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.

zsazsajuju not sure "Hey Chinese industry is churning out consumers too now!" is really the winning argument in favour of capitalism that you think it is.

Personally for me it boils down to socialism works on paper, but in practice a lot of people (especially wealthy) are capitalists at heart.
As long as you have such a huge discrepancy in this country between rich and poor (and yes I do count the People who don't realise they are wealthier on incomes of £35k plus a year) and the poorest always end up poorer and vice versa, socialism would be used here in its most extreme form and people would be worse off.
Democratic socialism I'm all for, but it needs to be implemented properly.
But that's just my opinion and I know it's an unpopular one as I am a bit of a lefty ...

It's too reliant on humans doing the right thing

It's too reliant on humans doing the right thing

The same applies to capitalism without any sort of social thinking. You can't rely on company owners, for whom it's all about the profit, to treat employees fairly, or not to screw customers for maximum profit.

In fact, I'd say the strength of socialism is that it doesn't rely on humans doing the right thing. It recognises that humans are selfish and social measures are needed to balance wealth and resources so that all of us can have a decent life.

In fact, I'd say the strength of socialism is that it doesn't rely on humans doing the right thing. It recognises that humans are selfish and social measures are needed to balance wealth and resources so that all of us can have a decent life.

Wow, that’s some grade-A whitewashing! The reason socialism doesn’t rely on humans to do the right thing is because it forces them to comply and takes away any other choice. All socialist societies are authoritarian by nature. Give me personal freedom and choice any day!

@BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour - eh? As I said the introduction of limited capitalism in China has lifted tens if not hundreds of millions out of poverty. Which to me is a good thing.

the strength of socialism is that it doesn't rely on humans doing the right thing

Like in Russia where people who didn’t agree with the state were sent to forced labour camps? And what makes you think that the leadership of your socialist utopia (the likes of which has never been established anywhere in human history) would be exempt from corruption? History has shown this to be so, there’s a great book called ‘Animal Farm’ about it that you should read although you’d probably just think it was about the animals or that they weren’t Communist enough or something

What about the 10’s of millions murdered / starved by the regimes, for example in China? Just a reminder that McDonnel actually read a passage from Mao’s book in UK PARLIAMENT.

Wow, that’s some grade-A whitewashing!

Redwashing

First, you have to define socialism. Much like capitalism, different people have a different perspective on what the term actually means.

One half of my family are from an ex-Soviet satellite. My great uncle used to say that socialism was what the communist overlords called communism in countries where they couldn't eradicate religious belief. And I think he had a very valid point there when you look at socialist "projects" across Catholic states in South America and Muslim-majority countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. I'd also include Poland in that as well.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn't scale well, but it works wonderfully in small instances. Every family is essentially a socialist enterprise of each according to need, each according to ability. This approach also works well for small villages and towns with a coherent sense of community.

But when you try to scale this to even a regional level, you lose the relationship bonds between individuals that provide the information that supports a sense of justice and fairness. This is why so many ex-socialist and communist states constantly reinforced a sense of patriotism and nationalism - - to recreate that sense of familial familiarity between citizens so as to avoid a sense of injustice.

Of course, it didn't work. And in order to support that sense of "parameters", there was next to no migration permitted in, out or within such countries.

I've often wondered why people think socialism can work on a state-wide level. What you essentially end up with is a "socialist" cabal at the top of the political pyramid that decides all policies, regardless of whether those policies are actually sensible or not.

And that's because people disagree with each other. Crikey, adults can't even live in house shares with each other without problems. Someone always does more washing up than someone else. Someone always leaves the bathroom in a state.

With socialism at state level, you are simply scaling this same problem to cover millions of people. So naturally, the washer-uppers will favour a system where you get out what you put in and distrust a system that doesn't recognise their efforts.

Another thing I would say is that we don't really live in a capitalist society in Britain. It's a corporatist system, with a side helping of "sop" in the form of free to access education and healthcare.

PackingSoapAndWater

Jeremy is a decent man and will make sure it is done the right way this time though!

Probably most of what people have said here.

The simple problem with Socialism is human nature. The very thing that makes us what we are is the very reason socialism on a country scale can never work.

Socialism would work for a country full of robots.

No desire, greed, drive, motivation, jealousy, self interest etc etc etc.

Enforced socialism is basically communism. But the very fact that you have to force people to make it happen pretty much f ‘s it up from the work go.

So we are left with capitalism, though not without it’s obvious flaws, it’s the best fit we have for the broad population as a whole.

Remember that before money and lands and titles etc those that had the most was simply defined by the biggest and strongest and the gulf between the haves and have nots even more extreme.

If you reset society and took everything away, we’d end up back here all over again in reality. Just except it and do what you can to make the world a better place in your own way or as part of a small collective.(socialist collective if you like) 🤣

In fact, I'd say the strength of socialism is that it doesn't rely on humans doing the right thing. It recognises that humans are selfish and social measures are needed to balance wealth and resources so that all of us can have a decent life.

