice myself) and most people can barely afford rent let alone buying a home!

If we brought in a policy of building far more social housing that would have so very many benefits to our society all round. Job creation, economic stimulation, housing provision (which has a knock on effect not just in directly reducing homelessness but in reducing crime, antisocial behaviour, improving communities strength etc), reducing housing prices overall (which I know many owners wouldn't like initially but housing as an investment is less important than housing as a human need, and eventually probably fairly quickly actually things would even out). I genuinely believe the selling of council houses and NOT REPLACING THEM was one of the worst things ever to happen in this country. We're almost 40 years on from that and it's still having horrific effects.

Jasjas1973 your posts at 2203 and 2210 yesterday is spot on!

"Well why didn’t they DO it then, from 1996-2010?" Completely different party then. Blairs labour was never true labour

"If you are a fan of socialism I am pretty sure you did not grow up behind the Iron Curtain." I for one don't mean communism, which is a very extreme example of socialism, but a balance where socialism is the focus but balanced with economic need and organisation.

"To me socialism means government control, and I don’t trust the government." What do you think is happening now?! Few employment rights, massive regulations on industrial action, few rights for the poor, sick and disabled, legal aid largely gone, little representation allowed for the disadvantaged... Not having the means to pay for your representation also means you can't challenge what's happening. If you think you're not under govt control now you're deluded!

"Well funnily enough I don't trust the CEOs, the hedge fund managers etc who have power now..." Also true!

"However, socialism is needed to balance capitalism, which has gotten out of control." Exactly!

"Read Animal Farm. This is exactly why it would never work." That's communism...and a work of fiction (however much based on actual events it might be). Orwell was a socialist but just didn't shy away from critiquing communism.

"have a garden - I’ve read that Jeremy Corbyn wants to tax me for the privilege." No that was basically tabloid exaggeration

https://fullfact.org/economy/labours-land-value-tax-will-you-have-sell-your-garden/

All they actually said was they would review how council tax was calculated. At the moment we have the ridiculous situation where people in mansions in London have lower council tax rates than people in rural social housing flats! Of course that makes no sense and should be assessed.

"I'm all for a more equal distribution of wealth, but I don't think socialism is the way to achieve it." So how WOULD you achieve it then TomPinch ?

"people who want to control what other people do and think" and again if you don't understand that's already happening you're deluded - who do you think pays for and runs the msm? Which informs what a lot of people do and think. Who do you think is using and paying for SM ads to influence people?

"Universal basic income should be considered as a means to protect the squeezed middle income earners and encourage people out to work." Agreed

gingerbreadsprinkle your post at 2332 is so needed! I have never been to USA but have family and friends that live there and so I hear from them how it is there as well as of course news reports etc the way the poor and sick are treated there, hell even "just" women with the lack of maternity rights etc is appalling, we REALLY do not want to go down that road!

"Socialism takes away reward for effort by high taxation and redistribution." So it's better to have people like cleaners, bin men etc working damn hard for Fuck all and having to work till they're in their 70's because they would have no money to feed themselves otherwise?

"capitalism doesn’t work? Eh? Try living in a communist society" it doesn't work! It leads to wealth hoarding and demonising of those unable to be productive, unnecessary conflicts and wars. The alternative doesn't have to be communism, there are a number of possible political/economic models some of which have never even been tried.

"The Socialist governnment in Britain 1945 was the best goverment the country has had." Exactly

"Pure capitalism and pure socialism (communism) don't work well. There are serious faults with both.
The virtue is in the middle somewhere." Put simply yes, mainly as the extremes often lead to corruption

"But the shadow chancellor has said he’s a Marxist. I’ll help you out, that’s communism" no it's not!

But given shortstuff99's posts on other threads their posts on this one don't surprise me in the least - in fact they're being somewhat mild on this thread!

"Labour don't have plans to excessively tax property or make inheritence impossible. Utter erroneous hyperbole." Definitely!

LadyRannaldini and asdf12345 and a very few others are at least honest! In saying it's really personal greed why they don't want socialism. Although I will say again a fairer society benefits everyone.

"Except no one gets rich in isolation, the wealthiest gain the most from society as it facilitates their earning power and protects their assets." This too!

"What shall we call your fallacy that attributes all of our success to other people?" Not all of it but you certainly didn't achieve it alone!

To see a simple illustration:

https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

"Plenty of people in this country also work hard and save and through no fault of their own end with nothing. Fairer inheritence tax allows for greater investment in public services which increase equality and mean that people succeed on merit rather than privilege." Absolutely.

Compaing socialism here to communism in some 3rd world country is just absurd. [sic]

By definition, industrial former communist-socialist countries are 2nd world countries, not 3rd. Sweden and Finland are 3rd world countries (and not socialist - the means of production & distribution are mainly in private hands, not the workers or the government). Most countries people are discussing are typically put under the 2nd world country category (though there is some debate on whether that should only be those that were in the USSR vs whether it should include all their socialist-communist allies as well).

