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?

PlanDeRaccordement no they don't have to be state owned. These things are managed by the state and funded at least partially by tax. They are socialism in action. They really are.

If so few people get socialism then I doubt many understand what Marxism is yet people were quite happy to use it as an insult to Jeremy Corbyn

Did you know that the poorest 10 per cent of households in the UK pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest 10 per cent?

Give poor people money and they spend it, they have to, which boosts the economy and raises more tax revenue (VAT). Give rich people money and they use clever accountants to avoid paying tax and squirrel it away thus being of no benefit to the economy and not producing any tax revenue.

While I would personally pay more tax under a socialist government, I would benefit from a properly funded NHS, education, social care etc. etc. and I wouldn't need to pick my way through homeless people as I walked through town. That's just the selfish stuff. The extra I would pay in tax is far less than I would need to pay for private healthcare, private schools etc. etc. You would really need to be in the top 1% to feel comfortable paying privately for all that stuff and therefore not directly benefit from a small tax increase. If you are in that top 1% and you resent a small tax increase to help out your fellow human beings then I just don't know what to say to you tbh.

There seems to be this huge misconception amongst Tory voters on my FB that socialism means handing money over to feckless individuals who can't be arsed to work for it. While I don't deny that such people do exist (and I get as frustrated by them as anyone) they are such a tiny minority that they are completely insignificant in terms of government spending.

The problem with your suggestion of a two-tier society is that it just wouldn't work. You can't have two separate systems operating in one country without there being massive issues.

Socialism, not unlike communism, is almost always the priority of the poor who stand to benefit. Which is why it only works if it can be inflicted onto everybody else.

When resources are pooled together, health, rail, water, sickness benefits and unemployed more benefit than just the poor. If these don’t exist then those on middle incomes will take out private insurance which is inevitably more expensive as there is a profit margin or in the case of rail, water, bills are higher. The poorest can end up having no protection if they get ill, lose their jobs .

The rich have plenty enough money to manage whatever the system. However, I don’t think any members of society benefit when there are people living on so little , surely crime and anti social behaviour goes up. Northern European societies with a more social democratic system always score better of health and well being.

@nobodyimportant, I wrote my post before reading your comment which I see is saying similar to me but in a more articulate way!

That's where you're wrong @PlanDeRaccordement. They are fundamentally socialist principles in action. Just because they have been outsourced to private sectors doesnt mean they weren't founded on socialist principles.

And if you're using that as an argument as to why capitalism is so great, why can't state schools afford basic things like paper and stationary?

No they aren’t because they do not produce anything in economic terms.
You are failing to grasp what production is defined as from an economic standpoint.
Let me guess, you read Marx without taking any Economics classes at University? So you think that it’s “anything state funded” = a “means of production”? Marx was specific for a reason.

To those saying some of our public services are just badly managed and not underfunded, we have the example of the NHS currently whose annual budget increases has been smaller since 2010 than even under Thatcher. I suppose it’s just a coincidence it is struggling at the moment!

Plan - socialism not necessarily in terms of production, but certainly in means of distribution.

Northern European societies with a more social democratic system always score better of health and well being.

If you exclude the Scandinavians who are more capitalist and score even higher.

why capitalism is so great, why can't state schools afford basic things like paper and stationary?

Well comparing it to the 5million refugees fleeing the only socialist country Venezuela due to collapse of their economy, no water/electric services, skyrocketing gang violence and famine I’d say a system that has a lack of paper and pencils in its schools sounds pretty great.

Not when it's a basic class room resource. Why does always have to be a race to the bottom? Surely a sufficient standard of living in the 5th largest economy or whatever we are now is not too much to ask. But as long as you find lack of paper and stationary acceptable in SCHOOLS, who am I to burst your bubble?

Because socialism (not social democrats) always requires co-ercion and oppression to some level or another to exist.

Ibiza - that's because humans are fundamentally flawed. There can never be a perfect system.

Happy Christmas everyone - may the day be troll free.

Merry Christmas MNers. Have a great one, whatever your political allegiance 🍷

Merry Christmas op...and a happy new year!

Setting the bar a bit low there PlandeRacordement!

If you exclude the Scandinavians who are more capitalist and score even higher.

Please can you elaborate in what way more capitalist? Less public spend % of GDP?

My rudimentary understanding is the percentage of GDP on public spending is still higher in other northern European countries than the UK? However, this graph does show that Italy, Greece have higher % of GDP spend than UK, similar levels to Sweden and Norway. Finland and Denmark are in the top 3.

Setting the bar a bit low there PlandeRacordement!

Whilst also setting the bar really high for other like minded idiots to top it

Did you know that the poorest 10 per cent of households in the UK pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest 10 per cent?

But of course that is just lies because the poorest 10% of households in the UK pay ZERO income tax, ZERO National Insurance, ZERO council tax.

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

Lots of people are absolutely committed to giving to charity, whether through time, money or other resources.

Just because you can't monitor it neatly like taxes, OP, it doesn't mean people aren't doing it.

Obviously, a socialist party doesn't need to be in power for individuals and communities to help people less fortunate than themselves. The fact you don't believe that people do this already is a tad naive.

You're missing the point that socialists want a socialist party in power so that everyone will be forced to help the less fortunate, not to compel themselves to do something they're likely to be doing as a matter of course anyway.

why don’t all the millions who vote Labour get together and create a pooling of resources
Because they don’t have any resources. They want to pool other people’s resources. Naturally the other people who have the resources aren’t too keen on this idea.

Ultimately, oppression is a product of capitalism.

@Walkingdeadfangirl Actually, you didn't read that correctly. The poorest 10% still pay tax. They pay out more of their income IN tax, NOT, as you decided, in income tax. There is still council tax to pay, unless you are a student.

why don’t all the millions who vote Labour get together and create a pooling of resources

Because they don’t have any resources

Oh wow. Just wow. There’s a thread berating the Left for name-calling Tories but that is....beyond disgusting.

Please provide research that demonstrates that Labour supporters collectively have no resources. Whilst you’re at it, provide evidence of absolutely no high earning/land owning/business support for Socialist ideals.

Have a read about poverty and welfare approaches compared with approaches that attempt to tackle the root causes of poverty. Sadly, the rich favour the first and those who champion the second find themselves imprisoned, murdered or otherwise silenced in some way.