The communist/socialist regimes of the past tried that. Re-education in camps, appropriation of wealth/surplus all done in the name of greater good. None of these measures brought a decent life to 'all of us', only to the selected few at the top, and it ultimately they failed because of their lack of humanity.

He can’t do it right, no one can, it just doesn’t work. Jeremy would promise the socialist dream but would deliver the communist nightmare trying to make us get there. Made worse with the likes of S McDonnell who would like everything to collapse so they can hAve an excuse to take over it all. Total control by the state. They’ll have the power and the trappings of wealth and we’ll all suffer for it.

In Russia they where all equal, but some where more equal that others. Most starved and queued for bread, while others dined on caviar in there state headquarters. You can rule out human nature

Re-education in camps, appropriation of wealth/surplus all done in the name of greater good.

Throughout the thread it has been pointed out that this is extreme socialism (or rather communist regimes).
Nobody is defending those regimes.
But some people seem to assume capitalism as we live it with a healthy dose of socialism in practice is true capitalism, whereas socialism is only as implemented (attempted) in the USSR, China, Cuba, NK, etc.
Most western countries have a healthy combination of capitalism and socialism (some component of free enterprise and some component of social responsibility and state control).
It's healthy to recognise the strength of both components. Although people may disagree on how much of each there should be, it's rather stupid to reduce socialism to communist regimes. And it kills the discussion because it's not an intelligent argument and makes people reiterate time and time again that those are extremes that nobody (except the old leaders of those regimes) would want.

It's a stupid argument according to you because it doesn't fit your narrative.

What sort of social measure do you think the state will have to take to ensure so the non perfect humans comply with its perfect intentions? Who will decide what measures to take? Who will carry them out? It will have to be humans acting in the name of the state, but you say they are selfish, so how can they be relied on to take the right decision for all?

To answer your questions, look at most government policies and state controlled services.
That's how.

Social policies in the West have mostly been driven by socialist parties who push for workers rights and protection of the most vulnerable.
Funding is mostly achieved through taxes.
Laws ensure customer and worker protection, as do ensure that children are educated and the sick can get access to treatment.

It's fine to disagree on how much taxes or the relative contribution of state vs private control of services.

But don't use as argument that the only alternative to pure capitalism is re-education camps.
If you live in the UK you probably benefit from socialist driven policies and services, including the NHS.

Greed and self interest.

This is the natural inclination of humans. Socialism (in the Marx sense), just means a different group of oppressors. And hypocritical ones who deny personal freedoms. Read 'Animal Farm' for more details.

Having social policies in the form of benefits, social housing and a free health service within a democratic state is completely irrelevant to your statement about the 'strength' of socialism above.

So capitalist socialism or socialist capitalism?

Essentially a balance where those that wish can pursue their capitalist dreams whilst ensure those less fortunate are still provided for. Isn’t that what we have? It’s swings a little to far left or right from time to time but on average we probably have one of the best balances of any country in the world?

Not without faults but certainly not without its merits either.

Social policies in the West have mostly been driven by socialist parties who push for workers rights and protection of the most vulnerable.

This is false and pushes the binary political tribalism that is damaging the country

The modern welfare state was started in the U.K. by labour who had two very short spells in power between ww2 and Blair.

Governments can unbind legislation from previous governments

It is therefor the Conservatives mainly who are responsible for the evolving, support and growth of the welfare state and NHS to what it is today.

If they were so against it they could have got rid of the whole thing many times over

For example, Thatcher smashed the unions who were destroying the country. But after that there was no roll-back of workers rights as they were then, because unlike how you’re saying, it isn’t just socialist governments who want to create a better country for all.

Your comments are wrong, simplistic and divisive.

The modern welfare state was started in the U.K. by labour

Well...

I'm not equating Labour with communism not the Conservatives with pure Capitalism.
But the fact remains that socialist (or left) leaning parties have been the driving force behind social policies. They don't even need to be in power. Just by supporting unions they can have a huge influence.

Your comments are wrong, simplistic and divisive.

The irony is strong on this one.

I'm saying both systems have benefits and ideally work together to produce a fair society where effort is rewarded but the vulnerable are also protected.
You're (or whoever) are saying socialism=re-education camps.

I know a few people who are members of the communist party in my home country.
They're good people and don't expect others to think like them or defend a totalist regime.
I'd never vote for the party but I think they are necessary to keep pushing workers rights, for example, although I think some of the policies they advocate do more harm than good.

I'm happy to discuss the pros and cons of pushing too much towards socialism or capitalism when pps stop equating socialism with the communist version.

The irony is strong on this one.

Boring, cliched, done to death, learn some new phrases

I'd never vote for the party but I think they are necessary to keep pushing workers rights

But be careful what you wish for. Communists are biding their time. Your comment about your friend is a commie but doesn’t want to bring others around, reminds me of the stupidity around Corbyns nomination as leader. Let’s open things up a little and hear from the left wing of the party. Oops we have an unelectable racist Marxist as our leader. These people are intent on taking power I can assure you that’s the prize.

Shortstuff you are aware that Communist MPs have been a regular feature of the European political landscape for decades? Pretty good at biding their time, aren't they?