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.

Apology accepted Bishop

I thought you were Blame. What you’re describing is what the likes of Philip Green do. He was great at capitalism - wonder what the ex staff of BHS would say

To be honest it's at all those others on this thread who call those dependent on benefits as thieves. There are some.

Nice way of putting it, though.

And yes... I'm sure the Mirror Group pensioners could relate about the Maxwells, too....

Sorry Blame! I think when I see words like "thieving" I assume it's the usual trope from certain quarters. But, yes, you're absolutely right!

Funnily enough, the children slaving in sweatshops on the shitty end of the capitalist stick aren't on this thread to describe their experiences.

Not in a million years would their lives or life expectancy have been better before. Source: friends with people who grew up in rural China. Grim isn’t even in the same ball park

Not in a million years would their lives or life expectancy have been better before. Source: friends with people who grew up in rural China. Grim isn’t even in the same ball park

This sounds an awful lot like what slave owners would say, that they gave religion and raised the quality of life for their slaves so they deserved their free labour for the rest of their lives because of it. None of us should speculate when it comes to the life of a child labourer.

There is a big issue with capitalism and free trade, which are surely predicated on competition, being undermined by the use of modern slavery and dangerous conditions. Before we even get to the environmental abuses that go on.

This sounds an awful lot like what slave owners would say

Why don’t you speak to people who have lived in these countries and hear for yourself like I’ve done, rather that imagining what it might be like and imagining what people might say in your head and making incredibly offensive comparisons to slavery.

Why don’t you speak to people who have lived in these countries and hear for yourself like I’ve done, rather that imagining what it might be like and imagining what people might say in your head and making incredibly offensive comparisons to slavery.

It is very naive to assume that there isn't slavery involved in many third world manufacturing factories.

So kids working in sweatshops for pennies a day is perfectly ok?

Many of the products we buy and use every day were made by people in slavery.

www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-in-global-supply-chains/

Also, I'm not sure massive groundwater depletion and pollution across India by Coca-cola is really that much of a step up from subsistence farming.

I think my main concern is that I do not trust politicians with running the majority of services enough to think that giving them more money and more control is a good thing.

Socialism seems to depend on the state having a large say in the lives of the population and the running of services. The state can sometimes run things more effectively than private enterprise but it is not universally true.

Politician’s seem to say whatever they think will get them elected, promise the moon with no idea if what they promise is deliverable- or deliverable within the budget they have, at least. They also don’t seem willing to say “if you want x service, that delivers y in z timeframe/standard or whatever then it will cost £a. This will mean a rise in tax of b% or a cut of £c elsewhere”. They all pretend it can be made for saving elsewhere but that will have no effect on the area those cuts are made (due to “efficiencies”) or “taxing the rich” or whatever soundbite fits with their own politics.

I think we have few politicians I think of as true statesmen and women.

Do you trust business people who just want to make a profit for themselves more?

Some things do need state control, IMO. Or we end up paying more to line CEOs and shareholders pockets.

we end up paying more to line CEOs and shareholders pockets

Commercial entities need to be competitive, that means you pay less.

Lining CEO’s pockets eh? Right tell you what, you try to be a CEO starting Monday and see how easy you find it to get to that sort of remuneration.

Labour aren't even remotely hard left.

True, but when you get the shadow chancellor openly bringing out Moa red book in PMQ's its further left than what is more traditional in europe.

It's just the political landscape in this country has veered so hard right that it appears that way.

Imagine saying this with a straight face and pretending you have an understanding of the overton window.

Or we end up paying more to line CEOs and shareholders pockets.

Haha, we are in a situation where left wing remainers are suddenly concerened about GDP (ie, perpetual growth), this is why so called socalists are generally ridiculed.

Right tell you what, you try to be a CEO starting Monday and see how easy you find it to get to that sort of remuneration.

I could say the same about the type of job I do.

CEOs salaries are hugely inflated. And it's not my opinion.

www.director.co.uk/are-ceos-paid-too-much-debate-18049-2/
www.jstor.org/stable/3857680?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
At least politicians are cheaper and it's not easy to get there either.

@BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour the growth of China and employment by many (usually adults-child labour is pretty rare in China these days) in factories there has lifted many millions if not hundreds of millions out of poverty. Many hundreds of millions of the poorest of the poor are vastly better off than they were under the purely planned economy in CHina. You need to drop the outdated prejudice and look at the facts.

Market economies (capitalism) are demonstrably better than planned (communist or socialist economies) at delivering products people want and improving the lot of the poor.

As for all the bonkers claims about Denmark being an example of socialism, it’s is a capitalist economy- at most you could say it’s mixed. It’s not an example of a pure socialist society. As many have said a balance of a capitalist economy with socialist adjustments is beat (which is what we have in the U.K. - not perfect but could be worse).

Lweji

Not always, but at least when you have more than one option then you can switch supplier/provider etc if you aren’t happy with the product or service. When the state has a monopoly and there is no choice, then what? Sure, you can vote for another party at the next election- but all you get is a different shade of the same rubbish.

Politicians have shown time and again that they make promises they cannot keep but refuse to take responsibility for that- there’s always an excuse or a spin put on it. They will happily take the glory and praise when things work out well though (even when they deserve none of it). It’s all about the soundbite, point scoring and ideology. I don’t trust most of them to run a service for the benefit of everyone. They’ll do whatever will help them win an ejection or give them good headlines or appeal to their core vote and so on- whether it is achievable, sensible, or even the right or best way is irrelevant.

I work in the NHS, and it is a great thing that care is free at point of need. BUT the political interference in things they don’t fully understand, coming up with policies that are undeliverable- or at least not within the budget or timescale they set out, but then criticising those trying to deliver in their unworkable promises rather than take any responsibility for the mess. There is too much playing politics- one local example is there is a national policy is to do x, which actually has some good clinical reasons behind the changes. Health board makes changes necessary to deliver the change in service as asked but it pisses of constituents so local MP feigns umbridge and demands “answers” and so on despite having been fully aware of what was happening as he had been involved in, and approved of, said changes in a previous meetings he attended about those changes.

Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of good things about the NHS but the current model is not the only way to deliver universal healthcare, free at point of need. And I am not an advocate of the US system, which is great if you are rich or have good, comprehensive insurance via your employer. If you don’t, it’s usually dire or totally unaffordable leading to people not getting the care they need.

Lweji

Not sure why you think it’s difficult to be an MP but it absolutely is not, look at the career history of some of the cretins in frontline politics now like Angela Rayner or most of the SNP. The crap pay and conditions including public ridicule and threats of rape / death is a real hurdle to tempting talented people away from much much easier and better paid jobs in the public sector

And of course ceo pay is ridiculous

I could say the same about the type of job I do.

Genuinely interested in what you do, can you share? Not being snarky.

But it doesn’t work OP. Whenever our government goes too left wing, we end up going basically bankrupt.
The very rich that pay the majority of tax leave and the proportion on benefits as a lifestyle choice increases. Then the next conservative government ends up spending their first term digging everyone out of a hole.
We just need a more centrist government.

We just need a more centrist government.

We have had centrist governments for the past 30 years, whats needed is for politics to be taught in schools so that people accept they are generally center right economically, and not pretend that as their parents where "working class" they have an know whats best for the said working class, highlighted in the uproar and shitshow of brexit.

I'm not saying at all that all services should be run by the state. I understand perfectly well the motivations for politicians. But for example, infrastructure, health and education should not be based on private initiate. Fine to have private alternatives, but the pursuit of profit inevitably means the most vulnerable will be left out. If those are left to private initiative then regulations must be very strict and properly enforced. Either way, it requires government intervention and active redistribution (or fairer redistribution) of wealth.

As for going bankrupt with left wing policies, as I mentioned before, the financial crisis of 2008 was not due to left politices, on the contrary. It was mostly due to bankers greed and lack of sufficient regulations and monitoring. Looking for short term profit at the expense of the next fool and less well off home owners.

A balance is definitely needed.