AIBU that socialists should just implement their ideas outside of government?

[pinksauce]

Just that really – there are millions of people who voted Labour; but also millions who didn’t and don’t want anything to do with their policies. Why do socialists desire to impose their views?

Instead, why don’t all the millions who vote Labour get together and create a pooling of resources independent of the state? Each person who lines up with this philosophy could pay a high percentage of their wealth into a central fund and build hospitals, schools and subsidise higher wages without being in government..

Nothing is stopping people pooling their resources and paying for each other, offering enhanced benefits to their members, taking on debts for each other, transferring income as deemed appropriate – but they don’t seem to do it voluntarily, despite indicating they want to live in such a society. If it worked well, it may even attract more people.

Or, do people who believe in socialist ideals only want to do it if they can impose their will on those who don’t wish to be part of such a scheme?

Do we stop having to subsidise the rich in this alternative system?

Cool, let's split Britain in half and have a socialist chunk... Oh wait, the government doesn't want to allow a second Scottish referendum...

It isn't just about schools and hospitals, but is about making sure people have food and the absolute basics, something that isn't happening at the moment. Often it is those with the least who give relatively the most.

People are facing tomorrow with little or no food, this will not be solved by a few pooling money to build a hospital.

@WorldsOnFire

It would seem that many socialists on here and in cities are not indeed the poor, so there is a wealth distribution - even if not the same as the overall population. Why not at least use this distribution to even up wealth at first? People could easily sign up to 20 year contracts to commit to abide by policies decided by a central committee.

No need to build additional hospitals at first, can just pay for top-up services to NHS trusts that are deemed by the membership as essential.

@pinksauce

And what is stopping 5m labour voters from committing to pool a prescribed % of their pay to implement a food scheme for those members who need it?

If there believe its right for everyone, why not do it at first between themselves?

If we do it, can the jobs generated by the systems we create solely pay tax into our system? Plus if the people we employ spend enough to create increased demand and new supplier jobs can we have that tax too please?

I, and many, many others are actively involved in improving things for others. I am happily paying more than the £8.50 a month Labour would have cost me. But, we can't make sure ambulances turn up within safe timescales for example. It isn't safe for emergency healthcare to be thinly spread.

I also don't think the majority of Labour voters are poor.

Does this mean everyone who voted Tory will stop using public services and we can just find the continuation? Or do the tories get to keep the existing infrastructure and we have to start from scratch?
Personally I’d be happy to bar all the young conservatives from my outstanding state comp and give the places to disadvantaged labour voters.

Maybe watch "It's a Wonderful Life" OP. And a Merry Christmas to you!

@Littletabbyocelot

You can't change tax at all, that's what governments do - but you can impose your rules on members who choose to join. If those jobs are filled by members or created by people who are members, that's up to you to charge a subscription - you just can't affect non-members at all.

Same as free broadband, nothing stopping everyone getting together and paying for the infrastructure up front - non-members can continue to pay as they do today.

There is no reason why people need to colocate together - but unlike many of the responses of charity, once you are a member, there is no choice of being involved - you are committed, someone else will choose how much you need to contribute each year whether you have other commitments or not.

I don't know any socialists who don't basically do this right now. I run a massive food bank collection, I manage a period poverty scheme at my work, give a relatively large proportion of my salary to charity, pay a lot of tax (gladly)... it doesn't really work unless we all stop being greedy.

@CuckooCuckooClock

Of course not, the socialist scheme adds on top of wheat is already provided.

Personally though, if you setup a school and choose to send members to that school I'd be happy to see the state refund the costs of the state school place, but I've seen so many arguments that that would be unfair that I'm sure you wouldn't agree its the right thing to do.

Those who are not members, clearly don't get the benefits.

This will blow your tiny mind. I don't want just people who can afford to pay in to get stuff. IKR crazy talk. I want people who are mentally ill, older, children, homeless people and refugees to have a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. Along with even Tory voters. Even Brexiteers. When I give, and I give time and money, I don't ask about people's politics.

How completely miserable your post is at Christmas. Churlish and unkind.

Are you just a bit ignorant, OP?

Well any attempt to do that runs into the issue that the government we have is already taking a significant portion of most people's income in taxes. When you tot all the different taxes up, for most of the working-age population around half your earnings go straight back to the government.

Are there going to be tax breaks for people who choose to fund these services? If so, how is abuse prevented. If not, it slants things in favour of what the existing government does (and doesn't do).

@MrsTerryPratchett nails it. We do already do a lot of this stuff and we want everyone to be able to benefit, not just other people who sign up.

Ffs. Seriously? Are you for real, OP?

@MrsTerryPratchett

Mind still in tact thank you.

I never indicated you had to pay to join - that's for the membership to decide who of the membership pays and who doesn't. The membership can freely give benefits to anyone they choose - you are right, I badly worded that; but clearly the membership have to be responsible for there payment or debts incurred.

Still, not seen anyone willing to sign up so far... lots of mentions of charity, which isn't the same at all - as it's not a compulsion once signed up. Not unkind either, just fed of socialist virtue signalling, when these millions of people could just implement these policies between themselves without winning an election.

So far, it does seem that without forcing their views on others, people are not willing to be bound by their purported values and 'fair' system.

@pinksauce but the point is that, to an extent (In countries that implement this type of policy for example) the policies are funded by the expansion of the economy and increased tax revenues from greater employment and greater spending. In the same way that austerity directly led to a contraction in the economy. So an independent socialist movement would give that benefit to the state. Effectively, I'd be paying for further tax cuts for very high earners. No thanks.

@safariboot

Well someone has to pay extra for the additional benefits - and who would this be if not those choosing the system?

I'd always suggest government allows you tom opt out of a service and take the funding to an alternative provider, but it's not usually the case that people agree with that - should we do that at the moment for private schools?

I am a Labour supporter but no fan of Corbyn, not am I a Blairite. I am also a fervent Remain supporter & very political. I am so very fed up of the Right & the Brexiteers gloating since the election & telling us to get over it and heal. Johnson is every bit as flawed & disliked as Corbyn. He's a serial liar, he lied in the GE, he lied in the Referendum & he's as slippery as it's possible to be. No way Brexit be done soon, we'll probably have No Deal & it will be a disaster for the country. So you know what, Merry Fucking Christmas.

Erm- Around 15 million of us are very happy to sign up to a system where wealthy people pay more for everything so less wealthy people have a reasonable standard of living (there was a general election recently- maybe you should read about it)

And what is stopping 5m labour voters from committing to pool a prescribed % of their pay to implement a food scheme for those members who need it?

I totally agree with WorldsOnFire that the majority of Labour voters were expecting to gain from the system, not fund it.

An interesting question.
Most people want to accrue wealth. Most people want to feel comfortable in their old age. However, in UK , most people want to own their own property, unlike much of the rest of the world.
Socialism is a very broad term. Scandinavia has a different view of socialism to us in that it feels that much higher taxes to fund social requirements is normal where we , in UK resist increases in taxes, hence shortfalls in essential services.
Socialism speaks different languages in different nations.

there are millions of people who voted Labour; but also millions who didn’t and don’t want anything to do with their policies. Why do socialists desire to impose their views?

Because socialists think their way is the best way for everyone. Just like the Conservatives* do, and they and their voters also seem to want to impose their views on others.

*I don't actually believe this, they seem to mainly think their way is the best for everyone who matters to them, ie the rich. Do they even still believe in trickle down economics?

Quite morewine and most people on these boards who use the word socialism have no idea what they’re talking about.