I distrust anyone with an ideology that thinks it has all the answers to a complicated problem, let alone all of them which is often happens where people think socialism will stop all poverty, injustice, environmental issues, inequality, and so on. Far too many have been harmed by people trying to come up with perfect ends for their means, and I think even more have justified their hatred and violence by claiming utopian goals.

I distrust anyone who thinks the only routes are entirely free-market capitalism vs something on the socialism to communism spectrum of the means of production and distribution owned by the government or working-class or whichever non-private hands. No system people can come up with will be perfect, but there are more than those options and people who cannot think out of those two are not people I'd trust to help improve the systems we have.

I distrust when people take a well-defined term, like socialism, and make it mean whatever the fuck they want to fit their ideological bent. No, taxes paying for healthcare does not make the NHS or schools socialist any more than our military being paid by taxes makes our wars socialist. Limited distribution that can be seen through a socialist lens as having the same achievement doesn't make it the same thing. People can call those of us who try to stick to the actual definition of socialism as 'thick' because we can make the obvious, purposeful comparison to communism obvious, but if you're only qualifier for something being socialist is that taxes pay for something to happen that the people don't have to otherwise pay for, then pretty much every war ever has been socialist.

Socialism means that the people who work in a company/factory should also be the ones that own it. At best socialism means that the government regulates heavily on all companies including private companies. It means free education (including university), free healthcare, affordable housing for everyone, and job opportunities (in Soviet Union, you got given a job as standard, people in the cities after school, or uni were given jobs)

Ha ha ha!

Free education, yes, but not many puns people actually get to study what they want. There were second lists, with name after name of "deserving" candidates; someone important apparatchiks child or nephew, someone sent by the Communist Party, someone who simply bribed the right person. They got the good places in the good Universities. Same with jobs later.

In communist Russia, people got housing as standard, and those that lived in the city got a house in the country as well (for free given to them by the state!). Secondly in Russia you got 30 days (or more) holiday as standard and families regularly went on holiday for an entire month

Housing as standard is a myth. You have heard of the Kommunalka, no doubt. You have heard of families sharing one room between three generations and sharing one bathroom and the kitchen with the rest of the people living in the flat? Even that was sometimes beyond the wildest dream of a normal family.
You do know how they were allocated? Bribes, "connections" and waiting lists running for decades.

Some housing was distributed by your employer. There you had a chance of your own flat, the height of luxury. No one ever complained about the cockroaches.

Cuba another socialist country, has one of the best healthcare in the entire world, they also have some of the best doctors in the world!

You sweet sweet child. Where does aunty even start here, apart form your love for exclamation marks?

Best doctors in the world? Have you been to a hospital in what was the USSR, Romania, Cuba and so on? Have you seen the squalor, the staff who love to shout at the patients and won demand money just to lift their finger? Have you been treated without any explanation what is happening, why and without any efforts to preserve your dignity? Have you given birth without any anesthesia? You didn't even get local anaesthetic at the dentist's.

The state decides everything for you. You queue to buy shoes, any shoes and you pray the size the have "released" is vaguely the one you need, because the State Planning Committee has decided only brown shoes size 7 are needed in big quantities. To get any other, the so called "defizit", you need to bribe the woman in the shop.

You haven't lived this nightmare. I have. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I'll give you an example of socialism in my home country, Portugal.

ATM, the Socialist Party is in government.
Their policies have not been a threat to capitalism. Taxes have increased and some people don't like it, particularly because they haven't resulted in improved public services in general, but we are only out of recession.
The government is not led by the party with the majority after the last elections. Instead, "the left" had a majority in parliament, but the party with the largest number of votes had been the social democrats.
So, the Socialist Party entered in a deal (but not a coalition) with (you'll be shocked) the Communist Party and the Left Block (they are extreme left).
Despite all fears, we didn't become Venezuela or are in any way inclined in that direction. Our democracy is not in any way threatened, like in the US. And we haven't been stuck between in and out of the EU for the past three years. Nor are led by a buffoon.

It's the populists that I fear, from either side. Like Trump, Johnson, Le Pen, and Chavez.

asdf12345 and a very few others are at least honest! In saying it's really personal greed why they don't want socialism.

Funny - I’d say the people who want to have other people’s money and property “redistributed” to themselves by a socialist government are the very embodiment of personal greed!

But the problem with capitalism is that a few benefit from the work of others.
Are CEOs really worth millions in guaranteed bonuses, while they have employees on zero hours contracts, or minimum wage? Is it fair that those CEOs decide on their own pay, at the cost of their work force?
At least there's a defined minimum wage. Despite all complaints and threats, it has been increasing without the economy going bust.
Can they say that they work harder than their employees?

100% IHT is excessive and divisive. It's extremist and I dislike it in the same way I dislike today's neoliberalism which seems like it will only get worse.

I do believe there should be IHT and I think the current level along with the husband/wife rule is fair too.

I've already told mum if she needs to sell her home to pay for care to do it - I have 3 disabled kids and am disabled myself so I can't provide the care. I don't expect an inheritance is what I am trying to say.

But those with the money not prepared to spend any of it yet grousing about crime and public services need to get a reality check. To have these services we need to contribute.